Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Try it some time. You might be surprised.

I have asked a few preists:
My late uncle was a priest - clueless.
The parish priest in my home town - clueless.
The parish priest I have now - clueless.

Well, I guess that proves that all priests are clueless…

For the majority of priests, I would imagine evolution and how to fit it
into Scripture are the furtherest things from their minds.

I would imagine that a priest ordained within the past 10-20 years might have more knowledge of it than you’re presuming. (Like you, though, I’m just guessing.)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The development of the complex eye has often been cited as a reason evolution could not be possible. The eye is just too complicated. Nilsson and Pelger did a computer experiment. Starting with a few light sensitive cells, and changing just one element (avoiding Haldane’s problem–changing multiple factors at once) of the cells by 1/200 of a percent each generation (a year in this experiment), they were able to create a complex camera-type eye in 364,000 generations. In the real world, small fish were able to make the same changes in less than half a million years–a tiny fraction of the time in the experiment. Could a complex eye evolve? Easily and quickly.

Intelligent design? If you assume intelligent design, you assume that the actual design of the anatomy of animals is “intelligent”–efficient. The best way to do a certain function. A fish has two gills; each gill has its own artery and nerve. These continue lengthwise down the fish. So far, very efficient. Great design! In humans, one of these nerves has evolved into the laryngeal nerve, which controls the voice box and speech. This nerve begins in the head, goes down to the chest (just like a fish…) and then loops back to the voice box. In other words, the nerve travels several feet to end up a few inches from where it started. Efficient? No.

Or another example. Cephalopods (octopus, squid) have an eye similar to mammals, but all the nerves, arteries, and blood vessels are connected to the back of the retina. A mammal has a similar eye, but it developed differently: in the human eye, the nerves, arteries, and blood vessels are connected to the front (not the back) of the retina. They get in the way. So humans have a “blind spot.” Efficient? No.

Modern evolution? Sure–lactose tolerance. About 5-10,000 years ago N. Europeans began drinking milk. Humans have a gene that allows babies to drink milk, but after a couple years a gene shuts that ability off. The body loses the ability to digest milk easily. You get diarrhea and bloating. But those Europeans stuck to it, and their gene changed–now almost 100% of N. Europeans can drink milk with no problems. A genetic change–reacting to the evironment–in less than 10,000 years.

You could go on like this for volumes. Evolution is real and provable.

 

[Techno2000]

The development of the complex eye has often been cited as a reason evolution could not be possible. The eye is just too complicated. Nilsson and Pelger did a computer experiment. Starting with a few light sensitive cells, and changing just one element (avoiding Haldane’s problem–changing multiple factors at once) of the cells by 1/200 of a percent each generation (a year in this experiment), they were able to create a complex camera-type eye in 364,000 generations. In the real world, small fish were able to make the same changes in less than half a million years–a tiny fraction of the time in the experiment. Could a complex eye evolve? Easily and quickly.

Intelligent design? If you assume intelligent design, you assume that the actual design of the anatomy of animals is “intelligent”–efficient. The best way to do a certain function. A fish has two gills; each gill has its own artery and nerve. These continue lengthwise down the fish. So far, very efficient. Great design! In humans, one of these nerves has evolved into the laryngeal nerve, which controls the voice box and speech. This nerve begins in the head, goes down to the chest (just like a fish…) and then loops back to the voice box. In other words, the nerve travels several feet to end up a few inches from where it started. Efficient? No.

Or another example. Cephalopods (octopus, squid) have an eye similar to mammals, but all the nerves, arteries, and blood vessels are connected to the back of the retina. A mammal has a similar eye, but it developed differently: in the human eye, the nerves, arteries, and blood vessels are connected to the front (not the back) of the retina. They get in the way. So humans have a “blind spot.” Efficient? No.

Modern evolution? Sure–lactose tolerance. About 5-10,000 years ago N. Europeans began drinking milk. Humans have a gene that allows babies to drink milk, but after a couple years a gene shuts that ability off. The body loses the ability to digest milk easily. You get diarrhea and bloating. But those Europeans stuck to it, and their gene changed–now almost 100% of N. Europeans can drink milk with no problems. A genetic change–reacting to the evironment–in less than 10,000 years.

You could go on like this for volumes. Evolution is real and provable.

That doesn’t prove anything, show us the bones !!!

