Catholicism and Science

[reggieM]

I detect a degree of pedantry here in focusing on a particular meaning of “related”. There appears to be a great degree of relatedness evident between all members of the animal kingdom (for sake of argument, deemed to include man). This can be observed by noting the extent of shared DNA. We share more DNA with animals more similar to us (in the biological sense).

There is some degree of “relatedness” between all physical entities.
Similarity in DNA between human and chimp does not explain the infinite gap in differences between the two organisms, and it also does not necessarily indicate that humans descended from ape-like ancestors. That is an unproven assumption.

 

[Rau]

There is some degree of “relatedness” between all physical entities.

Well yes, almist sll have constituent parts made in stars! But thus takes you far from the limited meaning of related you proposed earlier. Of course the relatedness of salt to steel is rather limited (remote) and not ordinarily noticed!

Similarity in DNA between human and chimp does not explain the infinite gap in differences between the two organisms.

No, but it goes along way to explaining the similarity. [Infinite gap is an odd expression. Sounds like a means to “assume” your next assertion…]

…and it also does not necessarily indicate that humans descended from ape-like ancestors. That is an unproven assumption.

It (as with other observations we can make) is strongly suggestive of a progression in the material makeup of creatures including us. Of course, “Proofs” in this space are rather hard to come by!

 

[reggieM]

No, but it goes along way to explaining the similarity. [Infinite gap is an odd expression. Sounds like a means to “assume” your next assertion…]

If the question is, “why do chimps look similar to humans?” - then yes, the answer “because they have similar DNA” would go a long way to explaining that.

Why is a Ford similar to a Chevy? Because they are made from similar parts.
This says nothing about how they were designed though.

It (as with other observations we can make) is strongly suggestive of a progression in the material makeup of creatures including us.

Why is it not more suggestive that both organisms were designed by the same creator?

 

[Rau]

…Why is it not more suggestive that both organisms were designed by the same creator?

But, they were.

 

[reggieM]

But, they were.

The similarity in the DNA is evidence of common design. If both species were designed then that rules out evolution by mutations and selection. Aside from that, physics and chemistry cannot arrive at a human being via any number and kind of mutations. Something much more is needed - thus the infinite difference between human and non-human.

 

[Rau]

The similarity in the DNA is evidence of common design. If both species were designed then that rules out evolution by mutations and selection.

No, it really doesn’t! There is no catholic position that evolutionary biology is incompatible with the faith.

Aside from that, physics and chemistry cannot arrive at a human being via any number and kind of mutations. Something much more is needed - thus the infinite difference between human and non-human.

Certainly the divine image within us is outside the realm of the stuff from which we are made.

 

[reggieM]

No, it really doesn’t! There is no catholic position that evolutionary biology is incompatible with the faith.

Evolutionary theory (whatever it is) is either true or false.
If true - where does the Church say it is true and we have to believe it?
If false - then it is incompatible with everything, especially with the Catholic Faith since our Faith is only compatible with that which is true.

Aside from that - there is a Catholic position that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

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.

Materialist theories of human origins = contemporary evolutionary biology.

Certainly the divine image within us is outside the realm of the stuff from which we are made.

The divine image within us is what makes us human. It is part of us - within, not outside of what makes us human beings.
I believe you’re saying that science cannot access the divine image which is within us (and which I’m saying makes us human).
If so - then yes, agreed. Evolution cannot tell us that humans descended from irrational animals since science cannot access one of the major components that makes us human beings. Science cannot know when the first humans existed (since a soul cannot be seen in fossils) or how the divine image was infused into humans.
That divine image did not become incarnated via a physical process of mutations and selection - but that’s all evolution has to work with.
So, evolution fails.
The quote above indicates that - evolution cannot explain the ontological leap.

 

[Rau]

Evolutionary theory (whatever it is) is either true or false.
If true - where does the Church say it is true and we have to believe it?
If false…

I’m not advocating you believe anything in particular. Nor does the Church ask you to withhold belief absent the church’s affirmation.

Aside from that - there is a Catholic position that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the faith:

What the Church objects to is the view that there is nothing more to humanity than the product of evolutionary biology.

The divine image within us is what makes us human. It is part of us - within, not outside of what makes us human beings.
I believe you’re saying that science cannot access the divine image which is within us (and which I’m saying makes us human).
If so - then yes, agreed.

Yes, it’s not a matter upon which science can opine on, other than to observe that science observes nothing beyond our biology.

Evolution cannot tell us that humans descended from irrational animals since science cannot access one of the major components that makes us human beings. Science cannot know when the first humans existed (since a soul cannot be seen in fossils) or how the divine image was infused into humans.
That divine image did not become incarnated via a physical process of mutations and selection - but that’s all evolution has to work with.
So, evolution fails.

