Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with your statement is that by definition evolution is an undirected process. God would still be involved but only to the extent of sustaining the random events which directs evolution. If God somehow arranged the proper direction of evolution in order that man should inevitably evolve we no longer have evolution we have directed events under the quise of evolution from our perspective. Evolution as described by Darwinists is incompatible with Christianity definitionaly.
 
This is the wikipedia definition of evolution :
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations”
So “by definition” it says nothing about it being directed or not.
But lets assume you are saying that evolution assumes an undirected process.
I don’t see why God simply couldn’t have set the rules/laws of how evolution works, and let people evolve.
He still made the world, it does not change anything, since to God a second is as a century long.
Then God simply infuses humans with a soul.
That is the only part about creation we need to believe.
There is a difference between theistic evolution which we are allowed to believe (which is even written in the cathechism I believe ) and darwinism, which is an atheistic viewopint.
 
DetectiveNiko said:
This is the wikipedia definition of evolution :
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations”
So “by definition” it says nothing about it being directed or not.
But lets assume you are saying that evolution assumes an undirected process.
I don’t see why God simply couldn’t have set the rules/laws of how evolution works, and let people evolve.
He still made the world, it does not change anything, since to God a second is as a century long.
Then God simply infuses humans with a soul.
That is the only part about creation we need to believe.
There is a difference between theistic evolution which we are allowed to believe (which is even written in the cathechism I believe ) and darwinism, which is an atheistic viewopint.
Click to expand...
 
Human bodies without souls huh… Seems a little silly to me.

Btw, I’m not sold on heliocentrism so that “argument” doesn’t really work for me.

And I’m not using threat of force. I’m just saying they can explain their problems to the Creator. If you and they are right then you’ll have nothinf to worry about. If I’m right… Well then yeah, you should be worried.
 
Last edited:
Why would you dobut the earth revolves around the sun?

As for being worried, considering the church allows for evolution, I’d say there’s little to be worried about in context of church-following evolution.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Human bodies without souls huh… Seems a little silly to me.
Click to expand...
God formed Adam’s body. Then, after forming the body, He breathed a soul into it. In the time between the forming and the breathing there was a human body without a soul. Does it seem so silly now?

rossum
 
The definition used is rather simplistic and describes what evolution does not how it does it. Read further on current evolutionary theory. Try (evolution.berkley.edu). The primary mechanisims of evolution are naturally random (mutations). The secondary mechanisms work within this random process to direct an outcome (natural selection, survival of the fittest). Im saying the directed processes of Evolution are based on undirected random conditions if evolution is true. Ongoing experiments have shown that given an initial set of original conditions different outcomes may occur as to what creatures evolve. In other words it was by no means absolutely assured that man would evolve and evolutionarily speaking the directed processes that developed man by no means made him the fittest he could have been for the evolutionary niche he finds himself in primarily because of the undirected processes of evolution. You would have God setting arround waiting for a creature to evolve that he could infuse with a soul and commune with, one which apparently had only become just good enough yet could have been better given a measure of evolutionary fitness? I suppose this would be a possible scenario except that according to Catholic teahing God created all of existence at once which means the future developement of the creature called man would have to have been ensured by the created past in its simultaneous creation with the future rendering the past not random which the mechanisms of Evolution demand. Then you have to ask yourself…did he make the world or simply let it evolve as a home for life to evolve on given the initial set of conditions he established at the beginning? We are again left then with an actuator God not a Creator God. Either these events are not random at all as we see them from our perspective making them a “theistic evolution” which is another way of saying a stage set up by God for our benefit in explaining things and another bumbling attempt by the magisterium to rectify scientific thought with their lack of faith in God or they are random rendering an actuator God merely a spectator in how creation developed. Which do you believe?
 
Where is the Catholic teaching that God created everything “at once” ?
I also don’t believe theistic evolution is because of a lack of faith.
In fact I would say the opposite. Christians should be open to ideas from sciences because if we believe
our faith strongly, then we believe that science shouldn’t contradict it.
Our interpretation might, that is why the Church teaching on the validity of theistic evolution is just like the darwinian evolution from the athiests. Comfortable to believe, but not fully certain.
I think fundemantalism has potentiality to break our faith as much as the opposite.
This is why Catholic Answers forums exsist, so that we can talk about problems we have with certain views and try to explain them in the framework of our good God
 
Can someone tell me how we can rectify evolution with genesis’s description of the creation of man?
According to genesis God created evolutionarily advanced species and then created man not from them…presumably as an evolutionary developement, but from dirt. This would be an evolutionary monumental back pedalling and seem to violate its procosses as currently understood. How is it that a more advanced species can develope not from the advanced species already in existence but from premordial dirt ? If this dont violate evolution I dont know what would.
 
Because there are different ways and levels of taking the bible literally. There are different genres and this one is just a story. Different parts of the Bible hold different parts of truth. You dont go to a english dictionary to find good mathemathics. We must remember that the Bible is not 1 book written by God, but many books compiled into one by the authority of the Church, and the books themselves are divinely lead into some form of truth. If we took everything literally in Genesis you would also agree that the earth was created in a week, including all life on it. We got plenty evidence against this. And I would rather fit truth into my religion then not doubt anything and hold my beliefs no matter the objection. The Bible’s point is not to be a scientific book or something like that, its point is to show a story of salvation and guide us through it. The holy spirit helps us with this of course.
 
