Darwin and evolution

[Peccavi]

Writing in London The Times on Monday, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, said: “Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They are partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, a truth that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.”
He describes Darwin’s theory of evolution as “one of the greatest discoveries of all time” and said it was a “mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook”.
He rejects ‘creationism’ as a valid explanation of the origins of man.
While I agree with the Cardinal what do other Catholics think ?

 

[JReducation]

Writing in London The Times on Monday, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, said: “Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They are partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, a truth that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.”
He describes Darwin’s theory of evolution as “one of the greatest discoveries of all time” and said it was a “mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook”.
He rejects ‘creationism’ as a valid explanation of the origins of man.
While I agree with the Cardinal what do other Catholics think ?

I don’t know if the Cardinal used the word “reject”. He certainly understands that the creation story in Genesis has more depth to it than we give it credit. And it is not a scientific exposition on the how of creation, but on the who and why. Therefore, Darwin’s work kicked off some of the most exciting work on the how of creation that has ever been done. The Church can share in Darwin’s work. It does not mean that every scientist is going to get the same results as Darwin. But it means that Darwin got the ball rolling on this, just as Freud got the ball rolling in psychiatry and psychology, even though some of his theories are rejected today. That does not take away from their contribution to science and to the Church’s understanding of man.

John Pau II and Pope Benedict XVI have been saying this for years. There is nothing new here. It’s just more formal. That’s all.

JR

 

[miguel]

…He rejects ‘creationism’ as a valid explanation of the origins of man.

Some of the profanum vulgus reading this tidbit might take it to mean the Cardinal rejects the Creed where it says “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen…” I highly doubt it.

 

[JReducation]

Some of the profanum vulgus reading this tidbit might take it to mean the Cardinal rejects the Creed where it says “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen…” I highly doubt it.

I agree with Miguel. From what I read the Cardinal does not reject God as Creator. He simply restates what Caridnal Ratzinger once wrote about evolution and the bible. They can be complimentary.

I’m wondering if this intense reaction that many people have on this subject is more a fear of the Church using new language to explain old truths. If that’s the case, the problem is not with the Church. The problem is with the fear.

JR

 

[miguel]

I agree with Miguel. From what I read the Cardinal does not reject God as Creator. He simply restates what Caridnal Ratzinger once wrote about evolution and the bible. They can be complimentary.

I’m wondering if this intense reaction that many people have on this subject is more a fear of the Church using new language to explain old truths. If that’s the case, the problem is not with the Church. The problem is with the fear.

JR

As the Cardinal said, “Science and religion…are partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, a truth that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.” Contrary to what the Dawkins types are pushing, evolution does not disprove the existence of God in any way, shape, or form. I would only have a problem with evolution if it wasn’t true. And I’m not qualified to judge that. I think part of the reason it’s been a hard sell with non-experts in some quarters is because it seems to run contrary to what we all see at the street level. We don’t see cats giving birth to puppies. I think another reason it’s been a hard sell is the whole reliance on natural selection (chance). Are the sensory systems we have as humans (vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste) there by chance? I highly doubt it. There’s an obvious purpose to them. I also think the intense reaction in part has to do with athiestic philosophy posing as science.

 

[JReducation]

As the Cardinal said, “Science and religion…are partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, a truth that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.” Contrary to what the Dawkins types are pushing, evolution does not disprove the existence of God in any way, shape, or form. I would only have a problem with evolution if it wasn’t true. And I’m not qualified to judge that. I think part of the reason it’s been a hard sell with non-experts in some quarters is because it seems to run contrary to what we all see at the street level. We don’t see cats giving birth to puppies. I think another reason it’s been a hard sell is the whole reliance on natural selection (chance). Are the sensory systems we have as humans (vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste) there by chance? I highly doubt it. There’s an obvious purpose to them. I also think the intense reaction in part has to do with athiestic philosophy posing as science.

Miguel, I believe that what you are saying is accurate. I would still add to that the fact that many Christians, Catholics and others, are so afraid of new language that they act as if the language of the Church had never changed in 2000 years. When they hear new ways of expressing old truths, such as “the journey of a mystery that unfolds” they think that the Church is teaching something new or pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Some human beings do not like change and they rather find reasons and faults instead of simply admitting that they do not feel comfortable with change, as if being uncomfortable with change were a bad thing to admit. The reality is that most of us are uncomfortable with change. We are creatures of habit.

Even in the language of evolution, many of the terms have remained, but no longer have the same meaning. Today, natural selection has a much more sophisticated and complex meaning than when it was first used. The word chance does too. It does not mean the same in biological circles as it does in Webster’s dictionary.

That’s another problem that people have with science and theology working together. For the scientist and the theologian to work together they have to develop a common language with common jargon. This sounds strange to people and they are often threatened by words they do not understand. But they often fail to ask what it means. Instead, they prefer to feel uncomfortable or angry.

