Catholic View on Evolution

[Fran65]

The truth is: evolution, if it is true, cannot be incompatible with Truth; therefore believers not only should embrace it, but also give it their scientific contributions, which, of course, they did. For example, two of the most prominent contributors to the biologic sciences were devout catholics (Mendel and Pasteur) in times of constant attacks to the Church. They didn’t have to renege on their faith in order to study the beauty of creation.

An excellent and well made point.

This whole post is excellent and I hope that many posters read it.

 

[bextah]

There is no official teaching on evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that is not in the realm of the Church’s concern. Catholics are free to make a decision on whether or not to believe the natural aspects of the theory of evolution based on available scientific evidence. (Though personally, I think rejecting evolution is a bit like rejecting Einstein’s theories or the Standard Model of quantum mechanics.)

Many people have made inferences about the supernatural world, the meaning of human life, etc. based on the purely natural theory of evolution. The Church does have some things to say about this. The following conclusions, whose supporters sometimes appeal to evolution in their arguments, are rejected by the Church:

1. Some humans are superior in value to others, or the corollary, some humans are inferior in value to others (racism).
2. Humans are nothing but a clever type of animal (pure materialism).
3. Some humans are more animal-like than others (racism meets materialism).
4. It is acceptable, commendable, or dutiful to attempt to “breed” humans to produce physically or intellectually superior children, or to prevent the “breeding” of people with genetic imperfections (eugenics).

Furthermore, Catholics are required to believe the following about creation, regardless of whether they accept or reject any particular proposition of science:

1. God is the sole and ultimate Creator of the universe and everything in it; that is, everything that exists that is not God was created by Him.
2. Humans are distinct from animals in having an immortal spiritual soul, created by God.
3. All humans are descended from two individuals, identified in Scripture as Adam and Eve. They were the first humans (per #2), were given great blessings including earthly immortality, and chose to disobey God, thus losing those blessings. This first act of disobedience is called Original Sin and it is inherited by all humans.
4. All human beings have an innate dignity, each one equal to that of all other humans, that we are bound to respect (the Second Great Commandment, or #4-10 of the Ten Commandments).

A Catholic who believes the theory of evolution is true while also accepting all doctrines of the Church could speculate the following:

*God created the universe and its governing laws from nothing. As a result of those initial conditions, galaxies, stars, and solar system formed via natural processes. On our planet, reproducing molecular assemblages (the first life forms) arose as a result of more natural processes (abiogenesis). Natural selection led to the evolution of those life forms, resulting in many complex organisms. God then took two individuals of one of those species of organisms, the immediate animal ancestors of humans, and infused souls into them, creating a new type of being—one whose nature has both a natural body and a supernatural soul. Cue the story of the Fall and subsequent events of human history./**QUOTE]

Wow, I like this last part… Maybe the point when God decided to take one of his creations and gift them with souls - the missing link?

 

[Bluegoat]

Ginkgo100;5616100:

God created the universe and its governing laws from nothing. As a result of those initial conditions, galaxies, stars, and solar system formed via natural processes. On our planet, reproducing molecular assemblages (the first life forms) arose as a result of more natural processes (abiogenesis). Natural selection led to the evolution of those life forms, resulting in many complex organisms. God then took two individuals of one of those species of organisms, the immediate animal ancestors of humans, and infused souls into them, creating a new type of being—one whose nature has both a natural body and a supernatural soul. Cue the story of the Fall and subsequent events of human history./*

QUOTE]

Wow, I like this last part… Maybe the point when God decided to take one of his creations and gift them with souls - the missing link?

All living creatures have souls, according to the Church. What you mean is immortal souls.

 

[catholic4reason]

This is a distortion of what Pope John Paul II said. And Pope Benedict commented on it later. “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Here is something else Pope Benedict said
bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
We are not haphazard mistakes.

I agree that we are not haphazard mistakes. Evolution does not claim this, the atheists do. So-called “chance mutations” in the theory of evolution come from our perspective, not God’s.

