Catholics and Evolution

[eliasaph99]

I’m part creationist and part evolutionist. I think it is entirely possible that evolution, to a certain extent has occured, but I find it very doubtful that every single creature on the planet descended from one, single-celled critter, even with God in the picture. I find it more likely that He perhaps ‘borrowed’ some of His earlier designs for later creations, creating a couple ‘base’ creatures, than then evolved until they became the creatures we have today. I really find it fascinating that He would design creatures to change with their environment, though… pure genius.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure how He did everything until we reach Heaven, and get to ask The Big Guy Himself.

This has echoes of a theory called genetic speciation.

Although I am not entirely familiar with it, it is an attempt to read some of the creation story into literal events, but it is not totally unreasonable.

Basically it holds that God created many “master types” and that the animals we see today were descended from those “master types”. In the Bible we see statements like this: “God created the birds, each one after its kind.” or “God created all kinds of winged birsds.” (Paraphrases, not quotes.)

Personally, what I see in the scientific literature is an absolute affirmation of natural selection. Animals change over time due to changes in their environment. In this process, new species come into being.

I think that when scientists state that they have proven the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, they are overplaying their hand. This is because my understanding of the total theory of evolution is that it holds that life arose from non-life spontaneously. Personally, I think this to be extremely unlikely, and I am completely unaware of any evidence that such a thing is possible.

RNA and DNA do not self-assemble spontaneously from basic chemical compounds. At least, not to my knowledge.

But I may be wrong and am willing to listen. Because I also think that all of you are worthy of conversation.

 

[eliasaph99]

You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize the obvious truth of evolution. Arguments made by Ken Miller (a Roman Catholic evolutionary biologist) convinced me that there simply is no alternative to the theory of evolution. Anyone who does not accept something as irrefutable of the theory of evolution is indeed not worth talking to about the book of Genesis.

I have to say that I am leaning towards finding you not worthy of having a discussion with.

Your attitude towards your fellow human beings is quite uncharitable and rather disturbing.

Exactly how is that attitude an Orthodox Catholic attitude?

P.S. I am a scientist and, as I have stated, I think that the strength of evolutionary theory is overplayed. Species generation through natural selection is what has been supported by the research. Usually, when people say the theory of evolution, this is really what they mean. But a true theory of evolution contains the added component of life from lifelessness arising spontaneously. That is, without any outside influence. It is this that I dispute.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s a bit difficult to convey my tone through text, but I can assure you it’s not one of hatred. When I write, my tone seems to come across a bit harsher than when I speak. I apologize if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings. I admit that my use of rhetoric can sometimes unfairly degrade other people, but what I’m really trying to do is attack their argument. I’ll try to be more courteous in the future.

Here’s a video of Ken Miller destroying (in a courteous manner) the theory of intelligent design, which happens to be the only alternative to evolution:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[eliasaph99]

I believe that I am not free to dispense with scientific truths and live in a fantasy world. Nothing I have said contradicts the teaching of the Church. The Church has never infallibly defined that we are the literal genetic descendants of two human beings. They won’t do this because it is scientifically impossible for this to be true.

**At least two people on here have proposed non-genetic reconciliations between the Church teaching of Adam and Eve as actual people and your perceived necessity for genetic diversity. But you are still arguing with this statement.

Astounding!**

Also, I find it deeply insulting that you say I think I’m free to interpret Catholic teaching to suit myself. I am extremely orthodox when it comes to matters of faith and morals. I would never contradict a doctrine of the Church. I can say this because I’m confident that no doctrine of the church is in conflict with evolution. The Catholic Church completely accepts reality.

Part of that reality is that Adam and Eve were distinct persons who actually existed. There are many possible ways to reconcile this with natural selection without denying it. You are choosing to deny it.

 

[Cari]

When did the scientific community get to change “THEORY” to “TRUTH”?

