Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Aloysium]

I can’t see what it is that you would disagree with. Could you please be specific as to where you believe what is written in the CA Tract is at odds with what I wrote.

In my quote on which you are commenting, I first address what is commonly held to be true in science, that there exists noise in the molecular configurations and interactions that make up cells and in this case specifically the complex system that produces gametes, eggs and sperm cells. Any resultant genetic change will result in a change in the observed phenotype, the life form that arises from conception. The change in the genotype would then be passed on to any later off-spring. In more primitive life forms, there is the possibility of variations occurring in the structure of the genetic material during mitosis, which again would be passed on to future generations. This explanation rests on the nature and behaviour of molecules. Atoms bind to form molecules as a result of their electromagnetic properties. I used the term “electrochemical” for clarity’s sake, because we are addressing life forms, which are made up of organic molecules, and not hydroelectric power plants. I can’t think of some other more significant physical force or property that might be said to govern evolution.

As to Eve from Adam, that to me is a reality that addresses why there exists sexuality rather than the far more efficient asexual method of reproduction. We were made sexual beings because we are destined to love. For me it is an ontological truth regarding the nature of the person, and our relationship to one another. That existential reality was created at the beginning of time.

To further clarify my position: God acts from eternity, and is present in every moment. It makes no sense to me to think He would have created the tetrahedral carbon atom and let it go on its way, to do as its nature dictates, randomly forming molecules, ultimately people. He brings it all forth, all time and space in accordance with His divine will. He is everywhere, at the beginning, in the middle and at the end. As the functioning of our nervous system and behaviour would be said to be random with a certain statistically predictability, if we had no concept of mind, so too does the universe and its unfolding to those who fail to grasp its fundamental truth - God.

 

[Glark]

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.

As far as I can work out, Genesis 1 says God started with a “blank canvas” - ie, “the heavens and the earth” (v.1). Then, over six days he filled in the details with all manners of further creations - each prefaced by the words, “And God said …”
At the end of the six days, “Thus, the heavens and the earth (1:1) were finished” - Gen 2:1.

The time from Adam until now can be calculated from the Scriptures. But there is no way of knowing how long “the heavens and the earth” (1:1) existed before the six days of creation began. It could have been billions of years.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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

He wouldn’t. He could do whatever he wanted. But evolution is the way he chose.

 

[Glark]

The point is, the “details” of Creation are beyond our limited scope of understanding this side of heaven. As long as we acknowledge God as the Creator, I don’t see the point of tying ourselves in knots, and neither do recent Popes, whose theological knowledge likely far surpasses yours.

A scienfiic theory that can’t be "theologically accepted " without making a mockery of Scripture is a serious matter.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

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

He wouldn’t. He could do whatever he wanted. But evolution is the way he chose.

If God used evolution to create with, why didnt the Church fathers pickup on this in the bible and write about it.

 

[Glark]

Catholic Answers provides a more authoritative assessment (complete with Imprimatur) and which does not accord entirely with what you wrote.

Apparently, Catholic Answers is infallible - especially on the subject of evolution.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is also a chasm between the idea that God set things in motion to run their course and whether He acts Now, involved in every moment.

I belong to the “God set things in motion to run their course” school of thought. I think those who believe in an “active” God have real problems theologically.

The Theory of Evolution conflicts with Genesis in its view that we are animals and that originally all life came to be from the preexisting forces of nature, specifically electrochemical, rather than as a new form of being in itself, that we emerged from a group rather than two first parents, that Eve was not formed, body and soul, from the original Adam.

Um. That’s pretty literal. I’m afraid I don’t buy literal readings of the Bible. I’ll go back to Dei Verbum and the catechism pp. 32-33 to support my position. There’s no reason scientifically to not believe in a single first man and/or women. Why not? Some scientists believe modern man evolved from a “group,” but that never made sense to me scientifically. “Groups” do not change their genes all at once. Don’t lump me in with reductionists. I’m not. I said earlier I’m a big fan of Rupert Sheldrake. Look him up on Wikipedia if you don’t know him.

What appears to be random, such as the neural activity going on in my brain, is ordered in accordance with my will, here and now. Similarly, the universe is a symphony of events of different shapes, intensities and durations, brought into existence and maintained by God, who created us to know Him, to become Love.

I agree. Chaos theory, etc. showed us that what at one time seemed random is in fact very orderly and predictable. We may call things “random” today that might be found to be very orderly and predictable in the future. Meanwhile we can’t skip over the lack of scientific evidence and call things “orderly” that seem random today.

Again, you’re mixing up two separate things: “God, who created us to know him…” great, but that’s theology. It answers the question “Why did God create us?” WHY. Science doesn’t concern itself with why, only how. Different questions. The answers don’t conflict because they’re answering totally different questions. I’m not saying theology doesn’t have a place in describing the universe, I’m just saying that you have to recognize it’s not part of science. And science doesn’t prove or disprove any particular theology (or no theology at all). Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists can all think evolution is a valid theory.