Human beings can complicate their lives more than they have to.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[gam197]

originally posted by JReducation
Some human beings do not like change and they rather find reasons and faults instead of simply admitting that they do not feel comfortable with change, as if being uncomfortable with change were a bad thing to admit. The reality is that most of us are uncomfortable with change. We are creatures of habit…

This sounds strange to people and they are often threatened by words they do not understand. But they often fail to ask what it means. Instead, they prefer to feel uncomfortable or angry.

The key word is THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is not fact. Church can and does make statements regularly but to accept the theory of evolution as G-D given fact when only G-d knows the mystery of life and hasn’t revealed it completely to us is wrong.

Many Catholic Scholars see a problem with evolutionary leaps or gaps in macro evolution.

(There are many catholics tapes, one is The Case Against Evolution by Wallace Johnson who documents these gaps in the fossils.)

 

[JReducation]

The key word is THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is not fact. Church can and does make statements regularly but to accept the theory of evolution as G-D given fact when only G-d knows the mystery of life and hasn’t revealed it completely to us is wrong.

Many Catholic Scholars see a problem with evolutionary leaps or gaps in macro evolution.

(There are many catholics tapes, one is The Case Against Evolution by Wallace Johnson who documents these gaps in the fossils.)

I believe the popes from the 1950s to today have accepted evolution as a fact, is because it is observable. How things evolve is still open to many hypotheses. There is not question as to whether there is a biological evolution.

Long before Darwin wrote his famous work on the evolution of the species, the Franciscan Friars were working on Intelligent Design theories in the early 1800s. During the mid 20th century Frater Maximilian Kolbe, also a Franciscan, wrote on evolution and corrected the atheistic proposal of random causality, but left the concept of evolution in his work as a scientist.

Franciscans and Dominicans had introduced the concept of evolution beginning with Thomas Aquinas (Dominican) and John Duns Scotus (Franciscan). Neither of them knew the word evolution. But their explanation of the development of nature fit well into the theory of evolution with God as the source of all creation and its ultimate end.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by JReducation**
I believe the popes from the 1950s to today have accepted evolution as a fact, is because it is observable.

Not true. Please document evidence from papal documents.

Again Evolution is a “THEORY” and the Church discusses it as such.

 

[JReducation]

Not true. Please document evidence from papal documents.

Again Evolution is a “THEORY” and the Church discusses it as such.

Relax. I’m not saying that it is a dogma. I’m using the word fact to mean as a reality. This does not mean that the Church knows how this whole thing works any more than scientists do.

Here is an example of what Pope Benedict had to say on this topic.

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences_en.html

Fraternally,

JR

 

[gam197]

Here is an example of what Pope Benedict had to say on this topic.

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

vatican.va/holy_father/be…iences_en.html

Popes always speak about evolution but it means very little. The Church’s stance on evolution hasn’t changed.

 

[JReducation]

Popes always speak about evolution but it means very little. The Church’s stance on evolution hasn’t changed.

It has in a way, because the Church is now willing to consider the prospect that the study of evolution and the study of scripture are not in conflict with each other. Never before had the Church allowed its Office for Science and Culture to host such a topic. This time it did and not only that, but the Holy Father went to the opening meeting to welcome the scientists. That’s where that quote I posted came from. This reflects a change of attitude. The Pope himself is interested in knowing more about the different theories. I don’t think it’s just academic curiosity. I believe this is part of his on-going mantra about the unity between faith and reason.

The entire talk is on the Vatican website. The Pope is very encouraging of the scientists. He makes reference to Aquinas’ already having thought about this.

Those who studied Aquinas’ writings on this subject can see the traces of Augustine’s thoughts in it. Those who know Franciscan metaphysics can hear it in Pope Benedict’s wording. It’s very much from St. Bonaventure and Bl. John Duns Scotus. Both of them were encouraged the papacy to rethink the creation of the universe in metaphysical terms back in the 13th century and later Franciscans and Dominicans did so as well. The famous Franciscan scientist, mathematician and martyr, Maximilian Kolbe also encouraged openness to the theory and a Catholic participation in the study to ensure that it would not go astray into atheism.

The Franciscans and the Dominicans have been the biggest promoters of this study for centuries and continue to be so. They have exerted a great deal of effort in putting the question about the metaphysical creation of the universe in a language that the papacy can live with and see that such a theory is not contrary to the faith of the Church.

Pope Benedict, being a scholar on Augustinian and Franciscan theology and philosophy is probably very familiar with their thoughts and being a rationalist (my term) is probably very interested in seeing how the theories and the scriptures can compliment each other. His writings, sermons and speeches are filled with Franciscan and Augustinian thinking, much more so than Thomistic thinking. There is nothing wrong with Thomas. It’s just that it has been a long time since we had a pope who was not a pure Thomist.

Even the Pope’s theme of unity is very Benedictine, rather than Thomist. Benedict was a stronger and clearer thinker on that subject. He also dedicated more time to it as did Augustine.

