Darwin and evolution

[edwest2]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, if we could rewind the process of evolution, things would not have turned out the same. Different random mutations, different results. There is no room for God in that. None.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JReducation]

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.

You have not offended me at all. You have hit the nail on the head. The Church has been very cautious because of the atheistic baggage that came with it and because some atheists used this as a soap box to deny the existence of the Creator.

Today, when we have more diversity among scientists, it is probably safer for the Church to enter the dialogue. I mean more diversity in the sense that many of these scientists are believers in God.

There is the change that I’m pointing to. The apprehension is less today than it was in the past. It does not mean that there is not apprehension. There should always be some measure of apprehension.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[headin_home]

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.

Not to be argumentative, but are you saying that GOD breathed
the breath of life ( it seems that this would have to be an immediate action,whenever it occured) in the face of the ape and the ape became a living soul and then years later, over time, evolved into a man. Does this mean that the ape was made in the image of GOD ( body,spirit and soul) ?

I agree that GOD is not restricted by time for he exists in a completely different realm than we do. He has no beginning and no ending—He is eternity.
His ways are so much higher than our ways.
Is it possible that the “Big bang theory” is when GOD the Word
said "Let there be Light and BANG “Light was”
which fulfills John’s Gospel saying that all things that were created were created through the WORD which was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Also,GOD clearly says that before man became a living soul,GOD
breathed the breath of life in his face. This would conclude that
after being formed from the substances of the earth, no matter how long that process took, life became instantaneous at the moment of breath.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by JReducation
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.

Are you a new catholic? I have never known the Church not speak about evolution or welcome scientists. The Church has always been involved with the sciences so maybe that is why I don’t see any real change.

 

[JReducation]

Are you a new catholic? I have never known the Church not speak about evolution or welcome scientists. The Church has always been involved with the sciences so maybe that is why I don’t see any real change.

I’m not a new Catholic. In fact, I’ve been a Franciscan since 1969.

When I’m saying change, I’m speaking specifically about this topic. The Vatican’s Center for Culture has not been directly involved in this topic until recent years.

There have always been Catholics involved in science. One thing is Catholics invovled in science and another is the Apostolic See’s involvement. There is the difference.

In fact the Center for Culture is a recent development in the Church as is the Vatican’s research lab.

This was work usually done by religious orders such as Benedictines, Franciscans and Dominicans.

I hope that’s clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[miguel]

…There is the change that I’m pointing to. The apprehension is less today than it was in the past. It does not mean that there is not apprehension. There should always be some measure of apprehension.

As long as God keeps making folks like Richard Dawkins, the apprehension will continue.

 

[JReducation]

As long as God keeps making folks like Richard Dawkins, the apprehension will continue.

I’m not sure the word is apprehension or caution. Caution is always prudent.

JR

 

[miguel]

Miguel, before you become a hardened theistic evolutionist…

If anything, I’m a hardened non-committal. As I’ve stated, I’m not trained in biology and not competent to say evolution is true or false. If you want to believe that God created all life with one, big, “Let there be”, you are free as a Catholic to do so. God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, is perfectly capable of doing it that way, and that position is not in conflict with Genesis. But neither are those in conflict with Genesis who think the evidence of science points to God evolving his creation.

 

[JReducation]

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.

If the Holy Father encourages the scientific search, what do we have to fear?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Kscrawler]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, if we could rewind the process of evolution, things would not have turned out the same. Different random mutations, different results. There is no room for God in that. None.

Peace,
Ed

I understand that atheists use evolution to try and prove that there is no God. If they were to use gravity to prove that there were no God would that mean that gravity does not exist.

Evolution will stand on it’s own not withstanding what the adherents or propronents of atheism have to say to try claim evolution to support their case.

 

[JReducation]

I understand that atheists use evolution to try and prove that there is no God. If they were to use gravity to prove that there were no God would that mean that gravity does not exist.

Evolution will stand on it’s own not withstanding what the adherents or propronents of atheism have to say to try claim evolution to support their case.

This is probably the reason why the Vatican is moving past the atheist and joining in the search.

In a sense, I think that this is also very American. We have a tendency to be very parochial. If it did not come from us, it’s not good enough. We tend to bond things that should not be bonded.

I’m reminded of how we condemned socialism in this country, often forgetting that religious life is a form of socialism and pre-dates modern socialism. Benedict was far from an atheist.

