Catholic stance on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redbandito
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redbandito

Guest
Before considering the guidelines, let’s be clear about the difference between evolution and evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory that says that more complex forms of life developed from less complex forms, over extremely long periods of time (perhaps a couple of billion years). As a scientific theory, it is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence.

Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything that exists can be explained in exclusively materialist terms, apart from a Creator. According to evolutionism, everything that exists developed from “blind chance,” with no knowing or planning of its purpose or end.

Evolutionism is not only unscientific; it is unreasonable. A complex organism like the human brain could not have developed by “blind chance.” Because evolutionism denies the creative action of God, it is not only a false but also a dangerous view for us to hold (Rom 1:19–20; CCC 287). It implies that humans are mere animals. And, as the 20th Century showed, it is only a very short step from saying human beings are animals to treating them that way.

Here are some guidelines on what a Catholic should believe regarding creation and evolution.

The first three chapters of Genesis “pertain to history in a true sense even though the inspired author may have used a poetic literary form to communicate these truths” (CCC 289; Humani Generis). When the Church says “pertain to history in a true sense,” it means something that really happened. The first sin (original sin, the fall of our first parents) really happened at a certain time and place in history. Perhaps it was six thousand years ago; perhaps six hundred thousand years ago. For all we know, the first sin may well have had something to do with eating a certain fruit that God had commanded man not to eat. But it need not have. That may simply be a poetic way the Genesis writer chose to communicate the historical truth about man’s fall from paradise. What we must affirm is that there really was a first sin (Rom 5:12; CCC 390, 396, 397).

We must also affirm the following:
  1. All things were created by a loving God (Jn 1:1–3; CCC 291, 315).
  2. Man is made in the image of God, which means, among other things, that he is a spiritual being with the powers of knowing and freely choosing (Gn 1:27; CCC 355).
  3. Even if man’s body evolved, God still created man, because God created the process of evolution, and His providence guided it to give rise to the human race (Jn 1:3; CCC 302, 308).
  4. Whatever the origin of man’s bodily form, his soul is a special creation of God, not the result of an evolutionary process (Gn 2:7; CCC 362-367). This is because spirit, unlike matter, is incapable of evolving, since it has no parts that could evolve from one thing to another. The soul is the direct creation of God, not a product of matter.
  5. Our original parents were created in a state of perfect happiness, a state of “holiness and justice” (Gn 2:7–9, CCC 375, 376, 398).
  6. Their obedience was tested and they transgressed the divine law at the prompting of the devil (Gn 3:1–7, CCC 397).
  7. They lost the supernatural gifts given to the human race by God at creation. (Gen 3:16–19; CCC 400). (For example, freedom from bodily death, freedom from suffering, control of the soul over the body).
  8. This state of original sin was passed on to their offspring. (Rom 5:12–19; CCC 402). Therefore, all human beings are born in this wounded and weakened condition. (CCC 404)
  9. They were promised a redeemer (Gn 3:15; CCC 410), who would restore mankind’s relationship with God…
As long as these basic elements of Catholic teaching on creation are held, Catholics may accept the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, a Catholic is not obliged to do so if he or she thinks the evidence is against it. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a theological dogma. It stands or falls on the evidence.
 
No problem with the theology, but there is no evolutionism. There is only evolution that explains life scientifically in “materialist” or natural terms. Unless you are into some form of Intelligent Design, science can say nothing about a Creator. Also, evolution is not blind chance, that is a common misunderstanding. Loren Haarsma has a good article on “chance” from a Christian theistic perspective.

Pius XII wrote in 1950, and the evidence for evolution (not evolutionism) has only gotten stronger. I go with Benedict XVI here:

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
No problem with the theology, but there is no evolutionism. There is only evolution that explains life scientifically in “materialist” or natural terms. Unless you are into some form of Intelligent Design, science can say nothing about a Creator. Also, evolution is not blind chance, that is a common misunderstanding. Loren Haarsma has a good article on “chance” from a Christian theistic perspective.

Pius XII wrote in 1950, and the evidence for evolution (not evolutionism) has only gotten stronger. I go with Benedict XVI here:

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

Phil P
Phil, I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I think if you re-read my post, you will see that I do not take the position that anything is blind chance. Furthermore, I don’t agree with you that there is no “evolutionism”. While I do believe that evolutionism is wrong, there are sects that believe in it. On the other hand, theists can believe in evolution, which means that everything is not solely based on “materialist” terms. We would have to believe in a creative intelligence behind it all.
 
