Catholics and Evolution

[buffalo]

**The “Toledoths” of Genesis

…**For those who are not biblical scholars, “JEPD” refers to the theory of modern liberal scholars positing that the the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) were not written or complied by Moses (as the Bible claims) but by a series of unknown authors separated by many hundreds of years. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis claims that Genesis 2 was written long before Genesis 1, the latter being written between 587-517 BC just before the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon. In the scheme of the J-E-P-D hypothesis, Genesis 1 was a “P” (Priestly) document. Why? Because, we are told, the Jews needed a refresher course on their divine heritage and there was no better place to start than with a wonderful creation story in order to get everyone excited about their return trip to Jerusalem. In other words, the “priest” or his trusty scribe who wrote Genesis 1 was basically making up a fairy tale for the delight of those returning captives.

…This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.

more…

 

[eliasaph99]

You cannot believe that Adam and Eve were created supernaturally by God?

The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were created supernaturally.

It says that God created Adam from the clay of the Earth.

It does not say that Adam was instantly created, whole and entire. It is perfectly reasonable to reconcile the two in one’s mind.

Personally, I think that God caused life to exist on Earth and caused that life to evolve in such a way that a creature worthy of His image would come to exist. Then this creature was ensouled and given immortality to live forever in the glory that God had created. But he lost it.

From our perspective, it takes millions of years for this to happen, but God is outside of time. To Him, the end and the beginning are the same. So, He caused it, and it was.

 

[nerfherder]

First off Catholics believe faith and reason cannot be opposed for they are of the same God.

Therefore God’s revelation and our own observations cannot be opposed. We can however make mistakes.

So it will come down to your belief or disbelief in God’s Revelation being true.

Supernatural - of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Divine - God

Science by its own definition is limited as to what it can say about the universe. It is confined to the 5 senses and natural observances.

God, being almighty does what He sets out to do. He certainly could create Adam and Eve supernaturally and insert them into the timeline wherver He wished.

Becoming Catholic is opening your heart and mind to God and becoming humble.

You have made some good and thoughtful points. Thank you.

I am concerned about the term ‘divine’. The definition you have given is the sttandard tautological answer. But God cannot be defined by himself. The word divine is used to apply to the inspired interpretations of the Magisterium, hearts, understandings, Son of God, etc etc. What does it mean as an adjective, and when can it be applied.

Much of our understanding of man’s progress to 2007 is linked to the word divine. It is perhaps one of the most important words we use. What does it mean?

 

[nerfherder]

Because, we are told, the Jews needed a refresher course on their divine heritage and there was no better place to start than with a wonderful creation story in order to get everyone excited about their return trip to Jerusalem. In other words, the “priest” or his trusty scribe who wrote Genesis 1 was basically making up a fairy tale for the delight of those returning captives.

This is not a fairy story. If you know your stuff, then you will know that it is a standard ‘creation myth’ which sets out, in concepts appropriate to the time, the Jews’ understanding of their beginnings. They did not have the advantage of hindsight to give an accurate history. Many cultures and civilisations - in fact most - have set out acceptable creation myths which include not only how they began, but their principal values and beliefs, as well as (usually) some concept of a natural force or godhead at the centre of everything. This is bread and water stuff for sociologists and anthropologists, and must be taken into account in looking at the first five chapters of the OT.

 

[Melchior]

No. If it is a genuine scientific theory, we should investigate it and test it.

If it is something untestable like creationism, then we can say clearly that it isn’t science. It’s religion. That does make it false, it just makes it unscientific.

When we get something like intelligent design, which is creationism dressed up to look like science, we have to tear off the scientific veneer and reveal that it’s really just a corrupted form of creationism. If you want to watch a Roman Catholic scientist discussing this issue rspectfully, watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Here’s a shorter one that gets to the point:

youtube.com/watch?v=uORi9DrjP_s&mode=related&search=

Unfortunately those are just the oppositions talking points about ID. Dismissing something instead of engaging it is not scientific or logical it is deceptive. I don’t think you are being deceptive I think you are just again, repeating talking points because you clearly no very little about ID since many of it’s proponents are not creationists at all.

 

[Melchior]

Please, I am in the process of conversion to RCC. If you tell me that I must believe something that is patently impossible, then how can I convert? Anyone with a brain to think would be reduced to ashes.

It is this kind of infallible authority, from wherever or whenever it has originated in each instance, that gives me the heebie-jeebies when I think about conversion. For other major issues, like transubstantiation, there will be a process of comprehension until I reach an understanding.