When I say lack of faith I mean that the leadership of the Church apparently feels the need to rush into explanation in order to justify their leadership resulting in answers that make a defense of the faith harder not easier when they should be patient and have faith in God. Just my opinion though. Of course my opinions is colored by my past experience and for that I apologize. One must realize that by their very natures faith and science cannot explicitely explain things to each other when dealing with those subjects outside their respective purviews, science dealing with the natural and faith the supernatural. It is true the one should not violate the other but only within their respective frames of reference. The churches rush to embrace evolution is merely an appeasement for the scientists among us without actually offering decent explanation of the connection between Gods creative act and evolutions seemingly undirected actions. Accepting anything as evolving in the traditional sense simply pushes God one step further removed from his creative action.
 
I’d say theres a lot to be worried about. Evolutionary theory pushes God further from the creative action. Labeling it directed evolution is merely an attempt at redefining evolution into something its not. The primary mechanisms of evolution are undirected random processes.
 
The church never explained theistic evolution if I am right, it only looked at evolution and said : "We don’t see a problem with this " and put in the catechism that you are not in heresy if you believe in it, as long as its not the materialistic approach. The Church also does not rush to embrace evolution , as I clearly said before, the church states that it is undecided on this term. ( The reason they had to say this is evident from this post, people are causing big fuss over it ). Accepting evolution has its problems, as does fundamentalism, like both need to explain why did animals die before the fall and such. Let’s not get into that though, as that is not related to this topic.
The question of the topic is does it contradict it ?
Answer : No
Does it give satisfying answers ?
Answer : Up to the person, for me it makes sense to be the truth from all the things we observe, but it stirs up quesitons for me. I can cope with it if it is the truth, and thats what matters, since that was the point of this thread.
I would agree with you though that it seems like we are pushing God one step further from creative action, but it only seems like it. The church still firmly stands that God created the world . Its not moving from that position any time soon.
 
Like I stated, the statements given by the magisterium only confuse the issues. If you dont get that out of you reply then I suggest you reread your reply. What is the materialistic approach with dealing with evolution? The church states it is undecided and yet says it doesn’t see a problem? Isnt that a decision? How does it not contradict it? Ive given examples of how it does.
 
Sorry, I am not the best at explaining my views. My bad if I was unclear.
When I say the Church is undecided I mean that the Church doesn’t claim to know the exact way God created the earth. He could have in many ways that we don’t know.
And when I say it doesn’t have a problem, I say that if somehow believers believe in evolution to be true,they are not in heresy and its their own free belief.
If you look at today’s atheism, a lot of it is caused because they claim that the church is against science and evolution and bla bla bla.
The statement that the church made above, (the one where it says there is nothing immidiately contradictory) claims that the church is not against it. It just not putting its faith into evolution like some atheists who believe it to be a 100 % truth.
We are running in circles now so I think its good to stop our conversation. In essence I think we both agree that the theory of evolution can cast some doubt on our faith, we just disagree on wether or not it should be allowed as a belief. God bless 😉
 
DetectiveNiko said:
If you look at today’s atheism, a lot of it is caused because they claim that the church is against science and evolution and bla bla bla.
Click to expand...
I think some Christians are also to blame such as those who claim that the theory of Evolution does conflict with the faith. They themselves present a cause for doubt among Christians and provide a weapon for atheists to wield.
 
IWantGod said:
I think some Christians are also to blame such as those who claim that the theory of Evolution does conflict with the faith. They themselves present a cause for doubt among Christians and provide a weapon for atheists to wield.
Click to expand...
I would also agree with that.
 
Genesis is not merely a story. It is a mythologized explanation of the creative act. However myth is based in truth and there are certain aspects to a myth that can be taken to be true. One aspect is chronology. Whatever the literalness of the acts taking place the chronology of these acts is literal or else the “mythological story” breaks down. In this case man definitely was created from something other than the advanced life forms then in existence. Another aspect is the mythologized objects used to tell the story. They must relate in some fasion to the truth they’ve mythologized. For instance it was said creation took place in six so called days. We may conclude then that time was involved in some fasion with the creation. One event took place before or after another event within time. Another is the complexity of the objects described. An earth with life forms is more complex than one without. An animal capable of flying or swimming is more complex than premordial dirt. The point of the myth not being to describe the exact nature of the complexity but the relationship of the more complex with the less. In other words though we may take genesis to be a mythologized story of creation we may understand certain truths from this mythologization. One is that man was created after complex life forms had already developed another was that man was created from less complex stuff than these other life forms.
 
I think deciding which parts should be taken literally and which should be taken metaphorically should be left to church teaching.
Some of the current ones are : God created the earth
We humans suffer from consequences of original sin
Adam and Eve were real
and there are more. I don’t think we should fall into the trap of twisting scripture to fit our theology.
We should base our theology off scripture , and that is what the church has done through all of the years.
The parts that it is not sure about are talked over. Jesus told us that he will lead us into the truth, and that we can’t bare everything at once. But yeah , this will be my last post here as I didnt come to debate, I just came to respond that yes, we can believe in evolution. Wether we should ? Its up to the person to decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top