 

[edwest21]

Opinion | Finding Design in Nature (Published 2005)

Op-Ed article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on Catholic stance on evolution; says evolution in sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in neo-Darwinian sense--unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection--is not; says immanent design...

www.nytimes.com

Ed

 

[ChunkMonk]

It never fails to amaze me how some Catholics - despite pronouncements from multiple Popes that evolution is not incompatible with our faith - act like fundamentalists on this subject.

I am simply amazed that these multiple Popes and millions of evolutionist Catholics can’t answer simple questions regarding the theological implications of their belief. And until I see one of them hammer out the details without the hand-waving and faux-astonishment I’ll stick to my position that it is incompatible.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

nytimes.com

Finding Design in Nature

Op-Ed article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on Catholic stance on evolution; says evolution in sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in neo-Darwinian sense–unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural…

I’m afraid I simply don’t agree with Cardinal Schonborn. I’ll go further and say that his understanding of God is rather limited.

Schonborn is insisting that we acknowledge a “cause” and/or “purpose” to evolution. This is theology, not science. I have no problem acknowledging a cause and/or purpose (theology) and still believing in a theory of evolution that depends on random chance (science).

Once again (I really get tired of saying this…) religion can answer the question “why” but science answers the question “how.” These are totally different questions. Schonborn doesn’t get that.

Schonborn also seems (I’m using “seems” intentionally, because it’s a short article without a lot of explanation) to limit God. Schonborn seems to think God can only act in a direct way. But of course that is limiting God’s power. God can act however he likes, and if you look at the world around you, it seems clear that God likes to act in indirect ways, through the laws of nature and the laws of probability or random chance (all of which God created…).

So from a human or scientific perspective we can say evolution is guided by random chance. But from God’s point of view, “chance” was simply the instrument of creation. They are not incompatible.

 

[rossum]

Schonborn seems to think God can only act in a direct way. But of course that is limiting God’s power. God can act however he likes, and if you look at the world around you, it seems clear that God likes to act in indirect ways,

Genesis tells us that God sometimes acts indirectly. He does not say, “let there be fish”, He says “Let the waters bring forth…” He can act directly, “Let there be light.” or He can act indirectly, as with fish.

Only to be expected from an omnipotent God; He can act either directly or indirectly.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sure you could go on and on about it, but none of what you say actually proves that evolution (Whatever that might possibly mean to you, but I assume you see it as operating at a molecular level.) is real. It is a conceptualization which fails in its ability to explain who and what we are.

The theory is actually wrong where it conflicts with the meaning of Genesis as it is explained in the Catechism.

However, I won’t disagree with your example of “a genetic change–reacting to the evironment–in less than 10,000 years.” But, I would remind us that there does exist an order that underlies the vagaries of appearances. Please be aware that the Theory particular and science as a whole offer no explanation as to the source of that order. Some of us are interested in how this all works; some are not.

Additionally, I would ask that you consider that if you were to be studied scientifically, as a material configuration, outside of yourself one would find no thoughts, merely neurophysiological change. You could be tortured and every scream, every wince, every change in heart-rate and blood pressure monitored. and we would find no pain. We should contemplate wherein lies that reality, the only one you truly know, and others can imagine only as your behaviour relates to their own self experience.

We, as persons are a spiritual-material unity, who perceives, thinks, feels and acts as one essentially relational being. The person may be approached through the lens that excludes all but matter. In doing so we lose any and all information about the meaning of the behaviour we witness. As complex as it is and as deeply related to what is happening outside the body, it cannot but be considered random.

And, as to randomness - it is a concept, an idea. Neurons “fire”, ions shift in and out of membranes, neurochemicals are released and either bind to receptors, are taken up again or are broken down. The idea exists in time and space within the person who is one matter-soul.

Science as it is currently being exercised might point us to what is beyond its scope, but it will never take us to reality itself, that which lies beyond all types of inquiry and can be truly known only through our becoming like that from which creation springs - Love.

From some of your other posts, I believe you might not disagree with much that I have said here.

 

[edwest21]

Please note the second paragraph in the following:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-evolution-idUSL1015081120070411

Ed

 

[Erikaspirit16]

From some of your other posts, I believe you might not disagree with much that I have said here.

You’re right, I not sure I disagree too much.

Where I do part company is over the definition of the word “prove.” Clearly–this goes for all the anti-evolution people on this thread–their definition of “prove” is a lot different than mine. To me, “prove” simply means your have a theory, you have evidence, you don’t see any contrary evidence, and therefore it is “proved.” I don’t want to argue over this because it’s pointless. It’s like arguing over what to call a particular shade of green!