I TOTALLY missed that part in my science classes…

 

[Atemi]

I agree, Catholics who reject Catholic teaching for private interpretation are the source of much damage to the Church and to those affected. I don’t think this is a controversial opinion among orthodox Catholics.

The problem is that they do not think they are rejecting Catholic teaching.

That is the salient point.

Since all say they believe what the Catechism teaches, but have all different interpretations of the Catechism, and there is no higher authority available for the Catholic to appeal to…

…then all we have is a version of RC Sola Catechisma.

This is not my first encounter with this phenomena.

 

[Atemi]

I believe that I am not free to dispense with scientific truths and live in a fantasy world. Nothing I have said contradicts the teaching of the Church. The Church has never infallibly defined that we are the literal genetic descendants of two human beings. They won’t do this because it is scientifically impossible for this to be true.

Also, I find it deeply insulting that you say I think I’m free to interpret Catholic teaching to suit myself. I am extremely orthodox when it comes to matters of faith and morals. I would never contradict a doctrine of the Church. I can say this because I’m confident that no doctrine of the church is in conflict with evolution. The Catholic Church completely accepts reality.

Must not even the Catechism be interpreted, just like the Bible, with no further authority for appeal?

Who can the Catholic appeal to?

Their priest is not the Magisterium, nor is their bishop.

Can a lay Catholic call a Council?

All Catholics are given is the Catechism to sort through what the Catholic Church teaches today. Even appeals to Councils are sent back to the Catechism for confirmation.

What is the plain teaching of the Catholic Church even to me, an ex-Catholic, is allegory and not the plain teaching to you.

Where can Catholics go from here except to personal interpretation…the very thing that is criticised elsewhere?

 

[Dauphin]

Eliasaph 99, I have NEVER said that Adam and Eve were not real people!!! Why do you feel you have to resort to lies??

All I’ve said is that the HUMAN RACE could not have literally descended directly from them. Look back at my posts! Why are you so insistent in creating a conflict between religion and science?

You have absolutely no right to spread lies about my faith. You should take back your statement and apologize for it immediately.

 

[Cari]

I have NEVER said that Adam and Eve were not real people!!! Why do you feel you have to resort to lies??

All I’ve said is that the HUMAN RACE could not have literally descended directly from them. Look back at my posts!

You have absolutely no right to spread lies about my faith. You should take back your statement and apologize for it immediately.

I wonder then, if you could explain this to me?

The reason (as I understand it, my knowledge is sorely lacking in this area…) the Church concerns Herself with Adam and Eve is because it IS a matter of faith and morals.

Hear me out:

1. Adam and Eve are real people, this we both agree on
2. Adam and Eve are the Original Parents of every human (this you do not agree with)

Why is this important to the Church?

Because of the concept of Original Sin. Original sin effects all members of the human race. If Adam, as original father, did not take that sin on himself, and pass it on to each and every human, then not everyone would need baptism. The singular grace of the Immaculate Conception wouldn’t have been so singular, or necessary (not if Mary came from one of the non-Adam humans). Without the taint of original sin, it’s theoretically possible that some people could avoid sin their whole life (like Mary, who was protected from it due to the Immaculate Conception), and therefore, not need a Savior. If the whole world didn’t need a Savior, the Bible is wrong.

Thus, the Church’s need to define a belief in our Original Parents. Because they are the start of Salvation history, which is a matter of faith and morals.

So to say you don’t belive that Adam is everyone’s original father is to say that there are some humans out there who are walking around without the stain of original sin…?

Cari

 

[Dauphin]

I wonder then, if you could explain this to me?

The reason (as I understand it, my knowledge is sorely lacking in this area…) the Church concerns Herself with Adam and Eve is because it IS a matter of faith and morals.

Hear me out:

1. Adam and Eve are real people, this we both agree on
2. Adam and Eve are the Original Parents of every human (this you do not agree with)

Why is this important to the Church?