 

[Glark]

I ask everyone to honestly ask themselves, if evolution was not true tomorrow, how would it have any practical effect on your lives? I’ve never gotten an answer to that question.

Here’s mine. It wouldn’t. Drug discovery will be by trial and error. New strains of viruses and bacteria will be “discovered.” Look up the history of penicillin. Look up the history of the 4th largest company in the world in 1933, IG Farben, who investigated coal tar for medicinal uses. No cookbook. Just trial and error. This global chemical conglomerate was the largest in the world but few know it ever existed.

The theory that all life on earth evolved from some unicellular organism is as useless to applied science as a fairy tale. Despite the hype, the atheist idea that bugs turned into humans is no more than an historical curiosity. (Although it forms the basis of the atheist theology*). * Yes, I know- it’s an oxymoron; but I like it, so it stays.

Regardless of the perfect uselessness of the theory, the Church bends over backwards to fit this square theory into the round hole of Scripture. That’s embarrassing.

 

[Gorgias]

As far as I can work out, Genesis 1 says God started with a “blank canvas” - ie, “the heavens and the earth” (v.1).

You’ve misread Genesis 1, then. God didn’t start with “the heavens and the earth”; Genesis 1:1 speaks of when God created the heavens and the earth.

At the beginning of Genesis 1:1 there is nothing. God creates everything “ex nihilo” – that is, ‘from nothing’.

So, if you want to make a claim about “billions of years”, you’ll have to ground that claim from when God created the universe – and not make some spurious claims about billions of years “from day one” until “the creation of Adam”… unless you also want to abandon your claim of strict historical literalism.

That is, if you want to claim literal “six day creation”, it begins with the creation of the universe, not “billions of years” after the creation of the universe.

 

[Gorgias]

Rau:

Catholic Answers provides a more authoritative assessment (complete with Imprimatur) and which does not accord entirely with what you wrote.

Apparently, Catholic Answers is infallible - especially on the subject of evolution.

Nah. Not “infallible”, just more credible than your assertions.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If God used evolution to create with, why didnt the Church fathers pickup on this in the bible and write about it.

I don’t think their biology courses covered evolution. Why not ask why the Church fathers didn’t write about atomic energy or magnetism or electricity? This is straying into extremist Muslim thought where they think all of modern science is pre-figured in the Qur’an. The Bible (and Qur’an!) is not a science book.

If you want to be a bit literal (I don’t, but I assume you do), you could certainly argue that God created the universe in 6 days. Why all that time? Why not just go “Poof!”? And what’s more, the six days of creation pretty much follow the actual scientific chronology --light first, then seas, then separation of land from sea, then creatures, then man. Sounds pretty much like evolution, right?

But a literal interpretation of the Bible is simply gong to raise a library full of problems, as it has for 200+ years. And it’s not necessary theologically. Augustine and Aquinas didn’t take it all literally, and they were pretty smart guys. I know a lot of people on this thread disagree. Let me quote from “The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture,” by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2014, p. 70:

“Theologians have had recourse to the concept of “inerrancy” applying it to Sacred Scripture. But if it is taken in its absolute sense, the term would suggest that there can be no error of any kind in the Bible. But with the progressive discoveries in the fields of history, philology, and the natural sciences, and because of the application to biblical research of the historical-critical method, exegetes have had to recognize that not everything in the Bible is expressed in accordance with the demands of the contemporary sciences…” Don’t argue with me, argue with the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

[Glark]

The thread is not about whether the theory can be verified or not; it’s about whether or not ToE is theologically acceptable to a Catholic.

 

[ChunkMonk]

The point is, the “details” of Creation are beyond our limited scope of understanding this side of heaven. As long as we acknowledge God as the Creator, I don’t see the point of tying ourselves in knots, and neither do recent Popes, whose theological knowledge likely far surpasses yours.

But that is precisely the most interesting part about this whole fiasco. The “details” were entirely within our scope of understanding for over 2,000 years, right up until we decided that a shaky scientific theory necessitated a total revolution in how we read Scripture.

And those minor details are the Nature of Original Sin, the Nature of mankind, the Nature of God and his creative acts, the Relationship between man and God, the redemptive act of Christ, and the responsibility(or lack thereof) of man for his sin. So I would say they have some importance.

I’m sure their theological knowledge did far surpass mine, which is why it is very confusing that they made literally no attempt whatsoever to hammer out exactly how this new theory could be theologically acceptable before they issued a blanket statement that it could be. If the answer was “we just didn’t think it mattered” then I have to wonder why they didn’t think it mattered, considering they did feel that reaffirming Adam’s literal existence as a single man was of great enough importance to remind us that our salvation depends on assenting to it.

 

[Rau]

A scienfiic theory that can’t be "theologically accepted " without making a mockery of Scripture is a serious matter.

I think you meant to say that it is your opinion that it makes a mockery of Scripture. The Church rejects that opinion.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If God used evolution to create with, why didnt the Church fathers pickup on this in the bible and write about it.