I would encourage those who have not done so, to read his talk to the scientific meeting in the Vatican and then read the Summa of St. Bonaventure and the Five Steps of Aquinas, which he borrows from Augustine. The parallels are remarkable. No pope has ever done this before, that I know of. I could be wrong.

This is a change from the past when popes would not even entertain the possibility of evolution and God being reconcileable.

I’m very impressed by this Pope. His is far more interesting than people thought he would be and seems to be full of surprises. He’s neither liberal nor staunchly conservative. He is really an academician and a pastor. He is passionate about both the Church and academics.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Peccavi]

It is true Pope Puis XII said in 1950 that evolution was a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. However further to that , Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that it was “****more than a hypothesis”. This year the Church will hold a Conference on Evolution at the Pontifical Gregorian University on 3 to 7 March. At a press conference last September to announce the event it was said that supporters of creationism and its alter-ego, intelligent design (ID), would not be invited. Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc of the Gregorian University said at the time that arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level”.
However, pressure from the US has led to creationism being included, though in advance Catholic scientists, philosophers and theologians have made it known they consider the idea pseudoscience and theosophical nonsense.
If, as looks like being the case, the Church, having accepted Galilleo, now accepts Darwin, then Catholic Schools will teach evolution and not creationism. This, I believe, will salvage their excellent reputation in Europe and Africa and Asia. Will it have the same effect in North America ?

 

[CGDouglas]

I thought I’d post a link of the story from the Diocese of Westminster:

rcdow.org.uk/cardinal/default.asp?library_ref=&content_ref=2174

Also from ‘The Times’:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5689367.ece

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[miguel]

Relax. I’m not saying that it is a dogma. I’m using the word fact to mean as a reality. This does not mean that the Church knows how this whole thing works any more than scientists do.

Here is an example of what Pope Benedict had to say on this topic.

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences_en.html

Fraternally,

JR

Thanks JR for the quote and the link.

 

[miguel]

It has in a way, because the Church is now willing to consider the prospect that the study of evolution and the study of scripture are not in conflict with each other. Never before had the Church allowed its Office for Science and Culture to host such a topic. This time it did and not only that, but the Holy Father went to the opening meeting to welcome the scientists. That’s where that quote I posted came from. This reflects a change of attitude…

From your link, Pope Benedict points out “My predecessors Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II noted that there is no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences.”

All I can say JR, is it doesn’t reflect much change in my personal attitude. As a Catholic, you have to be able to reconcile these things. As an engineer, I’m familiar with the laws of physics. The God who gave us the one true faith, is the same God who gave us the laws of nature. This insight may be profound. But I don’t necessarily think it’s unique to John Paul II, me, or any other person with faith. These kinds of thoughts were in my head way before I knew John Paul II had stated them. To me it seems kind of obvious. And if that’s true in my case, I have to wonder if it didn’t dawn on some of the Popes before Pius XII or John Paul II. You may be right. I don’t know. But you also pointed out the thinking in the Church along these lines going back to Augustine. So I just don’t know if I agree that it’s a change in attitude. The fact that the Church is only now hosting a topic on evolution could also be indicative of its caution, given all the athiestic baggage. I hope I haven’t offended you. And please feel free to correct my lack of knowledge of Church history with respect to the relationship between the Popes and evolution or science in general.

 

[cassini]

Writing in London The Times on Monday, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, said: “Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They are partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, a truth that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.”
He describes Darwin’s theory of evolution as “one of the greatest discoveries of all time” and said it was a “mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook”.
He rejects ‘creationism’ as a valid explanation of the origins of man.
While I agree with the Cardinal what do other Catholics think ?

Darwinian evolution suggested it was/is purposeless and that we are the wholly unintended and unforseen consequence of natural selection acting on chance mutations. How in God’s name can such a theory be compatible with Catholicism?

 

[Kscrawler]

Darwinian evolution suggested it was/is purposeless and that we are the wholly unintended and unforseen consequence of natural selection acting on chance mutations. How in God’s name can such a theory be compatible with Catholicism?

Just because Darwin and other like him cannot see God’s hand in macro evolution does not mean that it is not there, nor does it mean that God does not use macro evolution to advance his plan.

 

[miguel]

Darwinian evolution suggested it was/is purposeless and that we are the wholly unintended and unforseen consequence of natural selection acting on chance mutations. How in God’s name can such a theory be compatible with Catholicism?

I don’t think blind chance is compatible with Catholicism either. But God could have started small with the amoeba (or whatever organism was first on the tree of life) and guided development of each new species, tweaking the DNA bit by bit to fill out the tree of life. He could have evolved his creation that way.

 

[cassini]

Just because Darwin and other like him cannot see God’s hand in macro evolution does not mean that it is not there, nor does it mean that God does not use macro evolution to advance his plan.

Evolutionism is an absurdity. Cardinal O’Connor’s thesis is that God’s hand guided this absurdity. God doesn’t do absurdities. Do you think ‘science’ has any place for the ‘hand of God’ to make it happen? What theistic-evolutionism is is an insult to both Catholic faith and science.