Because of the concept of Original Sin. Original sin effects all members of the human race. If Adam, as original father, did not take that sin on himself, and pass it on to each and every human, then not everyone would need baptism. The singular grace of the Immaculate Conception wouldn’t have been so singular, or necessary (not if Mary came from one of the non-Adam humans). Without the taint of original sin, it’s theoretically possible that some people could avoid sin their whole life (like Mary, who was protected from it due to the Immaculate Conception), and therefore, not need a Savior. If the whole world didn’t need a Savior, the Bible is wrong.

Thus, the Church’s need to define a belief in our Original Parents. Because they are the start of Salvation history, which is a matter of faith and morals.

So to say you don’t belive that Adam is everyone’s original father is to say that there are some humans out there who are walking around without the stain of original sin…?

Cari

I think you are making an incorrect assumption here. You are saying that original sin is some kind of genetic characteristic that is passed from generation to generation. I think this is incorrect. Original sin must be a fundamental human characteristic which transcends genetics. Genesis reveals a truth that is greater than science. Adam and Eve are our parents in a more fundamental sense than the genetic understanding of parentage. I know this sounds all vague and mystical, but it’s the best I can do.

Adam and Eve were real in a way that I don’t claim to fully understand. I accept completely that they existed and that it is because of them that each human person has original sin from the moment of conception. I do not believe, however, that this is some kind of genetic trait.

If I accepted that they are our literal, genetic parents, I would be rejecting science, so I can’t. Truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[VociMike]

If I accepted that they are our literal, genetic parents, I would be rejecting science…

You keep saying this but it is simply not true.

 

[eliasaph99]

Eliasaph 99, I have NEVER said that Adam and Eve were not real people!!! Why do you feel you have to resort to lies??

All I’ve said is that the HUMAN RACE could not have literally descended directly from them. Look back at my posts! Why are you so insistent in creating a conflict between religion and science?

You have absolutely no right to spread lies about my faith. You should take back your statement and apologize for it immediately.

I am not lying.

As you have reaffirmed here, you have stated that Adam and Eve are not the parents of humanity. This is in conflict to Church teaching.

The human race could have, and did, literally descend from them. As several people on here have proposed, there are reconciliations with natural selection and Church teaching that do not require the only genetic contribution to have come from Adam and Eve. You keep implying that this is what others are stating, and then you insist that Adam and Eve are not our parents.

The way you are stating it, without any nuanced explanation, certainly communicates that you hold a view contrary to that of the Church.

I am not creating any conflict between religion and science. I don’t think that, ultimately, there is one.

The only conflict comes when people insist on forcing a reconciliation between two seeming contradictions when there is not enough data to do so. It would be much better to simply state, that there is a reconciliation that we do not know, and then to speculate what that reconciliation might be, than to take the position you are taking.

So far on this board, you have deemed others unworthy of conversation with you, you have belittled those who hold a view contrary to yours, and now, you have accused me of lying when I have done no such thing. The entire time that you have been doing this, you have professed your Orthodox Catholic views and faith. Forgive me, but where does our Church teach that those who think differently from us should be belittled, dismissed, ignored, and accused of lying?

 

[Cari]

I think you are making an incorrect assumption here. You are saying that original sin is some kind of genetic characteristic that is passed from generation to generation. I think this is incorrect. Original sin must be a fundamental human characteristic which transcends genetics.

Interesting. I’ve never thought about that before. So are you saying this trait, Original Sin, is something like a personality characteristic? Could you give me an example of another fundemental human characteristic so I can understand what you mean?
Now what would insure that this characteristic is possessed by every member of the human race? Or course, if it’s something biological, it WOULD be genetically inhereted, like having skin. Does science know of any other traits that are passed down to every human being by other means than genetics or environment? What a facinating concept!

Adam and Eve were real in a way that I don’t claim to fully understand. I accept completely that they existed and that it is because of them that each human person has original sin from the moment of conception. I do not believe, however, that this is some kind of genetic trait.