But Adam and Eve, the Genesis creation myth: not possible, not desirable, to accept and believe. This is a story, a creation myth devised by early Jews to explain - when there was no other explanation - where they came from. And yes, it is an allegory, and a jolly good one. Every cilivisation has one.

And please do not come back with I* have to believe to be a Catholic; I should stay where I am if I cannot accept all the Teachings; the final authority is with the Magisterium.* I know that. What do I do when something is clearly incorrect, false, historically, scientifically, sociologically, anthropologically and in every other way out of the ballpark?

It is in the same league as telling me that the sun revolves around the moon.

Jabulani

Resurrection from the dead, multplying bread and fish, Ascending into Heaven and a virgin giving birth are also impossible by your standards. Are you sure Christianity is for you? Seriously? I truly hope you are just happily inconsistent because I want you to believe in Christ. But have you considered he explicitly, along with at least two apostles believes in a literal Adam and Eve and Noah. If you believe He is God and the Apostles were inspired in their sacred writings then you have to question the serious limits you are imposing on God. It is remarkably illogical what you choose to believe and deny based on your understanding of current scientific theories.

You really have two options you are boxing yourself into - inconsistent beliefs or rejection of Christianity. Or you could go with the third which is trust God and be a little bit more skeptical towards man. Every theory has it’s day. I suspect you would have said with Sagan that it was impossible that there was a beginning to the universe at all. But a handful of years later, dogma becomes a dead theory.

Dave

 

[Melchior]

The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were created supernaturally.

It says that God created Adam from the clay of the Earth.

It does not say that Adam was instantly created, whole and entire. It is perfectly reasonable to reconcile the two in one’s mind.

Personally, I think that God caused life to exist on Earth and caused that life to evolve in such a way that a creature worthy of His image would come to exist. Then this creature was ensouled and given immortality to live forever in the glory that God had created. But he lost it.

From our perspective, it takes millions of years for this to happen, but God is outside of time. To Him, the end and the beginning are the same. So, He caused it, and it was.

And that is not supernatural how?

 

[buffalo]

This is not a fairy story. If you know your stuff, then you will know that it is a standard ‘creation myth’ which sets out, in concepts appropriate to the time, the Jews’ understanding of their beginnings. They did not have the advantage of hindsight to give an accurate history. Many cultures and civilisations - in fact most - have set out acceptable creation myths which include not only how they began, but their principal values and beliefs, as well as (usually) some concept of a natural force or godhead at the centre of everything. This is bread and water stuff for sociologists and anthropologists, and must be taken into account in looking at the first five chapters of the OT.

What I have quoted is the intro to the article. Read it in its entirety.

 

[Delphinus85]

It seems to me that the important thing with all of this, is having balance. To accept science, but knowing that science is limited. It’s been wrong before, it’s wrong now, and will continue to err. We can be sure it is mistaken when it makes claims that contradict everything christians believe. Ex: There is no God, and evolution is random mutation." We know there IS a God, and we also have to define was exactly THAT means. I think that as christians we have to, knowing that God is perfect and science is not, let God determine scientific truth, not let science define God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Of course it must. One can never avoid having to mediate the meaning of a text through one’s intellect so as to reach conclusions about what it means - whether it be the CCC, a papal text, a passage in the Bible, a will, or a shopping-list. The Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox divide is irrelevant to the issue - the problem arises because of the way in which the intellect operates; to be human, is to have an intellect which works in specifically human way.​

If we knew by infused knowledge alone, there would be no problem; but we don’t, & there is. If we were zombies - again, the problem would not exist. But if we were, we would have no intellects at all. ##

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?

That’s not at bottom the issue either - the problem is being misdecribed:​

The problem the Church perceives, is one of private interpretation in opposition to to its own interpretation, which it regards as reliable; the private one is not, because it is heterodox; or at least, is not the same as the Church’s. The issue is badly confused by the adjectives used, so several issues are treated as one, when they need to be distinguished. And confused language leads to slipshod theology.

