Darwin and evolution

[cassini]

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.

Miguel, before you become a hardened theistic evolutionist - for this forum has half a dozen such indoctrinators following every evolution thread - consider Occam’s razor and give God ALL the credit for the existence of living things. If He has a choice, why not direct creation exactly as revealed in Genesis. That way every doctrine and dogma that has been passed down from the beginning has absolute clarity. Try to appease the theories of man and you end up with a perversion of both faith and science.

Don’t be afraid. Have some faith in the Fathers. Follow tradition and you will never be proven wrong. Let them say what they like. Do not base your faith on theories.

 

[headin_home]

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 ?

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Calling all christians—please tell me how this agrees with any possibility of human evolution.
Or is the bible a “fairy tale” ?.

 

[miguel]

Miguel, before you become a hardened theistic evolutionist - for this forum has half a dozen such indoctrinators following every evolution thread - consider Occam’s razor and give God ALL the credit for the existence of living things. If He has a choice, why not direct creation exactly as revealed in Genesis. That way every doctrine and dogma that has been passed down from the beginning has absolute clarity. Try to appease the theories of man and you end up with a perversion of both faith and science.

Don’t be afraid. Have some faith in the Fathers. Follow tradition and you will never be proven wrong. Let them say what they like. Do not base your faith on theories.

I do give God ALL the credit. That’s exactly what I mean when I say the Creed at Mass. Maybe you could explain why you think Genesis precludes God evolving his creation in the manner I stated.

 

[miguel]

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Calling all christians—please tell me how this agrees with any possibility of human evolution.
Or is the bible a “fairy tale” ?.

Define slime. Does Genesis state that slime is purely inanimate matter? What makes slime slimey?

 

[cassini]

I do give God ALL the credit. That’s exactly what I mean when I say the Creed at Mass. Maybe you could explain why you think Genesis precludes God evolving his creation in the manner I stated.

Miguel. Because of many things. 1) Every single Catholic, from the Apostles to the great Fathers, Doctors and Saints based their Catholic faith on a literal understanding of Genesis. 2) Because I do not believe Darwin had a better interpretation of the Scriptures than the whole Church for 1900 years and because I do not believe Catholicism was waiting for Darwin to show it how to interpret scriptures, and 3) because theistic evolutionism perverts the wealth of Catholic theology built up by the Fathers on the creation.

.www.alcazar.net/thirty_theses.pdf

 

[headin_home]

Define slime. Does Genesis state that slime is purely inanimate matter? What makes slime slimey?

So from the standpoint that man was composed from matter that was already available,perhaps it could be ascertained that man evolved materially from the earth but did not become alive until GOD breathed his spirit into him.
As a fairly new catholic convert, I am truly confused about the
church’s teaching on this critical subject.

 

[miguel]

Miguel. Because of many things. 1) Every single Catholic, from the Apostles to the great Fathers, Doctors and Saints based their Catholic faith on a literal understanding of Genesis. 2) Because I do not believe Darwin had a better interpretation of the Scriptures than the whole Church for 1900 years and because I do not believe Catholicism was waiting for Darwin to show it how to interpret scriptures, and 3) because theistic evolutionism perverts the wealth of Catholic theology built up by the Fathers on the creation.

.www.alcazar.net/thirty_theses.pdf

Again Cassini, why does a literal understanding of Genesis preclude God creating life in the manner I stated?

 

[miguel]

So from the standpoint that man was composed from matter that was already available,perhaps it could be ascertained that man evolved materially from the earth but did not become alive until GOD breathed his spirit into him.
As a fairly new catholic convert, I am truly confused about the
church’s teaching on this critical subject.

Welcome to the faith heading home. This Catholic Answers link is a good place to start…
catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

 

[Kscrawler]

Miguel. Because of many things. 1) Every single Catholic, from the Apostles to the great Fathers, Doctors and Saints based their Catholic faith on a literal understanding of Genesis. 2) Because I do not believe Darwin had a better interpretation of the Scriptures than the whole Church for 1900 years and because I do not believe Catholicism was waiting for Darwin to show it how to interpret scriptures, and 3) because theistic evolutionism perverts the wealth of Catholic theology built up by the Fathers on the creation.

.www.alcazar.net/thirty_theses.pdf

Below is a quote from St. Augustine that you should keep in mind. First of all because it shows that not all of the early fathers agreed with you, and secondly because it shows that a blind faith in ones ability to interpret scripture can harm the faith.

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

 

[Kscrawler]

Miguel. Because of many things. 1) Every single Catholic, from the Apostles to the great Fathers, Doctors and Saints based their Catholic faith on a literal understanding of Genesis. 2) Because I do not believe Darwin had a better interpretation of the Scriptures than the whole Church for 1900 years and because I do not believe Catholicism was waiting for Darwin to show it how to interpret scriptures, and 3) because theistic evolutionism perverts the wealth of Catholic theology built up by the Fathers on the creation.

