Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Aloysium]

Glark:

Therefore evolution is random.

Does Natural selection lead to species becoming better equipped to flourish in their environment or less well equipped or does it have no effect? Plainly it is the former. Therefore, despite mutations being random, the net net effect (the direction of the ensemble of changes after natural selection) is not random.

Natural selection is not the only mechanism.

These days it’s most likely you chose your spouse. In other cultures and times, parents might be the ones doing the choosing. Either way something other than whether offspring exist at all and what traits they will exhibit. In human beings, it is love of some sort, if not of the other themselves or compatibility, then it is of something they possess, be it moral character, good looks, personality, money, position, qualities like that that make life better for oneself. As part of our human nature we are bedevilled by neuroses, so sometimes the choice is the worst one possible, but I don’t want to get into psychobabble.

If one grants that everything in the universe is “alive”, or if if one doesn’t want to go that far, that animals have a soul that determines what they are, that they have an animal mind, a built-in instinctive way to perceive and react in the world, if we assume that animals are aware of what is of their species, then it would seem plausible that they too would seek out the most appropriate mate. Many birds do this; that’s what all the male plumage is about. Others are more promiscuous, and there it would be a matter of the fittest male with the fittest sperm. Where forced sexual encounters are the norm, you’d have bigger males. The traits and behaviour promote one another. Social animals exhibit considerable complexity in their mating behaviour, which will then determine the nature of their offspring. What we have done with dogs, takes place in nature, determined by the creature’s dreams.

The question then comes down to what is the source of those dreams, ours and other creatures with whom we share this earth. You have to go beyond the basic forces of nature and consider the existence of another level to the structure of the universe. I will leave the reader to consider that a mindless neurology cannot exist.

I fail to understand how life in all its diversity growing in complexity over time, can be attributed to the random activity, which would be self-generated by the relationships of matter at a molecular level. I would recommend the reader go to Africa, check out Tanzania’s National parks, witness the splendour of nature, the variety and vast number animals. God is clearly seen in the formation and in the transformation of genetic matter as He is in each living creature itself.

 

[Aloysium]

Joe1:

So out of this entire debate, is it safe to say that Catholics can accept Darwin’s theory, providing that God created evolution?

It is more nuanced than just accepting Darwin’s theory. Darwin began the study of evolution which has been modified and corrected over time as its been subjected to the scientific method. I think that many of the creationist fail to understand that science is self correcting so they view any change or correction as proof that evolution is bogus and only God could have been responsible for the change.

Evolution is taught in every Catholic college and university and you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic college that teaches creationism. While the Catholic Church does not say that creationism is bogus we can safely assume from their actions that it is pretty safe to say that the Catholic Church accepts evolution theory.

No, not as it stands.

Any evolutionary theory is restricted by the following revealed truths:

We are persons, each of us unique by virtue of our having a soul created by God, and not brought into being through any transformation of matter, Each and every one of us is descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Any theory that assumes the mutation of genetic material as that which differentiates human beings from apes, and/or holds to polygenism would be erroneous.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So we, as Catholics, cant say that we are descended from apes?

 

[Aloysium]

We are not. We are a new creation. Think mathematics, literature, art and music, what we are doing here right now, if not our capacity to do good and evil, to love and to know God. If the focus is on livers and lungs, skin and intestines, brains, kidneys, eyes and ears, if it is our bones that are believed to define mankind, that vision will lead the person astray. Think frames of reference actually, entering into space and time, creating past-present-future here and now, and being able to imagine ourselves anywhere and in any time. If one has spent time with animals one would know they don’t do that. To a cat, the library’s just a place to look for mice, the mysteries of the universe, to be discovered within the pages the room contains, are to be found within the sprit of the person stroking its head.

 

[edwest211]

The fact that it is taught doesn’t mean it’s true. There are no scientific applications for it, including drug discovery. There is no guide book based on it. The question is not “Is Darwin’s theory true,” it focuses on does it “contradict Catholicism.” or more precisely, Does it leave out critical information about who we are? Yes, it does. This is not about Creation versus Evolution but, is the theory consistent with the Catholic understanding of who are? It is not. As taught, by default it excludes God.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Why would God use evolution the when he can create something immediately?

Do you think you know or can deduce the mind of God in the matter of how he might choose to bring the universe into existence?

The idea of evolution comes from the mind of Man.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8

 

[rossum]

Any evolutionary theory is restricted by the following revealed truths:

We are persons, each of us unique by virtue of our having a soul created by God, and not brought into being through any transformation of matter

How is this a restriction on evolution? Evolution deals solely with matter (as does all of science). Souls do not fossilise; souls are not encoded into DNA; souls do not evolve. Evolution deals solely (sorry, couldn’t resist) with the non-soul part of a human being.

Each and every one of us is descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind.

Again, not a problem. There are many common ancestors for all living humans. Roughly half of them were male. Pick any one and call him “Adam”. We are all descended from that one Adam.

