Catholics and Evolution

[junk]

The theories of evolution are just that. Theories. Plural. There are multiple competing theories, and in no way are they fact. Einstein’s theories are just theories too. They have supplanted some of Newton’s excellent theories, but in the future they may be replaced by something even better. Furthermore, a convincing refutation of a particular theory does not amount to a refutation of it. “Convincing” is a subjective criterion, and the argumentation in a refutation may be just as objectively false as the theory itself.

Evolution has not been empirically proven. Natural and artificial selection has, but until scientists artificially select a ferret out of a fruit fly… Well, even creating a multicelled organism from a bacterium under laboratory conditions via artificial selection could be empirical proof for evolution.

I think people tend to accept scientific theories as fact all too easily. Man-induced global warming is an example. While it may indeed be true, it has not been proven and there are very strong arguments against it, yet many people accept it as gospel truth because of the rhetoric and hype.

Based on my limited knowledge of the available evidence, I personally choose to accept some form of evolution as a plausible and convincing theory for the origin of the species. But if I come across other strong evidence that suggests that a different theory is more plausible, or some scientist comes up with a better theory, I may choose to reject evolution, because it isn’t fact.

I affirm Church teaching on monogenism - that we are all literally descended from two human parents. Previous posters have already attempted a reconciliation. If I weren’t able to reconcile it myself, I’d still affirm it and admit instead that I don’t know how a reconciliation is possible, but I would not reject Church teaching out of hand, because I have good reason to believe in the authority of the Church.

Scientific truth and religious truth are both truth and cannot contradict. Scientific theory and theological speculation may or may not be truth, and I do not have to accept either. I don’t have to accept evolution just as I don’t have to accept Thomistic predestination - neither is dogma, though I personally accept both to some degree, and I am loath to disagree with men more learned than me. But if the former is proven or disproven empirically and the Church rules on the latter, I will accept or reject both wholeheartedly.

I think it’s presumptuous to insult another person’s intelligence if they disagree with the prevailing scientific opinion of the day. I mean, many scientists do, and that’s how science progresses. If we had always accepted predominant scientific opinion uncritically, we wouldn’t have got very far.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

You seem to think that we are all misunderstanding you at every turn.

These are fair questions. I can answer them for you.

Adam and Eve could have had a mutation that makes the brain a little bit bigger, and therefore gives the capacity for moral insight. They had children who also received the genes. These children mated with apes, but passed on the ensoulment genes, so some of their offspring were apes and some humans. Gradually genes for souls spread through the population and made the apes extinct.
Original sin could be inherent in having a gene for a soul, or it could be passed on from parents to offspring by behaviour. Children of a violent alcoholic father are likely to become violent alcoholics themselves, so too of lesser evils.
Exactly how the brain gives rise to free will, consciousness and language is anyone’s guess. The simplest likely answer is that there is some threshold effect that is triggered when the brain reaches a certain level of complexity. I suspect that the truth is a lot more interesting than that, and that the three things I have mentioned are aspects of the same underlying phenomenon.

 

[rossum]

Doesn’t the conclusion rely upon the assumed rates of genetic mutation and the assumed age of man neither of which can be known with scientific certainty? i.e. If you use a different rat and different time frame an intitial population of one-two becomes possible?

Mutation rates can be measured to within some degree of accuracy. You will not find a single figure given for a minimum human population but a range of figures, such as 1,000 to 10,000 individuals. The range reflects the accuracy of the measurements on which the calculations are based. Different rates would indeed give different figures, but then it is incumbent on you to do the experiments to show that those different rates are valid.

rossum

 

[Cari]

Adam and Eve could have had a mutation that makes the brain a little bit bigger, and therefore gives the capacity for moral insight. They had children who also received the genes. These children mated with apes, but passed on the ensoulment genes, so some of their offspring were apes and some humans. Gradually genes for souls spread through the population and made the apes extinct.

I so have a problem believing that God allowed souls to be passed to human/animal hybrids, especially when you consider how clearly beastiality was condemned in the Bible.

 

[rossum]

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

I TOTALLY missed that part in my science classes…

Evolution comes in two parts. Evolution-as-fact is the change in the genetic makeup of populations over time. This is truth and can be shown by experiment and experience of bacteria becoming resistant to drugs.

Evolution-as-theory is the explanation of why that happens. Theory is only ever the best explanation currently available, it is not THE TRUTH. It is however a lot closer to the truth than simplistic young earth creationist explanations. Genesis is not a science textbook and should not be interpreted as such.

rossum

 

[rossum]

When and how do you suppose the blow-hole evolved?

Does this creature have half a working blow-hole?

Blowholes are nostrils. Over time they moved from the front of the snout to the top of the head. At all times the workrd perfectly well. Look carefully at the picture, you can see that the nostrils have moved back a little from the tip of the snout.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I so have a problem believing that God allowed souls to be passed to human/animal hybrids, especially when you consider how clearly beastiality was condemned in the Bible.