.www.alcazar.net/thirty_theses.pdf

The first quote you made about every single Catholic based their faith on a literal understanding of Genesis is just wrong. See link below.

home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

 

[miguel]

Excellent quote Kscrawler. I also think the Dawkins types undermine their own position when they bring in all their athiest baggage. Do they want people to believe what they’re saying about the science? Or are they more interested in converting people to athiesm?

 

[Kscrawler]

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Calling all christians—please tell me how this agrees with any possibility of human evolution.
Or is the bible a “fairy tale” ?.

This is the exact verse I use to show how evolution and the Bible don’t conflict. First of all both evolutionary theory and the Bible say that man came from lower forms of life, in this case slime. So far no conflict.

Then the Bible says God formed man from this slime. But it doesn’t say how he did it, nor how long he took to do it. You can “form” sand into lightbulbs but you don’t go immediately from sand to light bulbs. The sand has to go through several stages before the “formation” is complete.

Literalists in my opinion subvert the Bible by interpreting it as if the words “spontaneously”, or “immediately” were part of the verse, but they aren’t…

There is no way to know how God “formed” man. Did he do it in a puff of smoke, or in a flash of lightning, or millions of years going from simple forms to more complex ones? The Bible doesn’t say. ’

So far I see no conflict between the Bible and evolution.

Now at some point the issue will come up of what a “day” means. And before we go down that road remember that the Bible does not use the word “day” because it was written in Hebrew not English, and uses the word "yom’, which is not required to be translated into a literal 24 hour day.

 

[miguel]

…Literalists in my opinion subvert the Bible by interpreting it as if the words “spontaneously”, or “immediately” were part of the verse, but they aren’t…

And ironically, when they do that, they’re not even being literal…if that’s the only interpretation they allow.

 

[Peccavi]

Darwin’s Origin of Species was followed shortly by Gregor Mendels work on genetics which supported Darwin’s claims. The Church has always accepted Mendel’s work and the later discovery of DNA after World War II. Those who seek to ‘know the mind of God’ in the question of creation will in the end be disappointed. God’s ‘mind’ is not open to human inspection. I prefer instead to comfort myself with the lines in an old hymn that…
" A thousand ages in Thy sight
are like an instant gone…"
The how of creation belongs to science; the why of creation to the philosopher and the theologian. It is best left that way.

 

[edwest2]

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

I strongly disagree. What the Church does reject is statements by people like Richard Dawkins, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” When he writes a book with the title, The God Delusion, what are people supposed to think?

To assign to the purely emotional a reaction to clearly atheist statements by scientists takes away from the fact that these scientists are using their standing as professionals to tell the public, God? What God? It’s a delusion.

Catholics, and all Christians, should be rightly concerned about atheism in science.

Change is not the issue. From the beginning, the Catholic Church has had teachings that she did not define or discuss further until they were challenged by heretics. Then, the Church would elaborate, not create something new.

In the United States, for the first time, atheists have a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. They are claiming that people have gotten too comfortable with religion and it’s “time to push back.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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

If you read Humani Generis carefully (1950), you will see the requirements laid out to study this subject carefully, and with arguements for and against.

Ancient insects trapped in amber could walk and fly and were fully functional. They were not on their way to becoming something else.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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 ?

The Church does not need to salvage its reputation anywhere. Please read this:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EEDA1E31F934A35754C0A9639C8B63

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Darwin’s Origin of Species was followed shortly by Gregor Mendels work on genetics which supported Darwin’s claims. The Church has always accepted Mendel’s work and the later discovery of DNA after World War II. Those who seek to ‘know the mind of God’ in the question of creation will in the end be disappointed. God’s ‘mind’ is not open to human inspection. I prefer instead to comfort myself with the lines in an old hymn that…
" A thousand ages in Thy sight
are like an instant gone…"
The how of creation belongs to science; the why of creation to the philosopher and the theologian. It is best left that way.

The old how/why arguement does not exist. See the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Why are humans the way we are? Our genes and only our genes. Random mutations and natural selections created your brain. Your genes are god, not god. That is the atheistic answer to why you are the way you are. It is false.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So from the standpoint that man was composed from matter that was already available,perhaps it could be ascertained that man evolved materially from the earth but did not become alive until GOD breathed his spirit into him.
As a fairly new catholic convert, I am truly confused about the
church’s teaching on this critical subject.

I hope this clears things up for you:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kscrawler]

I understand that some like to use the evolutionary process that has been extensively verified, as an example of undirected “mistakes” that resulted in human beings. I think they are wrong, not in believeing that the process exists, but in thinking it is all a process of mistaken unrelated events.

I believe like them that the process exists, but instead I believe that it is directed at the hand of God.

So philosophize as you will about the interpretation of they why of the process, that does not disprove the extreme likelihood that the process exists.