It only fails when its mandate is thought to be something larger than it is. Then one may make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[reggieM]

RM: science cannot access [that which] makes us human …

Rau: Yes ,

I’m glad we reached that agreement.

It only fails when its mandate is thought to be something larger than it is.

A scientific theory fails when observed data does not correspond with what the theory claimed and predicted.

You’re talking about “a mandate” here. It may be good to read what the most popular evolutionary scientists today (Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Dennett, Pinker) think their mandate is. True, the Church may say that they’re exceeding the moral limits established by God, but do any mainstream, popular evolutionary biologists accept the Church’s mandate for science? I think of several non-mainstream biologists who do - like Michael Behe and Michael Denton. But do you know of others who are widely accepted in the evolutionary biology community?

Does evolution claim to know the origin of human beings and not merely the bodies of human-like transitional animals that may or may not have a rational soul?

You may want to research evolutionary findings on the possibility of Adam and Eve given bottlenecks in population genetics. Evolution cannot tell us if it is possible that human-like bodies could exist without possessing a rational soul (see our agreement above). Therefore it cannot know when and where humans first emerged on earth.

Then one may make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Yes, I get it. You would like to preserve some elements of evolutionary theory. But unless you’re willing to put your own theory forward, as an alternative to the mainstream scientific view, we cannot just take parts that we like.
Einstein’s theory was precise and specific. If only parts of it were proven correct, his theory would have been falsified.

 

[grannymh]

Interesting!
People still cannot tell the difference between evolutionary biology and the Science of Human Evolution?

In addition!
There is the scientific principle that the evidence warrant the conclusion. Going back to the Homo/Pan split is so far back in time and capability to explore planet earth, that an universal negative cannot be applied.

 

[grannymh]

No, it really doesn’t! There is no catholic position that evolutionary biology is incompatible with the faith.

Interesting!
People still cannot tell the difference between evolutionary biology and the Science of Human Evolution.

In addition!
There is the scientific principle that the evidence warrant the conclusion. Going back to the Homo/Pan split is so far back in time and capability to explore planet earth, that an universal negative cannot be applied.

 

[Rau]

… It may be good to read what the most popular evolutionary scientists today (Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Dennett, Pinker) think their mandate is.

Actually, that’s of little interest. I don’t need their help to know the scope or mandate of science.

Does evolution claim to know the origin of human beings and not merely the bodies of human-like transitional animals that may or may not have a rational soul?

Science seeks to discover what can be known in the material world. Put aside the likes of Dawkins - I think you allow the “media scientists” to poison your attitude to science itself.

Evolution cannot tell us if it is possible that human-like bodies could exist without possessing a rational soul (see our agreement above). Therefore it cannot know when and where humans first emerged on earth.

Those are odd comments. What aspect of a human-like body do you suspect might rely on the human soul and how would you like science to deal with this? Do you wish to denigrate science on account of its limitations or value it on account of its achievements?

You would like to preserve some elements of evolutionary theory. But unless you’re willing to put your own theory forward, as an alternative to the mainstream scientific view, we cannot just take parts that we like.

Its not about liking bits. Neither science nor theories are “job lots”. They adjust with progress. I’ve no difficulty in accepting the view that evolution really does happen and drives the variability we see in the plant and animal kingdoms and the success and failure of various species. And I’ve also no difficulty in accepting that God underpins the universe, made us unique and caused us to descend from two persons. Science is not a failure for so long as it fails to proclaim these same ideas.

 

[reggieM]

Actually, that’s of little interest. I don’t need their help to know the scope or mandate of science.

Fair enough. But I think it would be better if you were interested in the topic enough to actually read what evolutionary biologists think about their own field of study. Admittedly, I find almost everything those scientists say to be entirely wrong and often hateful of God. Scientists comprise what we call the scientific community. It is from there that various definitions about what science can and should do will come - not from the Church.

Science seeks to discover what can be known in the material world. Put aside the likes of Dawkins - I think you allow the “media scientists” to poison your attitude to science itself.

You’ve given science some rules here that you want or expect it to follow. That’s fine except that the scientists I mentioned don’t want to follow your rules. They might rightly say that the definition of science is not an absolute. We would agree – at one time theology was considered a science.

What aspect of a human-like body do you suspect might rely on the human soul and how would you like science to deal with this?