Aren’t you simply substituting faith in Church teachings on this point for faith in science? The Church says Adam and Eve are everyone’s original parents. Their sin is passed down to each and every one of us through that geneology. Science says they can’t be, yet cannot explain how Original Sin is every human’s heritage. It doesn’t even try. It leaves people to substitute words like “mystical” and “vague” which aren’t very scientific at all.

If I accepted that they are our literal, genetic parents, I would be rejecting science, so I can’t. Truth cannot contradict truth.

But according to the Church, they are everyone’s original parents, so it seems that you’re embracing scientific truth at the cost of Christian Truth.

I don’t know. Until science can explain to me how every human has the stain of original sin, I’m going to go ahead and trust Christ’s Church on this one.

But I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on the above questions!

 

[clmowry]

I would submit to you that anyone cantake any text and get out of it just about any conclusion they’ve preselected.

That said, if you can’t get 99% agreement on official church teaching on given subject out of the Catechism, then those reading the book are either being intellectually dishonest or are simply not capable of reading comprehension at the level at which the Catechism has been put forth.

Chuck

Must not even the Catechism be interpreted, just like the Bible, with no further authority for appeal?

Who can the Catholic appeal to?

Their priest is not the Magisterium, nor is their bishop.

Can a lay Catholic call a Council?

All Catholics are given is the Catechism to sort through what the Catholic Church teaches today. Even appeals to Councils are sent back to the Catechism for confirmation.

What is the plain teaching of the Catholic Church even to me, an ex-Catholic, is allegory and not the plain teaching to you.

Where can Catholics go from here except to personal interpretation…the very thing that is criticised elsewhere?

 

[Melchior]

I’ve read about this subject, and I know the church’s say on it, but what about you all? Do you think that a God driven evolution is plausible for genesis? Or do you reject it entirely, and embrace the more “creationist” viewpoint that evolution is total bunk?

Speciation is bunk. Evolution in general is not. Speciation is incompatible with any sensible reading of Genesis. That does not mean I believe in a young earth. It means I do believe in a real Adam and Eve as the church teaches.

If you think it through guided evolution is really astraneg capitulation to atheism. Dawkins has that much right.

 

[Dauphin]

I am not lying.

As you have reaffirmed here, you have stated that Adam and Eve are not the parents of humanity. This is in conflict to Church teaching.

The human race could have, and did, literally descend from them. As several people on here have proposed, there are reconciliations with natural selection and Church teaching that do not require the only genetic contribution to have come from Adam and Eve. You keep implying that this is what others are stating, and then you insist that Adam and Eve are not our parents.

The way you are stating it, without any nuanced explanation, certainly communicates that you hold a view contrary to that of the Church.

I am not creating any conflict between religion and science. I don’t think that, ultimately, there is one.

The only conflict comes when people insist on forcing a reconciliation between two seeming contradictions when there is not enough data to do so. It would be much better to simply state, that there is a reconciliation that we do not know, and then to speculate what that reconciliation might be, than to take the position you are taking.

So far on this board, you have deemed others unworthy of conversation with you, you have belittled those who hold a view contrary to yours, and now, you have accused me of lying when I have done no such thing. The entire time that you have been doing this, you have professed your Orthodox Catholic views and faith. Forgive me, but where does our Church teach that those who think differently from us should be belittled, dismissed, ignored, and accused of lying?

“As several people on here have proposed, there are reconciliations with natural selection and Church teaching that do not require the only genetic contribution to have come from Adam and Eve.”

EXACTLY! That’s ALL. I. AM. SAYING! Adam and Eve CANNOT have been the only source of our genetic material. They could not have been our LITERAL, GENETIC, PARENTS!

It seems we’ve reached a consensus. I would ask you to apologize for saying that I have a view contrary to the Church. Declaring me a heretic is childish and unproductive. I’m someone who’s genuinely trying to reconcile the truth of the Church with the truth of science. You seem to have a deliberate desire to misunderstand what I’m saying.