Is not incest also condemned? The basic choices are one or the other if you start with an initial population of two.

rossum

 

[PhilVaz]

Some PhilVaz compilations

Catholic Dogma on Creation
Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Lower-case “intelligent design” is written as dogma into the Vatican I documents here:

“1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Chapter 2, On Revelation; cf. Romans 1:19-20; and Wisdom chapter 13)

Lower-case i.d. in the sense of Romans 1:19-20 and Wisdom 13 is all that’s required of the orthodox Catholic. We don’t have to believe the bacterial flagellum (for example, or any other creature) was “designed” from scratch by God. That’s Behe and that’s upper-case I.D.

The Catechism on symbolical/figurative Genesis are paragraphs 337-338, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396, and on a literal and historical Adam/Eve are 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc. Paragraphs 355ff cover the creation of man and woman, and paragraphs 385ff cover the Fall. Summary from this section:

1. By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
2. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
3. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
4. “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is… ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

This Wikipedia article is also quite good. It began with my large edits back in 2005 which mostly remain, with additional material since then.

You should have been with us in our 2004-2005 debates in here when the thread pages were 100 posts each, and each creation-evolution thread went on for at least 10 pages. Do a search.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Junk << The theories of evolution are just that. Theories. Plural. There are multiple competing theories, and in no way are they fact. >>

A fact in science has been defined by Stephen Jay Gould as:

"…confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent…"

In that sense, evolution is a fact. A fact can also be defined as a "well-confirmed observation."

In that sense too, evolution is a fact.

A theory is higher than a mere “fact” since a theory is (from my articles here using various dictionary definitions):

…a model or framework for understanding, or an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be “proven true,” because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are abandoned altogether or slightly modified…

Or put another way: A scientific theory is above a mere hypothesis (i.e. John Paul II’s 1996 statement that evolution is “more than a hypothesis”) and includes, incorporates, unites, and explains observable facts and laws.

Using those definitions, evolution is both scientific fact and theory. And using those same definitions, creationism (of whatever form, including upper-case I.D.) is not fact (since it cannot be observed), is not hypothesis (since it cannot be tested), and is not a scientific theory (since it does not explain the observable data from paleontology, genetics, geology, biology, etc).

Junk << Evolution has not been empirically proven. >>

No theory in science is "proven." Raw data and observations are the “facts,” while theories in science explain and unite those facts. Only in mathematics and logic and alcohol are proofs.

Phil P

 

[mark_a]

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?

Its just too hard for me to figure out. I’m going to find a church with good fellowship and follow their teachings.

 

[SimpleFaith]

I think what so many of us are trying to say is that Evolution theory (most of it) is wholly compatible with our idea of creation. Adam and Eve were perhaps the first who were “fully human” and instilled with souls. They were the first humans created in God’s image.

When they were created, what particular date they came into “being,” isn’t a matter of faith or reason, but is almost irrelevant.

Am I missing something?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I’m not a scientist, by any means (I was an English Lit. major… ), so I’m not going to try and debate this issue from a scientific viewpoint. I agree with Atemi, though, that the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of evolution can be a confusing one, especially for children. Saying things like “Adam and Eve were real, but they were real in a poetic sense” isn’t really going to give a student a solid answer.

I remember years ago, when I was fully Protestant and not even considering the Catholic Church, I read that Pope John Paul II had said that evolution was compatible with the Christian faith. At the time I saw this as a sign that the Catholic Church had followed the liberal Protestant churches down the road of compromise with the world. I saw it as a confirmation that I was in the right place, in a church that believed the Bible was literally true, not something to be reinterpreted according to the latest fads in society.

As I’ve investigated the Catholic Church, however, I’ve become a bit more open-minded, and I’ve come to see that insisting on a literal six day Creation is not a requirement for true Christian faith. This is not necessarily to say that I’ve changed my views on the Creation, but it does mean I’m more accepting of those who disagree. And, perhaps the six days really are symbolic, and life really did evolve over millions of years. I’m not afraid to be wrong on this, and it’s certainly not something I lay awake at night worrying about.

That being said, I can see that this Catholic compromise between the Creation story in the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution can be confusing. It may very well be completely true and a perfectly acceptable way of looking at things, but it may prove troublesome for someone who is not yet strong in the faith. I can see how a confused Catholic high school student might see the extremes of atheistic evolution and Young Earth Creationism as both being preferable to the awkward Catholic position. It’s difficult to believe two seemingly contradictory things at the same time.

Like I said, I don’t know what the answer is on all of this, but I think the Catholic Church needs to figure out what its teaching is on this issue, and then it needs to make sure this teaching is reaching the whole Church.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

• National Academy of Science, 1999.
  The Rohocetus is an excellent example of an intermediate species. It’s an intermediate form between a whale and a land mammal:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/images/0919Whale.jpg

Read about it here:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html

How do they get its a walking whale, what if its just a cousin of a hippo. And why cant a whale have warm blood ? Maybe it needed warm blood so God made it that way?

However Im happy now if I have it correct Catholics believe Adam and Eve were real and the parents of all of us.

Id have to say at some point if one is going to believe God is who He says He is. That He created not only the earth but ourselves, the animals, plants, DNA, protons, electrons and the air we breathe. Then why is it so hard to understand the possibliity of 2 people starting civilization without help of monkeys.