On this note, how is saying that Pope JP2 believed in evolution as a scientific theory a distortion of what he said? Just because some atheistic scientists (those about whom Pope B16 was writing) think evolution is truly random and lacking of design doesn’t mean that evolution qua a scientific theory lacks God as the Intelligent Designer writing through natural means with the great pen of evolution…quite the contrary.

Your quotes from B16 testify to this. He himself clarified his position on evolution:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God.

This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?

I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that they are not enough to explain all of reality. They are insufficient. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. (vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html)

With regard to clarifying JP2’s statement about evolution, the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope B16, in “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” states:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God. (vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html)

I do not believe I exaggerated my claim that Popes B16 and JP2 believe in evolution as the natural tool of the Intelligent and Creative God. These popes, myself and many other Catholics endorse this position called Theistic Evolution.

 

[buffalo]

I agree that we are not haphazard mistakes. Evolution does not claim this, the atheists do. So-called “chance mutations” in the theory of evolution come from our perspective, not God’s.

On this note, how is saying that Pope JP2 believed in evolution as a scientific theory a distortion of what he said? Just because some atheistic scientists (those about whom Pope B16 was writing) think evolution is truly random and lacking of design doesn’t mean that evolution qua a scientific theory lacks God as the Intelligent Designer writing through natural means with the great pen of evolution…quite the contrary.

Your quotes from B16 testify to this. He himself clarified his position on evolution:

With regard to clarifying JP2’s statement about evolution, the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope B16, in “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” states:

I do not believe I exaggerated my claim that Popes B16 and JP2 believe in evolution as the natural tool of the Intelligent and Creative God. These popes, myself and many other Catholics endorse this position called Theistic Evolution.

"Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: “What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.” Pope BXVI

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that we are not haphazard mistakes. Evolution does not claim this, the atheists do. So-called “chance mutations” in the theory of evolution come from our perspective, not God’s.

On this note, how is saying that Pope JP2 believed in evolution as a scientific theory a distortion of what he said? Just because some atheistic scientists (those about whom Pope B16 was writing) think evolution is truly random and lacking of design doesn’t mean that evolution qua a scientific theory lacks God as the Intelligent Designer writing through natural means with the great pen of evolution…quite the contrary.

Your quotes from B16 testify to this. He himself clarified his position on evolution:

With regard to clarifying JP2’s statement about evolution, the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope B16, in “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” states:

I do not believe I exaggerated my claim that Popes B16 and JP2 believe in evolution as the natural tool of the Intelligent and Creative God. These popes, myself and many other Catholics endorse this position called Theistic Evolution.

Evolution as described in the biology textbook claims that random mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Nothing else, including God, needs to be added. So, Catholics are told it all happened “naturally.” Communion and Stewardship does not say that. God must be a direct causal agent in whatever process that may have occurred.

The media, and some posters here, engage in a ploy I call emphasis and deemphasis. The evolutionary dogma must always be presented as not only preferable but rejecting it must be compared to something that has nothing to do with it, like gravity. I’m getting a little tired of that game.

Cardinal Schoenborn was the lead editor of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is what he had to say about this subject in an article in the New York Times:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EEDA1E31F934A35754C0A9639C8B63

That is the Catholic view on evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholic4reason]

Evolution as described in the biology textbook claims that random mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Nothing else, including God, needs to be added. So, Catholics are told it all happened “naturally.” Communion and Stewardship does not say that. God must be a direct causal agent in whatever process that may have occurred.

The media, and some posters here, engage in a ploy I call emphasis and deemphasis. The evolutionary dogma must always be presented as not only preferable but rejecting it must be compared to something that has nothing to do with it, like gravity. I’m getting a little tired of that game.

Cardinal Schoenborn was a chief compiler of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is what he had to say about this subject in an article in the New York Times:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EEDA1E31F934A35754C0A9639C8B63

That is the Catholic view on evolution.