It is through the human soul that we possess consciousness, rationality, will and a moral sensibility. A supposed ancestor of a human being may either have these qualities or not. But if science cannot determine this, then science cannot determine when the first humans appeared on earth.
You can’t merely look at fossils and determine that a human soul was present in that organism.
What science does is clam that “head size” among other physical characteristics will tell us that a human being was present or not.
You seem to want to defend evolution so that’s your challenge: How does evolution explain the emergence of the first humans from non-human ancestors. What changes took place for the descendents of non-humans to be considered human? Clearly, an immortal soul must necessarily be present in humans - how would science know this?
At one point, there were no humans on earth. Then at another point, there were the non-human ancestors of humans. Did those ancestors have immortal souls - with rationality and will and consciousness?
Evolutionists are telling us they know the answer to this. They attempt to pin-point when the first humans appeared on earth.
Consciousness for them (Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker - and virtually all evolutionary biologists) emerged gradually from non-rational organisms through mutations and natural selection that created consciousness and rationality.
We (you and I) have called this the presence of the Divine Image in humans.
Scientists call it the physical emergence of consciousness from mutations in DNA.
Both of those viewpoints cannot simultaneously be correct.
How do I think science should handle it?
Scientists should all be Catholic - because Catholicism is the true religion as given by God. From there scientists would realize that God created (and creates) human beings via the direct creation of the soul which is infused at conception.
What would science say then, if all scientists were Catholic?
It would say "since we cannot possibly know by scientific means when the first humans appeared on earth - the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is perfectly valid scientifically. There may have been human-like animals on earth for millions of years, but lacking an immortal soul. But then God created Adam and Eve - just as the Bible states.

Do you wish to denigrate science on account of its limitations or value it on account of its achievements?

I would value it because of achievements but also denigrate false scientific theories which are upheld as if they are true.

Science is not a failure for so long as it fails to proclaim these same ideas.

Just because neo-Darwinian theory is false does not mean that science is a failure. We have to be willing to admit that some theories simply don’t work. There is nothing wrong with scientists admitting that they don’t know the origin of human life or the origin of the universe - or many other things that only God knows.

 

[edwest2]

No, it really doesn’t! There is no catholic position that evolutionary biology is incompatible with the faith.

Certainly the divine image within us is outside the realm of the stuff from which we are made.

Regarding the first response, there certainly is.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…Admittedly, I find almost everything those scientists say to be entirely wrong and often hateful of God.

This is because most of what you are hearing is not science.

You seem to want to defend evolution

Against what? Do you reject it all - or just a component? You appear to want to reject it in its entirety because it does not explain everything that you believe it should to have credibility.

Clearly, an immortal soul must necessarily be present in humans - how would science know this?

Why would you think that it should? It is quite proper of science to confine itself to that which it can observe and search for answers within that domain. If it arrives at a brick wall, or is left with mere speculation, so be it. It can be that some scientific practitioners might misrepresent speculation as something more solid.

Consciousness for them (Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker - and virtually all evolutionary biologists) emerged gradually from non-rational organisms through mutations and natural selection that created consciousness and rationality. We (you and I) have called this the presence of the Divine Image in humans.

Perhaps at some level they did? Is consciousness a part of the spiritual or material world? I did not say “consciousness” belongs to the divine image. Some things about our uniquely human nature and capacities do though.

Scientists call it the physical emergence of consciousness from mutations in DNA. Both of those viewpoints cannot simultaneously be correct.

Only because you set it up as a dichotomy.

Scientists should all be Catholic - because Catholicism is the true religion as given by God. From there scientists would realize that God created (and creates) human beings via the direct creation of the soul which is infused at conception.

That is simply opting out of science to take a position on a different basis. Science explores the workings of the observable world. It is not protected from error nor from over-zealous claims. Get used to it.

What would science say then, if all scientists were Catholic?
It would say "since we cannot possibly know by scientific means when the first humans appeared on earth - the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is perfectly valid scientifically.

Funny, Br. John who taught me never said THAT! He had no difficulty understanding the domain of science.

There may have been human-like animals on earth for millions of years, but lacking an immortal soul. But then God created Adam and Eve - just as the Bible states.

Were science able to determine the scientific validity of the Biblical Story of Adam and Eve, it may well do so. It if is unable to confirm it, on what basis would it declare it to be scientifically valid? On a basis which is outside science?

There is nothing wrong with scientists admitting that they don’t know the origin of human life or the origin of the universe…

Sure. While there is a lot of evidence for a big bang, I’m pretty sure there is not certainty about why there was a big bang. Is that a problem?

It is quite proper for scientists to pursue scientific enquiry based on what is observable and to eschew what is not.

 

[Rau]

Regarding the first response, there certainly is.

Could you present it? I think we will see that what is opposed is something very particular, not a rejection of evolution in totality. I am surprised at the tendency of some Catholics to want to treat science as a job lot. To see a dichotomy - to require it to be “all” or “nothing”.

I studied science in a Catholic environment for many years with many of the teachers being religious brothers. They saw no such dichotomy.