Now we want to throw out the study of evolution, because some of its proponents are not believers, forgetting that Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and others raised these questions through out the history of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[RobbyS]

This is probably the reason why the Vatican is moving past the atheist and joining in the search.

In a sense, I think that this is also very American. We have a tendency to be very parochial. If it did not come from us, it’s not good enough. We tend to bond things that should not be bonded.

I’m reminded of how we condemned socialism in this country, often forgetting that religious life is a form of socialism and pre-dates modern socialism. Benedict was far from an atheist.

Now we want to throw out the study of evolution, because some of its proponents are not believers, forgetting that Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and others raised these questions through out the history of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

No religious life is not a form of socialism. Communitarian living is not nessarily socialist. Socialism has a very specific historical meaning, since it refers to an ideology that appeared after the French Revolution, and was expliclitly anti-Christian.
Historians marks its beginning in French Revolution, with leaders of the Sans-cullotes or working stiffs, but it was only after the Restoration that the name socialism was coined. In some respects is was like freemasony, and was first organized more or less as an quasi-religious sect. The earliest socialists are now called utopian socialists, since the different leaders dreamed up prefect societies to replace the existing one. In an odd way, they were more like the Mormons led by Joseph Smith. Then came the Revolutionof 1848, and they morphed into more political bodies. Marx’s Communist manifesto took a new tact, since he was a sociologist and he set out to produce a scientific analysis of society based on anequal distibution of the goods of society. The result was Das Kapital, which became the basis of a new revolutionary movement based on its ideas.

 

[JReducation]

No religious life is not a form of socialism. Communitarian living is not nessarily socialist. Socialism has a very specific historical meaning, since it refers to an ideology that appeared after the French Revolution, and was expliclitly anti-Christian.
Historians marks its beginning in French Revolution, with leaders of the Sans-cullotes or working stiffs, but it was only after the Restoration that the name socialism was coined. In some respects is was like freemasony, and was first organized more or less as an quasi-religious sect. The earliest socialists are now called utopian socialists, since the different leaders dreamed up prefect societies to replace the existing one. In an odd way, they were more like the Mormons led by Joseph Smith. Then came the Revolutionof 1848, and they morphed into more political bodies. Marx’s Communist manifesto took a new tact, since he was a sociologist and he set out to produce a scientific analysis of society based on anequal distibution of the goods of society. The result was Das Kapital, which became the basis of a new revolutionary movement based on its ideas.

If you asked the Benedictines, they would disagree with you. They would tell you that although Benedict never heard of the term “socialism” his idea of a “city on a hill” where all things were shared in common and there was a equal distribution of material goods, a very strict centralized government, and a strong sense of the good of the whole comes from them. There is no denial that these concepts were also found in later forms of socialism that were far from Christian and that the term “socialism” was born later on.

However, the concept of the common good, the sharing of material resources according to the needs of the individual were present in the early Benedictine rule and monasteries. Monasteries were founded not as religious houses the way that we know them today, but as entire communities with laity and monks all connected by the Abbot who had full authority over the community for life. The government of the community took place in what was called a chapter, which was a meeting where common issues, plans and needs were discussed, but the monks had no vote in their implementation. The only vote they had was in the election of the abbot and his council.

To this day, the Benedictines maintain the same ideal. That’s why they do not make a vow of poverty. They make two vows: obedience and stability. The abbey can be very wealthy and very powerful, but the individual is neither wealthy nor powerful. He can only own what the Abbot allows him to have and has only as much voice as the Abbot allows him to have. Abbots are still elected for life. Monks are still bound to their monasteries for life. They do not transfer or leave their monastery to join another unless they are sent by the abbot to a new foundation. Each foundation is an autonomous society.

The difference between Benedictine societies and the later forms of socialism is the Gospel. Benedictine societies were built up to live the gospel through an inense life of prayer and work for the common good. Where as later forms of socialism excluded any form of religion, even though they had many elements that they unkowingly took from ancient monastic thought.