 

[nerfherder]

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).

Scientists are aware that the vast majority of the world’s population shares a small genetic pool. That is not surprising, given the number of humans/humanoids in Earth during the early periods of human development.

Remember that the written history of humanity only goes back about 10,000 years.

I have found this whole discussion rather creepy: it has been bigoted, it has displayed amazing degrees of ignorance set up as valid theory or fact, it has focused on one or two individuals who were genuinely enquiring, there have been mad attacks on various statements, and a general lack of charity throughout.

It is exceptionally hard to grapple with ‘theories’ that are based on very little evidence in the areas of science, religion, anthropology, sociology, astronomy, archaeology, the development of human culture/civilisation and Biblical scholarship. All of these are basic to this discussion, but are largely absent from it. I am not being arrogant: I am pointing out the facts about this discussion as I perceive it.

There is a difference between those who believe in magic, in the same way that children believe in fairies and Santa Claus, and those who are less prone to believe in mysteries, miracles and divine interventions on a regular basis. That is probably the root cause of the angst in this debate.

I have written elsewhere:

I think there are indications that our souls developed over time - along with our brains. If we look at increasingly interesting evidence from archaeologists, we will find that gradually evolving humanoids learned to respect their dead - and hence took an effort to bury them. This would imply that they understood there was something special about individuals. They began to make burial objects, cave paintings about life and death. These events, and many others, indicate the soul, however defined (!) evolved along with those beings who are the earliest in our line, and perhaps even with Neanderthals who were humanoid, but died out after conflict with our kind (we started murderous conquest early!).

Several other points:

(1) recently scientists have noted that there is a lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Eintein’s theory of relativity, which leads them to conclude (without scientific proof, as in the case of black holes as well, but with evidence that proves their existence) that we live not just in an infinite and eternal universe, but in a system of infinite and eternal universes - a multiverse.

(2) Genesis 1 and 2 provide two differing stories of creation.

(3) Genesis 1 and 2 are archetypal examples of ‘creation myths’, those stories that every culture or civilisation develops to explain where it came from, where it is, where it is going, and how it got there. Sociologists, anthropologists, archaeologists are all familiar with such creation myths - these are not myths of your Jack and the Beanstock variety. They are important conceptualisations of beginnings. It is significant that by far the majority of creation myths include the idea of a godhead, a central organising force of some kind, with characteristics that often resemble values, beliefs, the natural environment of the people who recognise that godhead.

Do we really think that God stood up one day, from His golden throne in the sky, and said to the Jewish tribesmen (probably not too unlike the Afghani tribesmen and warlords we know today) HERE I AM. I AM YOUR GOD JEHOVAH! WORSHIP ME ONLY!? This is risible. As is the explicitly impossible Garden of Eden story.

(4) I and many others assume that the creation myths in Genesis (which are based on the Garden of Eden as allegory) reflect the early understandings of Jewish tribesmen/women, and particularly their life values. The first five books of the Bible are part of the creation myth, before we get into historical events written in later books when people had developed an orthography and something to write on/with.

(5) Finally, go Google Hubble photographs, for the gallery of photos that have come in from the Hubble telescope. Look at them, and then think for a few minutes about what you have seen, and whether this has changed your perception of creation, evolution, the nature of our God and the gift of His Son, our lives, your religion.

Are we talking about a little tiny God bound to an infinitely small Earth within the multiverse? Or are we talking about an awesome God of power and might and above all caritas, who is Divine Creator, before, during and after?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I so have a problem believing that God allowed souls to be passed to human/animal hybrids, especially when you consider how clearly beastiality was condemned in the Bible.

I’d agree. It is an unsatisfying part of the theory. However monogenesis, though not yet absolutely disproved, goes against the thrust of scientific discovery.
For monogenesis to be true there would have to have been a time when only a maximum of four alleles was present for each gene. That doesn’t seem at all likely.

 

[buffalo]

The point is, what I have suggested does not violate the theory of evolution, nor does it violate Church teaching that Adam and Eve were truly the first humans. So I have demonstrated that there is no necessary conflict between science and Church in this matter.

** DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **

Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

more…

 

[nerfherder]

I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful.

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

 

[buffalo]

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

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

 

[nerfherder]

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

Are you asking me this question after what I just posted!!??

In plain words, read my lips dear friend, NO. I cannot and will not. It is intellectually and spiritually impossible for me to believe in the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve by God.

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

Now if you would

(1) define supernatural or supranormal for me; and
(2) define divine for me

I might try to reflect again.

At the moment, all that I have known and believed my entire life, all that I have read recently on this matter, does not lead me to the same conclusion you have reached.

But that’s OK, no?

Jabulani

 

[buffalo]

Are you asking me this question after what I just posted!!??

In plain words, read my lips dear friend, NO. I cannot and will not. It is intellectually and spiritually impossible for me to believe in the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve by God.

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

Now if you would

(1) define supernatural or supranormal for me; and
(2) define divine for me

I might try to reflect again.

At the moment, all that I have known and believed my entire life, all that I have read recently on this matter, does not lead me to the same conclusion you have reached.

But that’s OK, no?

Jabulani

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.