Books on theistic evolution?

[Hobgoblin]

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.”

These are my beliefs.

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.

There aren’t two truths. Theology is the study of the “Why”. Science is the study of the “How”. It’s the insertion of the soul to form a complete being that places them in the image of God. God is a spirit. When we are told we are made in his image that doesn’t mean he looks like a homosapien.

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.

He did directly create when he breathed a soul into Adam.

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,

Why would life on Mars or a million other worlds be damaging in any way to God or the Gospel? Theistic evolutionist are simply seeking to investigate the wondrous ways in which God created our world.

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.

Well, here’s the root of it. You’ve decided that it must be a certain way so now you’re angry at those that don’t agree with you. But if they’re ashamed, then the Church is too since it has no problem with theistic evolution. Instead of acting like you’re holier than others maybe you should talk to your priest about your concerns.

 

[edwest211]

Was that necessary? Man was made in the image and likeness of God, not by some unpredictable accident. Souls cannot be studied by science and are not applicable. The same with God. I think there is a justified concern when science comes first and God is shoehorned in by fiat.

 

[niceatheist]

You seem to be wilfully ignoring what theistic evolution is.

 

[edwest211]

After all these years, I don’t think so.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

These are my beliefs.

And I’ve stated mine. The “theistic evolution” idea is relatively new in the Church. I’ll subscribe to what the Church taught for over 1900 years and still has no problem with me believing.

When we are told we are made in his image that doesn’t mean he looks like a homosapien.

I understand this; Yet God decided to become a man; He didn’t just remain a spirit. God could just as easily have given rational souls to apes, or hominds, or some other creature; but He didn’t. He directly created man.

He did directly create when he breathed a soul into Adam.

This concept detaches God from His creation of us. So for some reason, God allowed the “evolution” of different creatures over millions of years, experiencing disease and death, suffering and pain (what a Paradise!), and then decided to zap souls into a couple “hominids.” Nothing in Scripture, or no teaching of the Church taught this until secular evolutionists started guessing up this stuff. And to the unbeliever, this further separates God from material creation as it can be said that just as God is invisible, and so is the soul, then our God is just relegated to the unseen / invisible aspects of life, things that can’t be measured, tested, or seen. Again, we believe Jesus was actually born to a virgin (as fact); that He rose from the dead in a glorified body (as fact)…performed countless miracles as facts. God performed numerous miracles directly and through the patriarchs and prophets. Yet here, we claim the “real” miracle of the first humans is that a couple of stumbling, irrational hominids were zapped with souls. This sounds more comedic than holy!

Well, here’s the root of it. You’ve decided that it must be a certain way so now you’re angry at those that don’t agree with you. But if they’re ashamed, then the Church is too since it has no problem with theistic evolution. Instead of acting like you’re holier than others maybe you should talk to your priest about your concerns.

I said sadly that many Catholics accept this view. I don’t accept evolution for the reasons I stated; no matter, the Church allows me to believe this. There is no need for me to talk to a priest for something the Church allows me to believe. I don’t think I’m holier than others because of this. I have considered both positions, and find theistic evolution lacking. It’s more of an appeasement to the culture than an organic development of Catholic theology, in my opinion.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

There’s a way to prevent that happening Tolle. Stop posting tin foil hat conspiracies.

It’s not really a stretch to think that some folks would claim the discovery of life on Mars would prove that it could just pop up anywhere, given enough time, absent of God.

 

[edwest211]

I was watching a science program on TV. Viewers were told that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water, and had ‘the building blocks of life’ (amino acids) then life would appear there. It took me a little while to realize: “They don’t know that.” Not in a scientific, we can show this is true way,

 

[Hobgoblin]

Theistic evolution is relatively new because the theory of evolution is relatively new. There’s nothing about the historic teachings of the Church that precludes evolution. It’s just that no one suspected it until now. The same way they didn’t suspect any number of other scientific discoveries.