I don’t think their biology courses covered evolution. Why not ask why the Church fathers didn’t write about atomic energy or magnetism or electricity? This is straying into extremist Muslim thought where they think all of modern science is pre-figured in the Qur’an. The Bible (and Qur’an!) is not a science book.

If you want to be a bit literal (I don’t, but I assume you do), you could certainly argue that God created the universe in 6 days. Why all that time? Why not just go “Poof!”? And what’s more, the six days of creation pretty much follow the actual scientific chronology --light first, then seas, then separation of land from sea, then creatures, then man. Sounds pretty much like evolution, right?

But a literal interpretation of the Bible is simply gong to raise a library full of problems, as it has for 200+ years. And it’s not necessary theologically. Augustine and Aquinas didn’t take it all literally, and they were pretty smart guys. I know a lot of people on this thread disagree. Let me quote from “The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture,” by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2014, p. 70:

“Theologians have had recourse to the concept of “inerrancy” applying it to Sacred Scripture. But if it is taken in its absolute sense, the term would suggest that there can be no error of any kind in the Bible. But with the progressive discoveries in the fields of history, philology, and the natural sciences, and because of the application to biblical research of the historical-critical method, exegetes have had to recognize that not everything in the Bible is expressed in accordance with the demands of the contemporary sciences…” Don’t argue with me, argue with the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

So all the Great scholars of the Catholic Church completely missed something so monumental as evolution ?

 

[Rau]

Nah. Not “infallible”, just more credible than your assertions.

Note how Glark distorts (misrepresents) posts to attempt to sustain his position.

 

[Aloysium]

I think people who don’t believe in an active God have an issue in their relationship with Him.
A greater problem than a lack of theological coherence, I would think.
I can’t imagine how the person of Jesus Christ would not dispel all notions of a god who merely set things in motion.

I hadn’t heard of Richard Sheldrake, but I did look him up and stopped at the word parapsychology. But thanks for the interesting side-note. It might prove to be an interesting future conversation.

As it is practiced, science is not divorced from its moral underpinnings as a human activity. There is joy in discovery and invention. However, it is also about politics, economics, honour, camaraderie, attracting the opposite sex, paying off the mortgage and getting your kids into the best schools. So, I would retort that you are limiting the scope of science and being rather naive as to how it is commonly used by us to define who we are and why we are.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I think that is part of it, also there is more than a little concern for human respect that enters into the picture, especially with the lay-folk. Mostly, I think it is punishment from God. I forgot who said it but there is a famous claim that “When God really wants to punish, he sends bad priests.” So maybe it isn’t that they have disconnected from the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit who has abandoned them?

The majority of the people are well-intentioned, I can only assume, but just confused by the vagueries and the general malaise of our time. We are now heading into the fifth century of concerted, coordialnated assault against real theological reasoning and metaphysics, all with the singular aim of destroying in the faithful any ability to think critically about their faith. A wild success so far, if one looks at the results. Empty churches and emptier souls.

 

[Rau]

I think those who believe in an “active” God have real problems theologically.

Certainly it begs the question of what “events” are a result of God’s direct actions and what are not. Is God deciding who will starve to death or is that on us? Is God deciding to whom terrible accidents will occur, or is that life? Is God more active or more permissive? I have absolutely no need to reject miracles but nor do I think that God’s activism runs to the extent some presume.

 

[Glark]

You’ve misread Genesis 1, then. God didn’t start with “the heavens and the earth”; Genesis 1:1 speaks of when God created the heavens and the earth.
At the beginning of Genesis 1:1 there is nothing. God creates everything “ex nihilo” – that is, ‘from nothing’.

Notice how each creation performed during the six days is prefaced by “And God said…” There is no “And God said …” In verse 1. Observe the pattern - there are clearly two separate stages of creation.

More support for this idea is found in Exodus 20:11 - “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them”. Notice that the “earth” and also the “sea” are mentioned. Surely the sea is part of the earth, so why mention the sea separately? it’s because the “earth” here is not the planet earth - it’s referring to land.

So in Exodus 20:11

• “heaven” refers to the earth’s atmosphere that was created on Day 2 (and described as “heaven” in Gen 1:6-8);
• “earth” refers to the land created on Day 3 (described as “earth” in Gen 1: 10);
• the “sea” refers to the sea created on Day 3 (described as “sea” in Gen 1:10).

Thus, the “heaven and earth, the sea” in Exodus 20:11 is very different to the “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1. Notice the plural “heavens” in Genesis 1:1 and the singular “heaven” in Exodus 20:11 - there are billions of galaxies, but only one earth’s atmosphere.

So, if you want to make a claim about “billions of years”, you’ll have to ground that claim from when God created the universe – and not make some spurious claims about billions of years “from day one” until “the creation of Adam”… unless you also want to abandon your claim of strict historical literalism.

Nonsense. My reasoning is all literal.

It’s not possible to ascertain from the text when God created Stage 1 - “the heavens and the earth” (v.1). It is somewhere between one day and infinity.

However, it is possible to ascertain when Stage 2 (the six days) occurred, because we can calculate when Adam was created.