 

[Melchior]

The problem comes in when many Catholic school kids now don’t believe that Adam and Eve were real people anymore.

My wife teaches for one of the largest diocese in Florida as a Catholic HS teacher. She is in constant conflict with her students because they insist that Adam and Eve are stories because humans evolved. She asks where they learn this, they tell her the Religion Dept.

I believe the Catholic Church has been sending mixed messages and the Catholic kids are learning that they cannot trust the first book of the Bible. They are losing faith in HUGE numbers because of the RCC’s mixed message.

These kids are entering HS as Catholics and leaving as agniostics or atheists. They even admit as much.

This is reaping great damage to the Body of Christ, IMV.

Exactly

 

[Melchior]

It’s funny- I reject the “young earth” theory, because it so obviously flies in the face of science (plus, it makes God out to be a big faker, who makes rocks and whatnot look older than they would be under the YET, which God totally isn’t). But the whole “I decended from something not human” offends me simply on ego grounds…isn’t that odd? Ah, pride, the root of all sin (not that I think non-belief in evolution is a sin, I’m simply commenting on my obvious struggle against pride).

As a homeschooling mom, this is a topic I need to address, though luckily not for a while, since we’re barely done with kindergarten here!

Cheers,
Cari

It’s not ego. It’s regonizing that you were made in God’s image and animals were not. One has to become a virtual gnostic to make being in God’s image merely a spiritual reality. This divides the person in a non-Christian way and it diminishes the dignity of God’s special creation of man.

 

[Dauphin]

Interesting. I’ve never thought about that before. So are you saying this trait, Original Sin, is something like a personality characteristic? Could you give me an example of another fundemental human characteristic so I can understand what you mean?
Now what would insure that this characteristic is possessed by every member of the human race? Or course, if it’s something biological, it WOULD be genetically inhereted, like having skin. Does science know of any other traits that are passed down to every human being by other means than genetics or environment? What a facinating concept!

Original sin is a fundamental condition of the human soul. The human soul was created by God. Its characteristics were not passed down through environment or genetics. Trying to connect this to science in any way is to completely take sciene out of its role. I think some people are trying too hard to sythesize science and religion, instead of leaving them in their proper roles.

Aren’t you simply substituting faith in Church teachings on this point for faith in science? The Church says Adam and Eve are everyone’s original parents. Their sin is passed down to each and every one of us through that geneology. Science says they can’t be, yet cannot explain how Original Sin is every human’s heritage. It doesn’t even try. It leaves people to substitute words like “mystical” and “vague” which aren’t very scientific at all.

I’m not substituting anything for anything. I’m leaving both religion and science in their proper roles. I’m trying to affirm the complete truth of both.

 

[Melchior]

Evolution is a reality. I will not reject reality. Are you saying that evolutionary theory is incorrect?

I know for a fact that it cannot be incorrect, any more than the theory of gravity can be incorrect. I am forced into an allegorical understanding of Genesis because it is the only interpretation which corresponds to reality.

If I were to affirm that the human race decended from two people, I would be rejecting a scientific truth. I refuse to believe that God would make his word incompatible with science, which is why I must interpret Genesis allegorically. This doesn’t make Genesis any less true; it just means that its truth is much more fundamental that any truth science can reveal. I believe Genesis uses figurative language to describe a real event which caused original sin.

You are certain of something that has embarrisingly little evidence, particularly in the fossil record (que obligatory TalkOrigins chart). Speciation is far from a certainty it is merely the current popular theory but it is far from proven. In fact many fact militate against it and force those in the scientific community to come up with differering and conflicting theories like punctuated equilibrium. What about the Cambrian explosion?

You are certain something because you happen to believe what you have been told not because it is true. Speciation takes as much faith as believing God created the Adam as Adam. Or that he spoke everything into existence.