Peace,
Ed

The statement “God must be a direct causal agent in whatever process that may have occurred” is ambiguous. It can have one of three meanings:

1. That God is the underlying, sustaining and direct cause of all things natural, as well as supernatural. Therefore, God is the direct causal agent of every evolutionary change. NO hair falls from one’s head without God willing it, causing it.
2. God intervenes to bridge “gaps” in the natural process in evolution.
3. God directly created specie by specie independent of an evolutionary process, yet proceeding methodically from lower to higher (as shown by archaelogy).

Statement 1, I and all Catholics must believe.

Statement 2, I disagree with this on philosophical grounds. This scientific theory is called Intelligent Design Theory. “Creatio non est mutatio says Aquinas: The act of creation is not some species of change.” You can read on a Thomistic critique of this system at catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

Statement 3, I disagree with on grounds of scientific evidence for the evolution of species…vestigial structures, common dna, junk dna, archaelogy, ect…

Cardinal Schoenborn’s opinion on the evolution/ID, many worlds hypothesis, ect… is one highly criticized… not to be called** the ** Catholic perspective as such.

Father George V. Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, is one of his greatest opponents. To see his Catholic perspective in opposition to Schoenborn’s, click here: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

 

[liquidpele]

The statement “God must be a direct causal agent in whatever process that may have occurred” is ambiguous. It can have one of three meanings:

1. That God is the underlying, sustaining and direct cause of all things natural, as well as supernatural. Therefore, God is the direct causal agent of every evolutionary change. NO hair falls from one’s head without God willing it, causing it.
2. God intervenes to bridge “gaps” in the natural process in evolution.
3. God directly created specie by specie independent of an evolutionary process, yet proceeding methodically from lower to higher (as shown by archaelogy).

Statement 1, I and all Catholics must believe.

Statement 2, I disagree with this on philosophical grounds. This scientific theory is called Intelligent Design Theory. “Creatio non est mutatio says Aquinas: The act of creation is not some species of change.” You can read on a Thomistic critique of this system at catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

Statement 3, I disagree with on grounds of scientific evidence for the evolution of species…vestigial structures, common dna, junk dna, archaelogy, ect…

Cardinal Schoenborn’s opinion on the evolution/ID, many worlds hypothesis, ect… is one highly criticized… not to be called** the ** Catholic perspective as such.

Father George V. Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, is one of his greatest opponents. To see his Catholic perspective in opposition to Schoenborn’s, click here: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

While I agree with most of that, I’m curious about this sentence:

Therefore, God is the direct causal agent of every evolutionary change. NO hair falls from one’s head without God willing it, causing it.

I would find it odd if God concerned himself with such minuscule things… the formulas and laws we have produced in physics and other sciences imply that either he consistently follows a formula or that that’s not the case at all.

 

[thunderballs75]

Cardinal Schoenborn was the lead editor of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is what he had to say about this subject in an article in the New York Times:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EEDA1E31F934A35754C0A9639C8B63

That is the Catholic view on evolution.

Yeah, just in case you didn’t know Cardinal Schoenborn is specifically one of the few proponents of Intelligent Design. His view on Evolutionary Theory (not to mention his view on the liturgy) is hardly the view of the Catholic Church.

 

[edwest2]

Father Coyne is wrong, and has been quoted in at least one popular science magazine that bends the truth.

From the book, Chance or Purpose, by Cardinal Schoenborn:

“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not have known for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”

footnote: "For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J., in Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.

This is the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholic4reason]

While I agree with most of that, I’m curious about this sentence:

I would find it odd if God concerned himself with such minuscule things… the formulas and laws we have produced in physics and other sciences imply that either he consistently follows a formula or that that’s not the case at all.

God is the transcendent, underlying cause of all that exists. Unlike with us who would be distracted by such a small thing as a hair falling, in God who is an infinitely greater intellect, all things serve a purpose, great or small. The falling of a single hair plays its own part by interlocking its motion into the great symphony of creation. The atoms in my jawbone may have once been a “miniscule” and “unimportant” wing on a beetle crawling around 1,000 years ago. God’s all-encompassing plan and knowledge makes all things have purpose and importance, although their true significance may be a mystery to us. If God did not concern himself with the “small and insignificant”, the “small and insignificant” could not exist at all.