Your second paragraph where you say "

The theory is actually wrong where it conflicts with the meaning of Genesis as it is explained in the Catechism.

I can’t agree with that simply because I don’t see any conflict between the theory of evolution and Genesis.

To talk about “an order that underlies the vagaries of appearances” seems to veer into religion and/or mysticism, not science. I don’t disagree, but I wouldn’t put that statement in the “science” box. No problem with your comments about pain, etc. I agree that there is more to reality. I am a big fan of Rupert Sheldrake. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that some of these things can never be explained by science–we just don’t know right now. Science might have good explanations in 100 years. Or not. If you went back in time 500 years and showed someone an iPhone, he would think you were a god or a great magician. But we can explain it all very easily.

Not quite sure what you’re saying about randomness. If you’re saying that what we percevie as “random” is not really random, I’m with you–as a possibility. Maybe there is some higher “order” that we simply don’t understand. Could be.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Please note the second paragraph in the following:

reuters.com

Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.

Ed

Here’s the second paragraph: “The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.” Well duh. This goes back to my previous response to Aloysium. It depends on what you mean by “proved” or “completely provable.” Clearly you can’t reproduce hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in a lab. But you can create separate species of fruit flies in a lab. And you can see how different species evolved in the last couple thousand years (Galapagos) from a common ancestor. So can you turn a land-dwelling mammal into a whale in a lab? Of course not. But that doesn’t disprove evolution!

All I can say is that the evidence seems overwhelming to me. Clearly it seems less overwhelming to others. But I’m not sure “others” have even bothered to look at any evidence beyond Genesis!

 

[Techno2000]

Question : why would God have to use evolution to create living things ?

 

[Rau]

Only to be expected from an omnipotent God; He can act either directly or indirectly.

Moreover, he can establish a universe in which random chance - or events indistinguishable from random chance if one prefers - leads to a known result.

 

[Rau]

The theory is actually wrong where it conflicts with the meaning of Genesis as it is explained in the Catechism.

Can you be specific on what these points of error are?

 

[edwest21]

What evidence? Old bones of extinct animals? What about animals that have become extinct in the last hundred years? And this evidence has zero practical scientific value. The evidence is overwhelming that the codes in DNA could not have written themselves and scientists are finding out more about “non-coding regions.” That further reduces the chance that all of this functional code just fell into place. I know all about the fruit fly experiment. The best it could do was mix up genetic material that was already there and reduce their ability to survive in the wild. There are a lot of bacteria out there but even though there are different types, they are still all bacteria.

 

[Gorgias]

Starting with a few light sensitive cells, and changing just one element (avoiding Haldane’s problem–changing multiple factors at once) of the cells by 1/200 of a percent each generation (a year in this experiment), they were able to create a complex camera-type eye in 364,000 generations. In the real world, small fish were able to make the same changes in less than half a million years–a tiny fraction of the time in the experiment.

Umm… pardon?

If one change = one generation = one year, and it took 364,000 generations in the experiment, how is 500,000 years in ‘real time’ a “tiny fraction” of that time? After all, 500,000 > 364,000… not to mention that the two numbers are of the same order of magnitude…!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

So… creation (including creation of living creatures) took six 24-hour days, but the earth could be billions of years old while living creatures only 5778 years old? Umm… contradict yourself much?

How have I contradicted myself?

On one hand, you say that the Genesis account of creation must be interpreted literally – that is, six 24-hour literal days. That means that the creation of life on earth must have happened within six days of the creation of the universe.

Then, you follow that up with the assertion that living creatures were created only 5778 years ago. But, you then turn around and suggest that it’s possible that the earth itself is billions of years old.

So: how can creation take place literally, with historic truth in six days, and yet the span of time between “creation of the universe” and “creation of life in the universe” be billions of years? You can’t have it both ways: it’s either literal and historical, or it’s allegorical and open to interpretation. Take your pick.

 

[Gorgias]

Glark:

I’m sorry that you can’t tell the difference between an potentially fallible opinion and an ex cathedra teaching.

There’s an ‘ex cathedra teaching’ that creation was six 24-hour days? OK, I’m game. Please cite it.

Aaaaaand… crickets.

Not surprising.

 

[theCardinalbird]

What is even happening on this thread of mine?

How old is the universe? Let’s answer that question

 

[edwest21]

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

The Church isn’t overly concerned.

Ed