Redban << Phil, I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I think if you re-read my post, you will see that I do not take the position that anything is blind chance. >>

I agree and disagree. Science teaches evolution, and science can say nothing about a Creator. So I think we agree if you agree with that. “Blind chance” is a common misunderstanding how evolution works. You mentioned blind chance a couple times. Natural selection is not blind chance.

Redban << While I do believe that evolutionism is wrong, there are sects that believe in it. >>

I don’t know, what sects are you talking about? Both atheists and Christians accept evolution, and evolution says nothing about a Creator. Theists accept the Creator, while atheists do not. But the science of biological evolution is the same for both. You may mean metaphysical naturalism by “evolutionism” and that is accepted by secular humanists and atheists. But that is a philosophy or worldview, not science.

That makes 4.6 billion evolution threads but who’s counting. 👍

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Redban << Phil, I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I think if you re-read my post, you will see that I do not take the position that anything is blind chance. >>

I agree and disagree. Science teaches evolution, and science can say nothing about a Creator. So I think we agree if you agree with that. “Blind chance” is a common misunderstanding how evolution works. You mentioned blind chance a couple times. Natural selection is not blind chance.

Redban << While I do believe that evolutionism is wrong, there are sects that believe in it. >>

I don’t know, what sects are you talking about? Both atheists and Christians accept evolution, and evolution says nothing about a Creator. Theists accept the Creator, while atheists do not. But the science of biological evolution is the same for both. You may mean metaphysical naturalism by “evolutionism” and that is accepted by secular humanists and atheists. But that is a philosophy or worldview, not science.

That makes 4.6 billion evolution threads but who’s counting. 👍

Phil P
Phil, you are just restating everything I just said. If you will note, that is why I made the distinction between evolution and evolutionism. One is just a scientific theory. The other tries to take that scientific theory and answer theistic questions. You aren’t saying anything that I didn’t write in the first place. Go re-read the original post.

Next, there is not just one theory of evolution, so I don’t know what you’re talking about there. Your posts don’t appear to be disagreeing with what I actually wrote, but rather with a mere word. What I called “evolutionism” you called “metaphysical naturalism”. The idea is the exact same. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to prove here. If that is the official term you want to use, fine. I stick to evolutionism, because it makes my case that some people take evolution out of context and try to make it more than it really is (a religion). You follow me there, bro?
 
The point, perhaps, is that metaphysical naturalism is a better word for what you’re talking about. “Evolutionism” is just confusing, and there’s that great, well-understood alternative in metanat.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
The point, perhaps, is that metaphysical naturalism is a better word for what you’re talking about. “Evolutionism” is just confusing, and there’s that great, well-understood alternative in metanat.
I hear you. That’s fine. It might be confusing for novices. However, I think we all pretty much understand the premises here, so as long as we define terms (which I did in the original post), there should not be a problem. On the other hand, if we’re going to get this sidetracked over a term, and completely take away from the point made, I will use whatever term you want. I just want a discussion.
 
Now that that’s out of the way…
40.png
Redbandito:


Evolutionism is not only unscientific; it is unreasonable. A complex organism like the human brain could not have developed by “blind chance.”

That statement seems to be more an argument against evolution than metaphysical naturalism.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Now that that’s out of the way…

That statement seems to be more an argument against evolution than metaphysical naturalism.
No it’s not. Not at all. You must be starting from the wrong assumption. All that evolution states is that complex forms of life developed from less complex forms of life. It does not ever, nor could it, address the issue of who or what put this into motion. What that quote you cited said was that this could not have happened by “blind chance”. Thus, there still had to be a creative intelligence behind evolution, even if it is a true scientific theory. You either misread my post, or got caught assuming what you have not yet proven.
 
What did you mean: that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot account for the human brain? Or that metaphysical naturalism cannot account for the development of the human brain?

Now, if it was the first, then we’ve got a discussion of biology on our hands. If you mean the second, then you will have to show that metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory - which might be a bit tricky.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
What did you mean: that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot account for the human brain? Or that metaphysical naturalism cannot account for the development of the human brain?

Now, if it was the first, then we’ve got a discussion of biology on our hands. If you mean the second, then you will have to show that metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory - which might be a bit tricky.
The second. And you’re right. I will have to show that. I don’t believe that humans could have the capability for self-reflection, rational thought, or an “intellect” without a creative intelligence behind it all. I don’t think that could just be produced by “blind chance”. I don’t have time to get into this right now, but I wanted to clarify my position for you. I’ll attempt to get back to you on it soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top