 

[catholic4reason]

Father Coyne is wrong, and has been quoted in at least one popular science magazine that bends the truth.

From the book, Chance or Purpose, by Cardinal Schoenborn:

“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not have known for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”
footnote: "For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J., in Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.
This is the truth.

Peace,
Ed

My point in quoting Fr. George Coyne was not to advocate all that he believes, and call that the Catholic position, but to show that there is much diversity of opinion in the Church on the issue, no one Catholic view on certain particulars. I happen to agree with you on your point that God knew for certain humans would be come about when he created ex nihilio. God knows everything…pretty obvious from the Catechism.

However, I disagree with Cardinal Schoenborn on intelligent design theory: the belief that God had to intervene into the natural order to bring about life on earth on earth after creating ex nihilio. I don’t believe God intervened after creating until the creation of the human soul… and then of course he works miracles in salvation history… Moses…New Testament…ect…

 

[Dwyer]

Here are some articles from Catholic Answers that I found about Evolution (and more broadly Science) and Catholicism:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea3.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201clas.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

This article references the Schonborn / Coyne debate:

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

This is switching over to philosophy; I am not too familar Alvin Plantinga and haven’t read anything this Protestant philosopher at the University of Notre Dame has written, but he is considered one of the top defenders of traditional belief in God in the modern secular academic world:

philofreligion.homestead.com/Papersbyplantinga.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

 

[DOShea]

Quoted from the fifth link above.

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

Why “must” believers move away from any notion they have of God? Because this one person says so? On what authority does he command that?

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

One might be able to make a case for this IF there was a well designed world devoid of any love. Is there love in the world? How did it get here? He contends that that if God designed, that’s ALL He did, without any purpose for that design to produce love. What is the author’s evidence for that?

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

I don’t know of anyone who could believe that Noah and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the liberation of enslaved Jews from Egypt, the numerous victories in battle over superior forces by the host of Israel, or the birth of Christ are best explained by God letting the world be what it will in its continuous evolution. It is quite obvious that continuous evolution would not select one family and tip them off the flood was on the way. It would not incinerate by sheer geological chance the two cities God found offensive, waiting dutifully while God and Abram held discussions about the morality of killing all when there may be some present who are just. Did evolution cause the Red Sea to part in a natural process right on cue as Moses put his rod on the water? Is Virgin Birth of a person with a human AND divine nature in one taught anywhere as part of continuous evolution?

So I have to wonder about the veracity of his claims. He’s certainly anything but mainstream.

 

[reggieM]

I think it’s very difficult for a Catholic to argue that God does not intervene in nature. Evolutionary theory teaches that evolutionary processes are blind, unintelligent, unguided and act without purpose or plan. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts that by teaching that God’s design can be observed in nature and that God works for a purpose in nature.
It would be difficult to see where the evidence about God’s lack of action in nature could come from. It would have to refute St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument, the Catechism, St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:20 and many explicit passages in Scripture.
In order to fully accept the claims of evolutionary theory, one would have to distort Catholic teaching, just as Fr. Coyne has unjustly done. He claims that materialistic evolution is so supreme in nature that even God didn’t know that man would accidentally emerge. “Catholic” biologist Ken Miller says exactly the same thing – so it’s not just an anomaly.
If God is involved in preserving, maintaining and sustaining life and the universe (as Catholic theology has taught from the apostolic age onwards), then it is not possible to say that He does not intervene.
It might be possible to say that He does not select, change, create or guide any natural processes – but again, where is the evidence to show that?
Once it is posited that God does, indeed, intervene through the ex nihilo creation of the human soul, many documented miracles, and countless “small miracles” which are merely the answer to daily prayer … how could it be possible to accept evolutionary claims about how the creation of all life on earth happened through an unconscious, purposeless process (lacking God’s involvement entirely)?
This doesn’t mention the many scientific problems with molecules-to-man evolution itself.

