Catholics and evolution

[PhilVaz]

<< If you would like to debate the scientific merits of your argument, why don’t you take it over to talk origins? >>

Or he can take it to the Infidels Evolution board and get eaten alive too What Peter Wilder says does nothing to invalidate the radiometric dating for the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, which has been established in thousands of published dates since the 1950s with various methods. Has nothing to do with the geologic column since the radiometric dates are “absolute” dates, not “relative” dates.

Dalrymple has not been answered, and never will be

As I’ve pointed out before, we’ve known the earth is quite old well before Darwin duh

And last but not least, A Christian Perspective on Radiometric Dating

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

I normally read but don’t get involved in these discussions (yep, I’m the classic “lurker”), but it sometimes gets to be more than I can take. Peter is trying to get people to think that there has been some great revelation that invalidates the science of geology as we know it. That has not happened.

As a geologist and a devout Catholic who believes that God created everything, the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and evolution is a mechanism used by God, I bristle when I see an argument such as that put forward by Peter. God does not decieve us! The scientific evidence is there! However, I don’t see this forum as a place to argue scientific data. That is why I suggested Talk Origins. But you are right, Peter won’t go there because he will be pummelled for his “science” (rightfully so) and attacked personally (which is wrong).

Peace

Tim

 

[Arcanum]

I think it should be pointed out that the dogmatic definitions on the subject refer only to the original immortality of man, not plants and animals. St. Augustine himself believed animal and plant death were part of the natural order and not the result of the Fall. Furthermore, Trent when defining The Fall in precise terms said that Adam and Eve’s body were mortal by nature, preternaturally immortal by the grace of God.

If this wasn’t so, The Church could have made no declaration to the faithful that they may believe evolution. It would have been deliberately deceptive to say you can believe in evolution, but you can’t believe in animal and plant death before The Fall. Silly at best, deceptive at worst.

BTW, exactly where in Lateran IV are you quoting from, I can’t find it.

Edit: If you refer to this passage: “God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”

I would reply thusly: From the beginning of time is somewhat of a relative statement in relation to God. A literalistic reading of Genesis would have these animals created on Day X and those on Day Y. Different points in time. We might say the first few days of creation are the beginning of time, but why not the first few million years. It’s all the same to God, who is timeless. The beginning of time is that period of time before the dawn of man. It could be the first 6 days or the first billion years. As for created out of nothing. Yes that is true. Ultimately we were created out of nothing. But we know living beings at the least were created out of the dust which God had created. So God did use pre-existent matter of his own creation in our creation. None of this conflicts with a well-defined theistic evolution.

 

[pwilders]

REPLY TO ARCANUM (in two parts)

---

Part 1

---

**Arcanum says: “**dogmatic definitions on the subject refer only to the original immortality of man, not plants and animals”.

Peter replies: I understand from this that your words “dogmatic definitions“ refer particularly to Lateran IV, and “the subject” to creation. Neither Lateran IV nor Vatican I (the latter showed continuity of Lat. IV’s teaching)** **were referring to the immortality of man. They defined creation in all its forms. Fr. Vacant’s commentary on Vatican 1 in 1895 makes this clear. It explained that the infallible teaching of Lateran IV included **all living things **as well as non-living.

**A: “**Trent when defining The Fall…”

**P: **Lateran IV was addressing origins, not The Fall, i.e. the creation of “all things” not their death.

**A: ** “The Church could have made no declaration to the faithful that they may believe evolution. It would have been deliberately deceptive to say you can believe in evolution…”

**P: **The “Church” has made no such declaration. Some members of the hierarchy, who believe evolution to be true have indicated it is not necessarily contrary to the faith. The reason (cf Cardinal Poupard’s Galileo Commission report) is the appeal they make to St. Augustine’s rule:

Whatever they (the scientists) can demonstrate by genuine proofs regarding the nature of things, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but whatever they set forth contrary to our Scriptures, that is to Catholic faith, let us show by some means, or let us believe without hesitation to be most false*. [emphasis added]** * (D. 1947)

Unfortunately our theologians are generally unaware that “genuine proofs” for evolution theory have not been produced. They are not, therefore, being deceptive but incorrectly informed. As evolution is not possible in the light of Lateran IV and Vatican I, they should follow the second part of the rule.

 

[pwilders]

REPLY TO ARCANUM (contd.)

---

Part 2

**A: “**exactly where in Lateran IV are you quoting from, I can’t find it”

**P: **Your text of Lateran IV is correct:

“God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”

**A: “**From the beginning of time is somewhat of a relative statement in relation to God”

**P: **The expression *the beginning of time *has a specific meaning in tradition. It is used to mean the first day (Gen.1:1) or the creation period (Matt. 19:4) as a whole. As the notion of long ages was not part of tradition, the Council Fathers of Lateran IV would obviously not have used it in a context of millions of years. In any case the million years attributed to rocks has been shown by peer-reviewed experiments to be invalid http://geology.ref.ac/berthault

A: “As for created out of nothing. Yes that is true. Ultimately we were created out of nothing. But we know living beings at the least were created out of the dust which God had created. None of this conflicts with a well-defined theistic evolution”

**P: ** There is no doubt that Adam was created (directly) out of dust. It is the teaching of the Church Fathers. This fact does not provide a rationale for theistic evolution. The dust was not a secondary productive cause. From your earlier remark, however, it is clear that you are limiting Creation here to man alone. However, Lateran IV refers to “all visible and invisible things” which, in the context of origins, means the prototype of all living things were created in the beginning out of nothing. There is no ambiguity in the Council wording.

