Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[rossum]

Just curious, what made you choose Buddhism as your truth system?

You are not the first to ask this question. It is off topic in this thread, but here goes anyway:

The short answer is that Buddhism works.

The long answer is the same but takes more words. I was brought up as a Christian. When I hit my teens I dropped religion and switched to atheism. That was mainly because I objected to the rather too common, “anyone who does not agree exactly with us is damned for eternity,” attitude I found. After a few years I moved away from atheism, I felt that while it did avoid many of the problems with Christianity it was not itself a solution. I looked at different religions to find something that would work for me. None of the Abrahamic religions attracted me – as a hangover from my atheism I still had a problem with the concepts of God and soul. Initially I was interested in Hinduism. The background of Indian religion provides a very different world view: less exclusive – everyone achieves liberation eventually, the concept of karma and a much more relaxed attitude to other religions and to alternative variants of the same religion. Of the Hindu texts the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were the ones that attracted me most. In particular there is hardly any mention of gods in the Yoga Sutras. That seemed to be an interesting direction to explore.

Reading round Hinduism I inevitably came across Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism has souls but no gods, or at least no important gods. Buddhism has no souls and its attitude to gods is very casual – like any other living being they need to become enlightened. A mere god is far inferior to a Bodhisattva, let alone to a fully enlightened Buddha. Buddhism seemed to have the elements I was looking for: non-exclusivity, no soul, morality and while it did have gods, they were unimportant and could easily be ignored. So I tried Buddhism. I studied more on it, went to groups and to meditation classes and found that everything fitted together well and it suited the way I wanted to go.

A frequently quoted Buddhist text is the Kalama sutta which says that if we are to accept something then we have to try it first to check that it is correct:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

This advice applies to the Buddha’s own words just as much as to anything else. I followed the Buddha’s advice. I tried Buddhism, found that it worked and I have followed it ever since.

There is even some scientific evidence that Buddhism works: see Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

Buddhism is a very practical religion. It is a sustained attempt to alleviate the suffering of a less than perfect world. Generally it succeeds. Buddhism works.

rossum

 

[edwest21]

Yeah, we don’t know much about the brain either.

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

The civil servant, who lives a normal life, had his brain reduced in size by at least 50 per cent by build-up of fluid over many years

www.newscientist.com

 

[edwest21]

You obviously have missed another post about what St. Augustine said. I know no Popes that agree with the Biology textbook version of evolution. It does, however, work as a pillar of the anti-God belief system.

 

[edwest21]

And people have done good research on that. The other side of the coin has gotten plenty of air time.

 

[niceatheist]

You obviously have missed another post about what St. Augustine said. I know no Popes that agree with the Biology textbook version of evolution. It does, however, work as a pillar of the anti-God belief system.

And what part of biology textbooks do the 20th and 21st centuries Popes disagree with? Full citations appreciated.

 

[edwest21]

Source: Communion 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. A purely materialist interpretation is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

 

[niceatheist]

Source: Communion 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. A purely materialist interpretation is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

So you can point me to the textbooks where this sort of “theistic evolution” which is essentially what John Paul II was referring to is claimed to be false.

I’ve taken a few science courses in my time, and none state “God had nothing to do with evolution”. Some, in fact, go out of their way to state that there are certain kinds of questions that science cannot answer (ie. guided evolution). Science simply does not deal with supernatural explanations at all.

You’re not going to find any scientific theory that includes “God did it”. Such a statement may or may not be true, but ultimately trying to claim “God did it” is to make a statement that could be true, regardless of any observation, since an omnipotent being could presumably be responsible for any possible observation. In other words, as the saying goes “Saying ‘God did it’ explains everything, and thus explains nothing.”

If you wish to believe God guided evolution in some way, well that’s not incompatible with evolutionary biology, or even abiogenesis research. Nothing in these related fields has anything to say on the matter, so your claim about textbooks somehow violating Catholic doctrine rings false for me, because a science textbook isn’t going to talk about God at all, beyond perhaps the above disclaimer I made; that that is a question beyond a scientific theory’s ability to deal with.

 

[Aloysium]

I recall seeing the Steady State hypotheis of the universe described in text books. It was naturally selected out following the random appearance of the Big Bang Theory. However, its vestiges linger as a belief in what would be self-generated, random but eternal (because they produce the flow of time) principles of matter, which began condensed as a singularity. I believe the truth of creation would win out over the vague and farfetched, pseudoscientific patchwork of ideas which attempt to explain our origins on a purely material level, without giving God His due as the creator and maintainer of the universe.