A good example is the difference between the Benedictines and say the Franciscans or the Dominicans. While the Franciscans and Dominicans have always had a democratic form of government, the Benedictines never have and probably never will. It’s not in their rule. While the Franciscans and Dominicans introduced into the Church the concept of communual poverty where the community owns nothing, but everything is owned by the Church or the local diocese, with some exceptions, the Benedictines have always been exempt from that. They own their properties and their profits are for the maintenance and sustenance of the community. While Franciscans and Dominicans are itinerant, Benedictines are stable. Trappists, Carthusians, Cistercians and other branches of the Benedictine family do not enjoy the freedom of movement that the mendicants do.

What you’re saying is true in the sense of secular socialism. It has its birth in the 1700s. The term socialism is coined later. But the concepts and practices are older and rooted in deep Christian mysticism.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[StAnastasia]

The key word is THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is not fact.

You need to understand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Theories don’t become facts; they explain facts. Evolution is a fact; one theory that explains it is natural selection of genetic variation. That things fall down is a fact; the theory that explains it best is gravity.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

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 ?

I’m heading off to participate in that conference in two weeks, where YEC and ID will be discussed as cultural phenomena.

For the record, Roman Catholic schools and universities routinely teach evolutionary biology; I don’t know any that teach “creationism” in the anti-evolutionary, Young Earth sense. I have numerous friend who are both evolutionary biologists and Catholic priests, and who sense not the slightest contradiction in this at all.

StAnastasia

 

[JReducation]

I’m heading off to participate in that conference in two weeks, where YEC and ID will be discussed as cultural phenomena.

For the record, Roman Catholic schools and universities routinely teach evolutionary biology; I don’t know any that teach “creationism” in the anti-evolutionary, Young Earth sense. I have numerous friend who are both evolutionary biologists and Catholic priests, and who sense not the slightest contradiction in this at all.

StAnastasia

I’m an educator, but not a scientist. My field is Mystical Theology. But from Mystical Theology we can gleam that Creation is the gift that the Father gives to the Son. The most noble of that gift is man.

If we extrapolate from this theological concept, we can accept that the gift that the Father gives to the Son is complex in its simplicity. Therefore, the Biblical narrative and the biological explanation can be complimentary. While the Scriptures reflect the grandeur of the Creator, his love for his Son and the simplicity of the created before God’s majesty, the natural sciences help us better understand awesome power of God by showing us how the created is no simple magical product, but a complex system that continuse to evolve toward the perfection that God called it to be.

This is what Pope Benedict often refers to when he says that we must use faith and reason together to better understand truth.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[gam197]

originally posted by STAnastasia
You need to understand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Theories don’t become facts; they explain facts. Evolution is a fact; one theory that explains it is natural selection of genetic variation. That things fall down is a fact; the theory that explains it best is gravity.

Theory explain facts but evolution is not fact. Some pieces of the theory are fact but the rest is unknown and probably will remain unknown for many years to come or forever. That is G-d’s world.

No one is having a problem with any scientists seeking out an explanation and would welcome research. This research has been going on and will go on but there are major gaps and flaws in fossil/skull formation. No one knows the complete answer.

I think that is why the church has stressed the distinction between micro and macro evolution to make it clearer in the believer’s mind since so many catholics are involved in the sciences.

The church has repeated the words adaption and natural selection
showing all catholics that they can understand the words in the discussions.

originally posted by JReducation
This is what Pope Benedict often refers to when he says that we must use faith and reason together to better understand truth.

Hasn’t the Catholic Church understood and clarified since Aquinas that faith and reason go together. I think it was during the “enlightenment” that scholars made it seem that the religious did not understand or use reason. It was just a lie to demean catholic authority.

 

[cassini]

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

Because the literal meaning of Genesis reveals an immediate creation over six days, 6000 years ago. How could there be a six day evolution of all flora and fauna?

 

[cassini]

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.

]

Funny, isn’t it, the Copernicans used that same passage to try to defend their heresy. Please do not use the words of a Father that can contradict the beliefs and writings of that same Father. St Augustine believed in IMMEDIATE creation, that is all in one day whereas the rest believed in a six-day creation. Exactly what absurdities St Augusting was addressing he does not say but it certainly was not aimed at the doctrine of creation. Perhaps flat-earthers (the Bible states the earth is a globe), turtle rests for the earth or something like that.

 

[cassini]

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

Then let me reword this, no Father ever suggested an evolution of created things. All that seem to be disputed is the word Day. That said 99.9% were six day interpreters. None were 15, 000,000,000 years merchants.