All interpretation is personal - it can’t avoid this; but “personal” is treated as meaning “private”, which is treated as “meaning not in accordance with the mind of the Church”, which is treated as meaning “not allowable to Catholics” - they are collapsed into a single question.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

If that sort of bad logic is all the Church can muster, then it deserves no attention. An intelligent adolescent could see that one can perfectly well have original sin, without believing in the real existence of Adam & Eve - the details of a cause can perfectly well be misidentified, without its effects being any less real. A rifle is deadly, even if it is described as a thunder-stick; calling it a thunder-stick does not make it any less dangerous.​

Are murders any less murderous because the wrong person is punished for it ? Of course not - the corpse stays dead, no matter who is punished. Is everyone who cannot name his parents non-existent ? His ignorance of them, does not make him one jot less real. So here - we don’t need the (fictional) Adam & Eve for the existence of what we call original sin; all that is needed, is some cause for OS. The polygenism-monogenism debate is a side issue, a “majoring in minors”.

But to insist on belief in A & E is to demand illogic & fiction; & to insist that the non-existent bathwater is as important as the entirely real baby. This only succeeeds in making the rest of the doctrine look idiotic; & that is a great shame.

 

[Chuck_M]

Elephants in Africa have, over the past fifty years, begun to grow shorter tusks. It is believed generally that this is a defence against poaching for ivory which was wiping out elephants as a species. I believe this is a form of evolution before my eyes (I live in Africa).

Being new here, I think the last thing I wanted to do was to drop into a discussion and “snipe” someone else’s post but since no one has apparently picked up on this, I figured I’d bite.

In order to make the claim above, one would have to believe:

• that African Elephants, as a species, have come to the realization that they are being poached for their tusks
• that these elephants have consequently decided to grow shorter tusks in order to dissuade the poachers
• that these elephants have been able to bring about these changes somehow
• that all of this has occurred over only 50 years, knowing that the lifespan of an african elephant is about 50-60 years

I don’t mean to cause a ruckus but I can’t for the life of me understand how this could make sense to anyone.

 

[zian]

Not necessarily. I think you’re right that it is not based on a concious effort by the elephants, but it could simply be a case of artificial selection. The elephants with larger tusks are being hunted preferentially, and therefore breeding less. This leaves the elephants with smaller tusks to have a higher rate of breeding in the elephant population, resulting in a higher proportion of smaller tusked elephants.

 

[eliasaph99]

And that is not supernatural how?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

The creation of the bodies of mankind does not have to be viewed as a supernatural event.

An event is supernatural if it occured due to forces outside the natural forces which we observe in the universe.

That said, God uses natural and supernatural methods to do His work. Although I think that the supernatural is used much less frequently.

I didn’t differentiatie between the creation of the bodies of men and the placing of the soul in that body. Obviously, the creation of a soul and the placing of it within a body is a supernatural event.

I was referring to the creation of the body when I said that it did not have to be supernatural.

 

[eliasaph99]

I believe Gen 1 and 2 are part of the creation myth of the Jewish people (first five books of the Bible)

Jabulani

Are you saying that you believe the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, to be completely mythical?

To complete my question let me add this.

Are you claiming that the follwing people were not actual people and the events described in their lives in the Bible were not actual events:

Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, Joseph and his twelve brothers.

Moses and Aaron, and the Hebrew slaves, Pharaoh and his army.

 

[Chuck_M]

Zian: Now that I think of it that’s probably exactly what nerfherder was referring to. I hadn’t taken into account that tusk size is an inherited characteristic. Sorry for my somewhat foolish comparison.

 

[rossum]

Unfortunately those are just the oppositions talking points about ID. Dismissing something instead of engaging it is not scientific or logical it is deceptive.

ID is not scientific. It offers no explanation as to how the Designer actually arranges DNA to suit its design. It makes no predictions. It is difficult to engage in a scientific discussion when one side is not doing science. From what I can see, ID is a political scheme to get religion taught in science classes in US state schools.

I don’t think you are being deceptive I think you are just again, repeating talking points because you clearly no very little about ID since many of it’s proponents are not creationists at all.