 

[edwest2]

Here are my points:

1. I study science a great deal. I’ve always liked it. But the matter of evolution is the only science mentioned here. There’s a reason for that.
2. Pope Benedict, a former University Professor, made a few interesting comments:

A) “The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

1. Evolution cannot fully describe what a human being is, which is true according to the Church. So, some have gone so far as to ignore this and publish speculation about human behavior in the past in journals like “Evolution and Human Behavior.”
2. Evolution has no practical scientific purpose

As far as other categories of science, I can say I know a lot about certain things. Regarding this subject, I’ve spent years looking at it. My conclusion? It is unimportant as far as science is concerned, however, it is of great importance in spreading a materialist worldview. On its own, God had nothing to do with anything. The Church rejects any version of the theory that excludes God. From Communion and Stewardship:

“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.”

So, there it is. Science on one side of a wall that cannot acknowledge or study the supernatural, much less give God a role in the development life (He doesn’t exist, in effect), and on the other side, the Church, which has the full, complete answer.

So science can only deal with what exists, but the problem is some people view science as a finality. The last word. The only source of knowledge. In some cases, it approaches worship in that there is a strong belief that science will, eventually, do this or that. That is a faith response. I really enjoy reading about discovery in its many forms: “We were looking for this but ended up with something else or an unexpected additional property emerged or by accident…” Too bad young people are missing out on this. Materials science is moving at break-neck speed.

Hope this all made sense to you.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…So, there it is. Science on one side of a wall that cannot acknowledge or study the supernatural, much less give God a role in the development life (He doesn’t exist, in effect), and on the other side, the Church, which has the full, complete answer.

There is no problem with science not addressing God, or not acknowledging God. The only problem is when science proposes that there is no God. When you say the Church has the “full complete answer” - the truth of that statement depends on the question.

So science can only deal with what exists, but the problem is some people view science as a finality. The last word. The only source of knowledge. In some cases, it approaches worship…

This reflects not a deficiency or fault of science, but of some of its proponents who have elevated it beyond its proper place.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m struggling with a very apparent viewpoint from the scientific community that religion/faith and science can never be compatible due to what they see as conflicting worldviews…

Aside from the fact that science arose from the Catholic community, there are some considerations.

There are differences.

Science deals only with the material, empirical world, that which is or can be known through the senses. Because it has carved out a limited area for itself, it is quite effective and powerful…in that area.

Religion on the other hand deals with both the known or empirically knowable AND the unknown and unknowable (thru our senses). It is that “whole” which encompasses the material and the spiritual dimensions of the world. The seen and unseen. The infinite, as opposed to the finite (with which science deals).

So how do we “know” about this

Well, sometimes the spiritual “irrupts” into the material world to let at least some people know. That’s why St. John of the Cross said our faith comes through the ears, hearing what the Apostles have told us about Jesus (and I would take their word, the word of peasants who willingly suffered martyrdom for their experience-based beliefs, over the word of the elites any day). We take their word on faith. There is no scientific method that can tell us anything about the spiritual.

As for evolution, I like to think of God as both creator and in the process of the origins and progression of the universe, the planets, life on earth. In our religion unlike others in which God is immanent & anthropomorphic (like a human), I think the Judeo-Christian tradition understands God as both immanent and transcendent. That is humans may be made in the image of God, but God is not made in the image of man, but is beyond our finite understanding and comprehension, as St. John of the Cross points out.

The material world in which God is immanent (but also transcendent - “the I and the Thou”) is thus like a second Bible that tells us about God, which may be why Catholics were into science and actually created science.

And it has occurred to me that the MO of God (just a guess, since we cannot know for certain) is to start out very small and go big – as the Big Bang starting as something smaller than anything in the world today, smaller than a quark, life on earth starting as a tiny string of molecules, God starting in this material life as a tiny babe in a stable, the tiny Eucharist being the infinitely large God.

May Jesus grow in our hearts and minds!

 

[edwest2]

Actually, that’s of little interest. I don’t need their help to know the scope or mandate of science.

Science seeks to discover what can be known in the material world. Put aside the likes of Dawkins - I think you allow the “media scientists” to poison your attitude to science itself.

Those are odd comments. What aspect of a human-like body do you suspect might rely on the human soul and how would you like science to deal with this? Do you wish to denigrate science on account of its limitations or value it on account of its achievements?

Its not about liking bits. Neither science nor theories are “job lots”. They adjust with progress. I’ve no difficulty in accepting the view that evolution really does happen and drives the variability we see in the plant and animal kingdoms and the success and failure of various species. And I’ve also no difficulty in accepting that God underpins the universe, made us unique and caused us to descend from two persons. Science is not a failure for so long as it fails to proclaim these same ideas.

God means nothing. Try to get this into public schools and they will call out the National Guard. None of the comments made here are new. One thing I can say is as long as the internet is around, the compliance police will be around. Anonymously, of course.

Respectfully,
Ed