 

[buffalo]

Rebutting Methodological Materialism - interview with Angus Menuge

 

[liquidpele]

God is the transcendent, underlying cause of all that exists. Unlike with us who would be distracted by such a small thing as a hair falling, in God who is an infinitely greater intellect, all things serve a purpose, great or small. The falling of a single hair plays its own part by interlocking its motion into the great symphony of creation. The atoms in my jawbone may have once been a “miniscule” and “unimportant” wing on a beetle crawling around 1,000 years ago. God’s all-encompassing plan and knowledge makes all things have purpose and importance, although their true significance may be a mystery to us. If God did not concern himself with the “small and insignificant”, the “small and insignificant” could not exist at all.

And what part does Cancer play? muscular sclarosis? Parasitic worms in your brain? Birth defects? Miscarriages?

 

[edwest2]

My point in quoting Fr. George Coyne was not to advocate all that he believes, and call that the Catholic position, but to show that there is much diversity of opinion in the Church on the issue, no one Catholic view on certain particulars. I happen to agree with you on your point that God knew for certain humans would be come about when he created ex nihilio. God knows everything…pretty obvious from the Catechism.

However, I disagree with Cardinal Schoenborn on intelligent design theory: the belief that God had to intervene into the natural order to bring about life on earth on earth after creating ex nihilio. I don’t believe God intervened after creating until the creation of the human soul… and then of course he works miracles in salvation history… Moses…New Testament…ect…

“diversity of opinion” doesn’t mean anything regarding Catholic teaching. Christ did not appear to offer his opinion and God speaking through the prophets was not offering opinions in a ‘take it leave it’ fashion either.

Here is the point of the conflict, and the point of the intersection:

Science cannot, we are told, say anything about the supernatural. It is beyond human capabilities and instrumentation to examine it in a scientific way. I have also been told that science is silent about the supernatural.

But people post here and use science to say this or that about the Bible. And use science to say this or that about creation. Don’t you realize:

A) There are no peer reviewed papers to make any sort of link between science and the supernatural?

B) What you think God did or didn’t do cannot be demonstrated in any scientific way?

I do not believe God was the kick-starter who simply got the ball rolling and let “evolution” take it from there. There is no evidence for this in Scripture. None. In fact, the Church tells us in Communion and Stewardship, No God, No Evolution. If it happened, it could not have occurred without God’s direct causal action.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johngh]

It was very interesting yesterday in my Philosophy of Religion. My professor “came out of the closet” in his belief that Evolution is false, at least in the sense that he doesn’t think it explains everything.

I personally tend to agree with him, in that I don’t think evolution can explain how life really came to be without including God in it. His main argument was the argument of irreducible complexity.

The example he used was the one of a mousetrap. If you think of a mousetrap, it involves lots of different components that are separate but all have to function together for the mousetrap to work at all. Now imagine you get all of the separate components and put them in a box and shake it up. What is the likelihood that the components will fall together to make a mousetrap? It is so absurdly unlikely the chances approach 0. Well basically that is what evolution says about a lot of things. There are so many examples in the natural world of things being so complex that if one of it’s many separate components failed, the entire organism would die. Yet evolutionists say it “just happened”. To me that is not a satisfactory answer.

The really funny thing was there was a militant atheist in the class that flipped out and started getting really angry. I kept asking him to explain how these things could come into being purely by accident and he couldn’t, always tried to change the subject, and eventually just said “the burden of proof is on creationists”, which to me was a cop-out saying that he didn’t need to think or prove anything, but that we were the ones that had to prove him wrong. I think in the future i’m just going to ignore him.

 

[Bluegoat]

It was very interesting yesterday in my Philosophy of Religion. My professor “came out of the closet” in his belief that Evolution is false, at least in the sense that he doesn’t think it explains everything.

I personally tend to agree with him, in that I don’t think evolution can explain how life really came to be without including God in it. His main argument was the argument of irreducible complexity.

I wonder if your prof really understands what the theory of evolution says? It doesn’t in any way claim to tell us how life came to be. It is a common misconception that it does, but that falls outside what the theory addresses. And it most certainly does not claim to explain everything.

Usually, teachers of philosophy need to be precise about language and definitions. If they aren’t, they run into problems like this.