Name some non-creationist ID proponents please. Johnson, Behe, Dembski and Wells are all creationists of some sort or other: they all believe that God created the universe. Please indicate who your “many” non-creationist ID proponents are. I take “creationist” to include a broader spectrum than just young earth creationists: Behe is Catholic and a creationist though not a YE creationist.

rossum

 

[Delphinus85]

In order to make the claim above, one would have to believe:

• that African Elephants, as a species, have come to the realization that they are being poached for their tusks.
• that these elephants have consequently decided to grow shorter tusks in order to dissuade the poachers
• that these elephants have been able to bring about these changes somehow
• that all of this has occurred over only 50 years, knowing that the lifespan of an african elephant is about 50-60 years

I don’t mean to cause a ruckus but I can’t for the life of me understand how this could make sense to anyone.

actually the way that natural selection works (or in this case, UNnatural selection) is that they weak ones die to leave the strong. In this case, all the elephants with longer tusks are being targeted by poachers, rather than ones with shorter tusks. So as these elephants are being poached for their tusks, only the ones with shorter tusks can breed. As the tusks get shorter, poachers will still target the ones wit the longest tusks they can find. And the ones with shorter than THAT tusks will live. This continues until it comes down to elephants with knubby tusks or elephants with no tusks. Guess which one will get whacked? Now we have a species of elephants with no tusks.

It works like that with everything. This is why we have different breeds of dogs. This is called “micro evolution” however, and this is where I think we need God to step nto make it work, macro evolution is where you get lizards becoming birds. Micro evolution can’t have anything to do with it, because for a beneficial change to happen (like front legs turning into wings) it would have to happen instantly from one generation to the next. Fully funtional wings, or else you have a freakazoid creature with blobbly wing-legs that will get eaten in a second.

 

[buffalo]

ID is not scientific. It offers no explanation as to how the Designer actually arranges DNA to suit its design. It makes no predictions. It is difficult to engage in a scientific discussion when one side is not doing science. From what I can see, ID is a political scheme to get religion taught in science classes in US state schools.

Name some non-creationist ID proponents please. Johnson, Behe, Dembski and Wells are all creationists of some sort or other: they all believe that God created the universe. Please indicate who your “many” non-creationist ID proponents are. I take “creationist” to include a broader spectrum than just young earth creationists: Behe is Catholic and a creationist though not a YE creationist.

rossum

Right on! We should add metaphysics courses to be taken alongside science.

 

[nerfherder]

Being new here, I think the last thing I wanted to do was to drop into a discussion and “snipe” someone else’s post but since no one has apparently picked up on this, I figured I’d bite.

In order to make the claim above, one would have to believe:

• that African Elephants, as a species, have come to the realization that they are being poached for their tusks
• that these elephants have consequently decided to grow shorter tusks in order to dissuade the poachers
• that these elephants have been able to bring about these changes somehow
• that all of this has occurred over only 50 years, knowing that the lifespan of an african elephant is about 50-60 years

I don’t mean to cause a ruckus but I can’t for the life of me understand how this could make sense to anyone.

Come to Africa and talk to one of the Game Rangers in Kruger National Park in South Africa. I know that 50 years is a short time; I know that this should not have happened. It is not a matter of elephants wishing to evolve in a certain way - we can be sure of that. And sure elephants live for ages - often much longer than fifty years.

The important thing is the length of a generation, which is about 10 years. That means over the past 50 years, we have had five generations of elephants in which to effect a change in response to the depletion to the point of extinction of Africa’s elephant herds.

My understanding is that most of the largest tuskers were poached out very early on, by random hunters in the early part of the 19th century, by sport hunters mid-century, by soldiers (Mau Mau in Kenya and Frelimo in Mozambique for example) and by people needing meat to eat and ivory to sell from the 1960s on.

The genes of the big tuskers more or less died out, or at least became dangerously close to extinction, except in isolated herds. (The Kruger National Park Museum at Letaba North has the skulls of five famous tuskers of enormous size.)

If the genes died out, if the great tuskers were no longer there to fertilise the harem, then male elephants with shorter tusks would do the job. And so on through the generations during the past century - to the point that we now have very few great tusks left anywhere in the Southern Africa region. What there is is hardly worth poaching.

I consider, on the basis of observation over forty years, and what I have read, that I have seen evolution happening among elephants.

You can also consider the case of mixomatosis in Australian rabbits: the alien microbe was introduced into rabbits with a view to clearing out the rabbit population which ate grain intended for sheep. The microbe first killed 99% of rabbits; but it and the rabbits reached an amicable balance within 6 generations (3 years, given that a rabbit generation is 6 months). It is hypothesised (Plagues and Peoples) that statis between a microbe and a human being or another mammalian is reached in six generations. And that is an excellent exemplar of evolution - for me at least.

I am hoping that this is what will happen in the case of the HIV prion: governments are sure not getting their acts together with regard to prevention or cure, and I know that because that is my profession. It looks as if we will have to wait out the 6 generations (150 years) before we reach an amicable relationship with the HIV microbe - unless we all die first.