Considering humanity, let’s think mathematics. When did mathematics, the capacity to think abstractly that creates pi, for example, how did that start? It’s attributes like that which define us, much more than a liver, a brain, although larger, a gastrointestinal system, bones and muscles, DNA, all the things we share with other living creatures on this planet. Science, as it is being widely, not universally by any means, practiced today has rendered itself literally mindless and soulless. We are truly a

 

[niceatheist]

I recall seeing the Steady State hypotheis of the universe described in text books. It was naturally selected out following the random appearance of the Big Bang Theory.

Random appearance? It was inherent in General Relativity, and Einstein inserted the Cosmological Constant to get rid of the expansion (later calling it the worst mistake of his career).

However, its vestiges linger as a belief in what would be self-generated, random but eternal (because they produce the flow of time) principles of matter, which began condensed as a singularity. I believe the truth of creation would win out over the vague and farfetched, pseudoscientific patchwork of ideas which attempt to explain our origins on a purely material level, without giving God His due as the creator and maintainer of the universe.

Do you even know what a singularity is?

 

[Aloysium]

The truth is to be found in Jesus Christ.
We are all on a journey along the Way to becoming Christ-like.
He is the truth, the bread of life, the Reality to which our words in comparison are so much straw.
Some 50 years ago, I met someone truly good and humble, whose entire life was prayer.
He hadn’t encountered the Christian religion, although it appears to me he knew Jesus very well.
I’m not going to say anything further about it.
If this doesn’t make sense, forget I ever mentioned it.

 

[Techno2000]

The truth is to be found in Jesus Christ.
We are all on a journey along the Way to becoming Christ-like.
He is the truth, the bread of life, the Reality to which our words in comparison are so much straw.
Some 50 years ago, I met someone truly good and humble, whose entire life was prayer.
He hadn’t encountered the Christian religion, although it appears to me he knew Jesus very well.
I’m not going to say anything further about it.
If this doesn’t make sense, forget I ever mentioned it.

Whoa…I’m intrigued

 

[Rau]

The last sentence is key. A purely materialist interpretation is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

I have no difficulty with God giving rise to the creation of the universe in a Big Bang and with science doing its best to describe how and what happened subsequently. That God chose a bang that led to us also causes me no concern, nor does the recognition that what happened is indistinguishable from undirected processes subject to physical laws. He is God after all. Do not place limits on Him.

 

[Aloysium]

It was a joke. Evolution describes us as arising from random reconfigurations of molecules at a genetic level and sculpted by nature.

I’m not sure if you are appealing to a well worn internet meme, asking me a variant of “If I even lift”. If you are serious, I am open to hearing what you have to say about it. I don’t want you to waste your time, so yes I do know something about singularities. I assume you too are aware that the laws of physics are said to break down at the Big Bang singularity. It is usually phrased this way because we rewind time in our minds. Time does not go backwards, and rather than breaking down, an initial singularity implies creation, the coming into existence of the physical universe. However, there are models out there, unproven and some unproveable, that see the universe as always having existed.

 

[Techno2000]

edwest21:

The last sentence is key. A purely materialist interpretation is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

I have no difficulty with God giving rise to the creation of the universe in a Big Bang and with science doing its best to describe how and what happened subsequently. That God chose a bang that led to us also causes me no concern, nor does the recognition that what happened is indistinguishable from undirected processes subject to physical laws. He is God after all. Do not place limits on Him.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5

 

[Rau]

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Yes…I’ve used that quote on CAF myself.

 

[niceatheist]

It was a joke. Evolution describes us as arising from random reconfigurations of molecules at a genetic level and sculpted by nature.

It’s hard to debate with someone whose view of modern biology is little more than a series of strawmen. Evolutionary forces are governed by physical laws like everything else, and are no more random than any other physical process.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not interested in debating, but more a sharing of ideas. What I would impart is that there is far more at work within existence than a clockwork of physical processes, perpetually in motion, impersonal, meaningless and uncaring. And, that was the joke, that the Big Bang Theory could be only a random collection of biochemical reactions.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not interested in debating, but more a sharing of ideas. What I would impart is that there is far more at work within existence than a clockwork of physical processes, perpetually in motion, impersonal, meaningless and uncaring. And, that was the joke, that the Big Bang Theory could be only a random collection of biochemical reactions.

You may be right, but that’s not really a question for science.

 

[edwest21]

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

continued

 

[edwest21]

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]