See ‘Most recent common ancestor’ of all living humans surprisingly recent. Any male ancestor of that MRCA will also be a common ancestor, though not the “most recent”. Similarly the wife/mate of any male common ancestor will also be a common ancestor. You have a great many options when looking for a couple from whom all modern humans are descended.

Any theory that assumes the mutation of genetic material as that which differentiates human beings from apes, and/or holds to polygenism would be erroneous.

Why? Souls have nothing at all to do with genetic material, or can you give me the DNA sequence which codes for a human soul? As I pointed out, you have a wide range of possibilities for Adam and Eve already present in standard biology.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

“… the non-soul part of a human being.” The question relates to Catholicism and about what evolution deals with which leaves out critical information about human beings.

 

[frobert]

The fact that it is taught doesn’t mean it’s true. There are no scientific applications for it, including drug discovery. There is no guide book based on it. The question is not “Is Darwin’s theory true,” it focuses on does it “contradict Catholicism.” or more precisely, Does it leave out critical information about who we are? Yes, it does. This is not about Creation versus Evolution but, is the theory consistent with the Catholic understanding of who are? It is not. As taught, by default it excludes God.

I think you are making much ado about nothing. My post was to demonstrate that the Catholic Church through their actions has no revelations or problems regarding evolution.

Pope invites scientists to the Vatican after church realises the big bang is real

The conference comes amid an increasing effort to tie religion and science together

www.independent.co.uk

Why not take direction from Pope Francis?

Pope Francis declared in 2014 for instance that God is not “a magician with a magic wand” and that evolution and Big Bang theory are real.

 

[edwest211]

The Church’s view is more nuanced but critical information is missing from your post.

"35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Humani Generis

 

[edwest211]

Cummunion and Stewardship

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

The last sentence is key.

 

[edwest211]

"In the book [in German], Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

 

[frobert]

““But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Can you name one scientist, in any field, that disagrees with Benedict?

I interpret that statement to mean “it’s ok to believe in creationism.” Pope Francis shortened the leash somewhat.

As I said “much ado about nothing”

 

[edwest211]

There wouldn’t be so many posts if this was about nothing. Ricard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) and Sam Harris ( author of an article titled Science Must Destroy Religion), are two that come to mind.

 

[Rau]

So we, as Catholics, cant say that we are descended from apes?

We are more than that. There is no catholic teaching pertaining merely to the origins of our biology - it’s means of coming to be.

Does it leave out critical information about who we are?

It does not and cannot address what is scientifically unknowable.This is no reason to condemn on principle what it can and does address.

 

[Rau]

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8

And yet just a few posts earlier, you claimed to know the mind of God sufficiently to declare how God would / would not have created the universe? At least be consistent.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8

And yet just a few posts earlier, you claimed to know the mind of God sufficiently to declare how God would / would not have created the universe? At least be consistent.

One can know some of the mind of God by reading the Bible.

 

[Techno2000]

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

10,000 generations have already passed in Nature , and we don’t see any transitional forms of animals becoming new species today.

 

[Aloysium]

There are many common ancestors for all living humans. Roughly half of them were male. Pick any one and call him “Adam”. We are all descended from that one Adam.

See ‘Most recent common ancestor’ of all living humans surprisingly recent. Any male ancestor of that MRCA will also be a common ancestor, though not the “most recent”. Similarly the wife/mate of any male common ancestor will also be a common ancestor. You have a great many options when looking for a couple from whom all modern humans are descended.

Souls have nothing at all to do with genetic material, or can you give me the DNA sequence which codes for a human soul? As I pointed out, you have a wide range of possibilities for Adam and Eve already present in standard biology.

It doesn’t work that way. You are still talking polygenism, and introducing bestiality. I’m not sure that’s going to fly, although the alternative is mating between members of the same family. But those were different times, as were the first three hundred thousand years of the universe. Along the same lines of your model and others that come to mind, the same sort of intervention that would have determined brain size in the moulding of the human body, and would have been accompanied by genetic changes, would continue to act resulting in a proliferation of diversity. The family dynamics would also have been very different. At that point we would have been brothers and sisters as we are today as members of one human family. Scripture states that people early on lived many hundreds of years, and presumably capable of procreation. Given the miracle of existence and everything that is in our human nature, I don’t think there is any assumption too wild not to be considered. To say that things have been as they are now is not any more likely than anything else.

I’m going to say something that may sound absurd in that matter is a form of being as we are. DNA molecules are complex organic cogs in a living cellular machinery that exists as itself, and participates in the wholeness that is the person. That wholeness in which the brain and every other component of the body unites under the authority of the human spirit as one. Right here and now, this monitor, the light emanating from it and travelling through space, striking the retina, messages passing through the optic nerve, connecting in the midbrain, radiating to the occipital lobe, parietal, temporal and frontal activity, directing attention, interpreting these symbols, emotions and ideas, a movement of the eyes and hand, all one - body and spirit in union with all that exists in relation to it.

Science having restricted its vision, cannot tell us much about ourselves. Its assumptions lead us astray. That said, having seen the Steady State Theory of the universe in text books growing up, I am confident that science will get closer to the truth.