Books on theistic evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kronk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kronk

Guest
I would like to research this subject a bit more in depth, since it seems to be the reasoning I’m landing on, but I don’t have much information, are there any books on the subject that are reliable?
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a book recommendation, but I’ll say that there is more than one approach to theistic evolution.

One approach points to seemingly too complex things and asks, “How could this evolve? It must have been guided.”

Another approach is that evolution occurs naturally (according to the natural order) but points out that the natural order is itself wholly created, conserved, and intended by God.

To declare my own bias here, I prefer the second approach. But the short of it, there’s more than one way Catholics can approach the topic.
 
Last edited:
I would like to research this subject a bit more in depth, since it seems to be the reasoning I’m landing on, but I don’t have much information, are there any books on the subject that are reliable?
On the assumption that you believe that everything is under God’s control, all you need to do is study evolution. It explains how God got us to this point.
 
“Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” by John Haught is a fantastic overview of the issues. It’s succinct but informative and probably hits every question you have at this point. Haught is Catholic theologian who’s written many books on the subject of science and religion and he testified at the Dover trial.
 
“Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” by John Haught is a fantastic overview of the issues. It’s succinct but informative and probably hits every question you have at this point. Haught is Catholic theologian who’s written many books on the subject of science and religion and he testified at the Dover trial.
I didn’t know that. But here’s an interview that he did on the trial and his testimony. Conversation with John Haught on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Recent Dover Trial - Metanexus

For what my opinion is worth, he seems worth reading. Especially in the context of this thread.
 
I’d like to know about the exact role of theistic in theistic evolution.
 
I’d like to know about the exact role of theistic in theistic evolution.
Don’t you think that God controls everything?

Give me any scientific theory and I will put the word ‘theistic’ in front of it. Which will then mean that you will have an answer as to who is responsible and you will also have an aswer as to how he (oops…He) did it.

Go on. Any theory. Try me out. Pick one at random. Any one at all. Give it a shot.

And while you’re thinking about that, check out the link. Haught talks about you in the interview. Well, not you personally, but people like you that hold beliefs such as you do.
 
Last edited:
The “theistic evolution” camp wants to have their cake and eat it too…it’s just adopting secular, atheistic evolution and saying “God did it!”

The best book on creation is Genesis. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
The “theistic evolution” camp wants to have their cake and eat it too…it’s just adopting secular, atheistic evolution and saying “God did it!”

The best book on creation is Genesis. Case closed.
Well, that was mildly offensive. Why do you suppose a Christian would want to synthesize atheism into their beliefs?
God as creator of our reality and maker and conservor of the natural order of how things work.
Ed is trolling, Wes. He’s had this explained to him at length on at least three threads I’ve been involved in. That’s why Wozza is mocking him.
 
The “theistic evolution” camp wants to have their cake and eat it too…it’s just adopting secular, atheistic evolution and saying “God did it!”
So they want to adopt atheistic evolution and call it theistic evolution? Colour me confused.

But you are right in that Genesis is definitely one of the best texts on creation.
 
LOL. That’s where I was trying to get her/him to go. 🙂 I don’t think Tolle put much thought into that post. Seems a bit angry.
 
Many Catholics adopt a “molecules to man” type belief in evolution which guesses that somewhere, a long time ago, a single cell organism sprung into existence and ever since then has been morphing into different creatures. At some point, these molecules came together to make “hominids” which eventually developed into kind-of human bodies but without souls. Then God kind of “zapped” two souls into two first parents, who we call “Adam and Eve.” I’m not saying that this is your (or Hobgoblin’s) exact belief, but enough Catholics seem to take this position. In any case, the only difference between this “Catholic” view of evolution and a secular atheist one is claiming that God “guided” the evolution and then “inserted” souls into two “first parents,” who although made in the image of God happened to basically have apes as their ancestors.

We say the Creed at every Mass, and within the Creed are several examples of divine supernatural actions - creating the world out of nothing, Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, rising from the dead, that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, etc. So we profess belief in several miracles, but for some reason many Catholics cannot accept the miracle of God directly creating our two first parents.

One would think that human beings, the ultimate manifestation of God in His living creatures, would be created direct and special - and in fact, God says He did it that way in Genesis, not to mention in several other passages of Scripture. Yet sadly (to me), many Catholics seem embarrassed by this belief and instead are more comfortable with the notion that we developed from apes.
 
Last edited:
Consider that such thinking is heavily promoted here. And on one TV show, a character says, “No one made us.” Pretty clear. Miracles are presented as symbolic. Any other view brings out accusations. So, miracles or not? I say miracles and the Church says miracles.

Souls being dropped into almost humans cannot be shown to be true scientifically.

Chemicals organizing themselves and being brought to life is speculation.
 
I will also add that - at the risk of being called a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist - I believe that many people want to discover “life” on Mars to just “prove” that life can pop up anywhere given enough time. They are not seeking the glory of God’s creation, but are looking for any piece of data they can use to claim that “life” exists there. Then they will ague that life can just pop up randomly. But so far, they’ve just found some teeny tiny puffs of methane that could have originated from several sources. Not life.
 
If I may…
Many Catholics adopt a “molecules to man” type belief in evolution which guesses that somewhere, a long time ago, (God caused) a single cell organism to spring into existence and ever since then has been morphing into different creatures. At some point, (God caused) these molecules to come together to make “hominids” which eventually developed into kind-of human bodies but without souls. Then God kind of “zapped” two souls into two first parents, who we call “Adam and Eve.”
That’s theistic evolution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top