Peter

 

[Arcanum]

pwilders:

I understand from this that your words “dogmatic definitions“ refer particularly to Lateran IV, and “the subject” to creation.

I refer too all conciliar and ex cathedra papal statements on creation and the fall. I have yet to see one that says plant and/or animal life possessed original immortality along with man.

Lateran IV was addressing origins, not The Fall, i.e. the creation of “all things” not their death.

I’m sorry, my first post was somewhat muddled in it’s direction. The first part was intended as a reply to Matt1618’s argument’s for the original immortality of animal life. This is why I brought up Trent’s specific parameters on the effects of The Fall.

The “Church” has made no such declaration. Some members of the hierarchy, who believe evolution to be true have indicated it is not necessarily contrary to the faith.

At least two Popes is hardly merely “some members.” But again I must point out, these comments bore directly on the effects of The Fall, not the duration or manner of Creation itself.

The expression the beginning of time has a specific meaning in tradition. It is used to mean the first day (Gen.1:1) or the creation period (Matt. 19:4) as a whole. As the notion of long ages was not part of tradition, the Council Fathers of Lateran IV would obviously not have used it in a context of millions of years.

At least 2 of The Fathers, the names slip my mind, believed, following The Psalms and Petrine epistles, that each day was 1,000 years. So their is some weight to a notion of how relative a day might be to God. I’ll grant that the architects of Lateran IV didn’t have a billion years in mind. But I don’t think such time spans contradict either the letter or even spirit of their writings.

There is no doubt that Adam was created (directly) out of dust. It is the teaching of the Church Fathers.

Sans St. Augustine, who might argue with “directly.”

This fact does not provide a rationale for theistic evolution. The dust was not a secondary productive cause.

I think it does open the door to give some credence to evolutionary thought. The dust was not a secondary productive cause. Neither is any pre-existent living matter in a theistic evolution within bounds of orthodoxy.

From your earlier remark, however, it is clear that you are limiting Creation here to man alone. However, Lateran IV refers to “all visible and invisible things” which, in the context of origins, means the prototype of all living things were created in the beginning out of nothing. There is no ambiguity in the Council wording.

I don’t limit creation to man alone. But it is not outside the bounds of orthodoxy to see the elements of creation produced by God in a sequential order. The creative act of God ended with creation of man. Therefore in the beginning refers to that time between the creation of the first elements and man. If a day to God is 24 hours, then that is a 6 day event. But if God is timeless, and the “days of creation” are a device to convey the order of creation and it’s dependence on God, then day can mean 1,000 years, 1 million years or 1 billion years. An “the beginning of time” can be anywhere from the first six days of creation to the first billion+ years.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Evolution: The answer has been discovered!

Did humans evolve from the apes?

NOT YET!

 

[saba]

Just a general response and perspsective:

I am a Catholic.I teach High School Science. My family can’t decide whethter they are more afraid of the fact that I accept the evidence for evolution or the fact that I accept the Real Presence.

At any rate, when Alert Enstein was confronted with the demonstrably “random” (remember, “random” does not mean that there is no cause, just that we do not understand enough to demonstrate a cause) nature of the Copehagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, he is reputed to have said, “God does not play dice with the universe”, to which Niel Bohr is reputed to have replied, “Albert: Stop telling God what to do.”

Maybe we should stop telling God what to do…I highly recommend the book, “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller for a perspective on what it means to say that evolution did NOT happen.

I wish you peace.

Saba

 

[pwilders]

**ARCANUM says: “**I refer too all conciliar and ex cathedra papal statements on creation and the fall. I have yet to see one that says plant and/or animal life possessed original immortality along with man”

---

**PETER responds: **Lateran IV is the Church’s keydogmatic doctrine on creation it is concerned with the subject of all living matter, but not its immortality. It encapsulates other teachings on creation such as the Apostles Creed which professes that God is “Creator of Heaven and earth.” The Nicene Creed makes it explicit that this profession includes “all that is seen and unseen.” (CCC 325) The Scriptural expression “heaven and earth” means all that exists in its entirety. (CCC 326).

**A: “**I’ll grant that the architects of Lateran IV didn’t have a billion years in mind. But I don’t think such time spans contradict either the letter or even spirit of their writings”.

**P: **The “writings” you mention presumably refer to the text of Lateran IV doctrine on creation. Multi-million year time-scales apart from not being envisaged by the Council fathers could not be in the “spirit” of their definition of creation because neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers mention them in any way. Moreover nothing new was created after the hexameron (tradition and ST) to warrant the eons of years.

**A: Regardingof Adam’s creation from dust you say “**Neither is any pre-existent living matter in a theistic evolution within bounds of orthodoxy”

**P: **Pre-existing living matter apart from Eve’s special creation from Adam’s side is excluded from creation by definition. The proto-types of all the kinds of living matter on earth were created from nothing (instantaneously) by God’s command.

A: “day can mean 1,000 years, 1 million years or 1 billion years. In “the beginning of time” can be anywhere from the first six days of creation to the first billion+ years.”

P: As explained the Church Fathers refer to “in the beginning” as either Day One of creation or the hexameron as a whole. Councils use the Fathers writings as their benchmark for defining dogma and Lateran IV would be no exception. The Council fathers have a strict obligation to ensure their formulations (which are infallible for all time) are succinct and without ambiguity. The suggestion that “in the beginning” (i.e. the period of creation) could mean “anywhere from the first six days to the first billion + years doesn’t fit the stringent requirements.

Peter