God could just as easily have given rational souls to apes, or hominds, or some other creature; but He didn’t.

Right. And if God had decided to give rational souls to dolphins then Christ would have come as a dolphin. As far as we know there’s nothing inherently special about homo sapien.

This concept detaches God from His creation of us.

Saying this doesn’t make it true.

And to the unbeliever, this further separates God from material creation as it can be said that just as God is invisible, and so is the soul, then our God is just relegated to the unseen / invisible aspects of life, things that can’t be measured, tested, or seen

Unbelievers don’t need help to disbelieve. They’re probably more persuaded by claims supported by what we know about nature though.

Yet here, we claim the “real” miracle of the first humans is that a couple of stumbling, irrational hominids were zapped with souls. This sounds more comedic than holy!

So says you. Personally, I think it’s pretty gross that we come into this world through a bloody flushing of gunk from a woman’s private parts. Why in the world would God do this when he could just specially create? Sounds more comedic than holy. But who am I to critique how God chooses to do things?

I said sadly that many Catholics accept this view. I don’t accept evolution for the reasons I stated; no matter, the Church allows me to believe this. There is no need for me to talk to a priest for something the Church allows me to believe.I don’t think I’m holier than others because of this. I have considered both positions, and find theistic evolution lacking. It’s more of an appeasement to the culture than an organic development of Catholic theology, in my opinion.

Then why are you even commenting here? You drop in and malign beliefs and impugn motives. You accuse the Church of bowing to cultural pressure. Things that Tolle won’t do. What am I missing?

I find your position lacking, but I’m open to it. If the Church taught it was true, then I would believe it. But the whole of modern science says it isn’t and the Church isn’t taking a position. (Translation: The Church has no confidence that your position is correct.) That doesn’t mean it isn’t. But I find it’s intellectual suicide to go against what you know to be true. I respect your beliefs even though I think you’re wrong. My problem with folks like you and Ed are that they malign others.

 

[edwest211]

“malign others” My only thing to malign is using science and then adding unscientific things like God and souls. Science says nothing about either.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

So says you. Personally, I think it’s pretty gross that we come into this world through a bloody flushing of gunk from a woman’s private parts. Why in the world would God do this when he could just specially create?

Well, our ability to procreate and fill the earth was willed by God. I will agree, perhaps it is not the most glamorous entrance into the world. But in a way, it is quite beautiful that a child enters the world through the waters of his mother, and then enters the Church in the waters of Baptism. Furthermore, if our first parents did not fall from original justice, then birth would not be the painful, bloody experience that it is for women now.

Then why are you even commenting here? You drop in and malign beliefs and impugn motives. You accuse the Church of bowing to cultural pressure. Things that Tolle won’t do. What am I missing?

I find your position lacking, but I’m open to it. If the Church taught it was true, then I would believe it. But the whole of modern science says it isn’t and the Church isn’t taking a position. (Translation: The Church has no confidence that your position is correct.) That doesn’t mean it isn’t. But I find it’s intellectual suicide to go against what you know to be true. I respect your beliefs even though I think you’re wrong. My problem with folks like you and Ed are that they malign others.

Well, we all comment here, so you can’t really accuse me of doing something that every poster on CAF does. Modern science has nothing to say about miracles except that they don’t happen. So modern science can’t really say that God didn’t create Adam directly, and Eve from his side. Modern science also says that men aren’t born of virgins and they don’t come back from the dead in glorified bodies.

I wouldn’t be so bold to say that the Church has no confidence that my position is correct. It is never going to endorse evolution as a belief that needs to be held. But I understand that presently, a Catholic has the liberty to accept evolution with some stipulations.

Ultimately, I accept the direct creation of our first parents as a miracle as described in Sacred Scripture. I consider it a fact just like our Lord’s resurrection, His miracles, the Virgin Birth, etc. So the scientific evidence for evolution does not persuade me, just like scientific evidence that says men aren’t born of virgins and men don’t rise from the dead doesn’t persuade me. There are many theological problems that go along with accepting man-to-molecules evolution, which require twisted explanations of the Fall, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the concept of Paradise / Eden. While it’s possible to contort the arguments to match these beliefs to theistic evolution, in the end the ideas are so divorced from what the Church believed and taught for centuries that we are left with a patchwork theology, desperately trying to shoehorn God’s Word into secular theories.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

There’s a way to prevent that happening Tolle. Stop posting tin foil hat conspiracies.

It’s not really a stretch to think that some folks would claim the discovery of life on Mars would prove that it could just pop up anywhere, given enough time, absent of God.

Life on Mars would prove that God doesn’t exist to some people? Well, tin foil hat wearing people, I guess.

 

[Wozza]

I was watching a science program on TV. Viewers were told that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water, and had ‘the building blocks of life’ (amino acids) then life would appear there. It took me a little while to realize: “They don’t know that.” Not in a scientific, we can show this is true way,

Nobody would say that, Ed. The Goldilocks zone doesn’t guarantee life whatsoever. Maybe you should rephrase your claim.

And any movement on giving me those theories so that I can place God in front of them?

Oh, and you were going to give me an unbiased source for political news. Any chance of that happening?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Science can only describe what it can test. It doesn’t deny miracles, it just has no way to prove them. So it can rightly say that dead men don’t come back to life. That doesn’t mean God can’t resurrect a dead man. Just like science is highly confident that all life on this planet has common ancestry. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t specially insert Adam. He looks like he’s related to an ape…right down to the DNA. But sure, maybe God specially created him that way. We can’t prove it or disprove it. But what makes the most sense given the totality of our knowledge?

I wouldn’t be so bold to say that the Church has no confidence that my position is correct.

That it’s open to alternatives tells you what you need to know about its level of confidence.

There are many theological problems that go along with accepting man-to-molecules evolution, which require twisted explanations

I’m not aware of any theological problems with evolution. In my investigation everything that seemed problematic turned out to have a satisfying explanation.

As science reveals more of the world it gets increasingly difficult to hold to whimsical notions of creation. That doesn’t diminish God at all. Rather than shoehorning into godless beliefs, it opens the door for greater understanding of God’s workings.

 

[Wesrock]

To think theistic evolution detaches God from his creation just misunderstand everything. Well, maybe not entirely. It is my big beef with Paley-like intelligent design. But it doesn’t get the Thomist approach to evolution (or nature in general) right, in which God is intimately immanent in every facet of it.

 

[tafan2]

It is always surprising how two threads popo up on the same day with so much in common.

This was posted on the other thread, it’s a good website for these issues:

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/

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.

We could very well accept that belief, we have no doubt that God could have created everything 9000 years ago, in seven days, and could have created the first humans exactly as described in Genesis. But the evidence does not support that theory, and there can be no conflict between faith and reason.

 

[edwest211]

As far as politics, no. Sorry about that.

 

[edwest211]

Science does not provide greater understanding of God’s workings. All I’ve seen for years is attempts to use science to ease God out of the picture or to modify the Bible as if science can say anything valuable about creation. I’ll stick with the Church and articles like Finding Design in Nature. There is actual design in nature.

 

[edwest211]

Miracles are real. A lot of the science presented here is biased.

 

[tafan2]

I am not saying miracles are not real. I do not, and neither do people who advocatr theistic revolutiin evolution.

I am not for sure which science you believe is biased. If by biased, you mean leaning taking the explanation which best fits the evidence, guilty as charged. If by biased you mean starting with preconceived notion or wanting an answer which then supports an alternative worldview (eg materialistic atheism), that’s not me, nor the reference I posted.

 

[tafan2]

Actually I do agree with you here. There are many atheists, who want to use evolutionary theory to discredit theism (that does not make evolutionary theories all false). And certainly many of these people have an almost insatiable desire to find intelligent life out there to further their cause.