Early Saints on Evolution

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I guess we can safely assume that St Basil, St Gregory, St John Chrysostom and others were in no way influenced by the works of Evangelical Protestants. And yet I keep hearing accusations that Traditional Catholics are being heavily influenced by Evangelicals on this topic.

Possibly because TCs live long enough after the Fathers to be influenced by Evangelicals.​

 

[NeedImprovement]

I heard this story told by evangelical Pastor Charles Swindoll on one of his tapes:

A man took a trip to the zoo. As he approached the gorilla’s cage, he noticed that the gorilla was holding two books - one in each hand. In his left hand he held the Bible, while his right hand clutched a copy of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species.”

Quite astonished, the man called out to the gorilla , " Hey… you know how to read !!?"
“Well, sure I do”, shrugged the gorilla.

“Fair enough”, the man countered, continuing, “…But do you understand what is written in those books?”

“Separately I understand them”, said the gorilla “but together they confuse me.”

"How so ? ", inquired the man.

“Well…”,replied the gorilla, “This book here says *I’m my brother’s keeper *… but this other one says I’m my keeper’s brother !”

---

Thanks for the original post Kamalayka. I found it interesting to read the opinions of those church figures ( reading St basil’s response on Genesis made me LOL).

Close to ten years ago, I read in depth, several catholic authors’ (two were priests) materials on the subject of evolution; this, because in my NAB (by a very reputable publisher [Imprimatur 1970]) in the section following the preface entitled “HOW TO READ YOUR BIBLE”, under section 15 subtitled “How Do You Know?”, someone had written:

“No well-educated person denies any longer that the human species has developed from primates.”

Now although the bulk of the HOW TO READ YOUR BIBLE text presents various subjects (apocalyptic literature, allegory, Hebrew philosophy, atonement & vicarious sufffering) intended for our edified reading of sacred scripture, that sentence quoted above - ("no well-educated person…"etc) is a prime example of someone taking liberties where they shouldn’t on this subject. It is coercive in its attempt to have one believe a particular theory where one clearly isn’t obliged.

I remember asking my spiritual director about that statement several years back and he told me it sounded rather arrogant.

Scientifically, the theory of evolution would appear kind of limited too (my own opinion) - not that imaginative. The Big bang theory, on the other hand, had already incorporated the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation as early as 1964.

One principal reason why the Church may not have spoken definitively on this issue is because, in the eyes of Holy Mother Church, evolution isn’t really the issue at hand… hence there isn’t really any direct conflict. As further confirmed by these Catholic authors I’d read :

Evolution attempts to answer the question “how ?” .

Religion answers the question “why ?” .

 

[edwest2]

I heard this story told by evangelical Pastor Charles Swindoll on one of his tapes:

A man took a trip to the zoo. As he approached the gorilla’s cage, he noticed that the gorilla was holding two books - one in each hand. In his left hand he held the Bible, while his right hand clutched a copy of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species.”

Quite astonished, the man called out to the gorilla , " Hey… you know how to read !!?"
“Well, sure I do”, shrugged the gorilla.

“Fair enough”, the man countered, continuing, “…But do you understand what is written in those books?”

“Separately I understand them”, said the gorilla “but together they confuse me.”

"How so ? ", inquired the man.

“Well…”,replied the gorilla, “This book here says *I’m my brother’s keeper *… but this other one says I’m my keeper’s brother !”

---

Thanks for the original post Kamalayka. I found it interesting to read the opinions of those church figures ( reading St basil’s response on Genesis made me LOL).

Close to ten years ago, I read in depth, several catholic authors’ (two were priests) materials on the subject of evolution; this, because in my NAB (by a very reputable publisher [Imprimatur 1970]) in the section following the preface entitled “HOW TO READ YOUR BIBLE”, under section 15 subtitled “How Do You Know?”, someone had written:

“No well-educated person denies any longer that the human species has developed from primates.”

Now although the bulk of the HOW TO READ YOUR BIBLE text presents various subjects (apocalyptic literature, allegory, Hebrew philosophy, atonement & vicarious sufffering) intended for our edified reading of sacred scripture, that sentence quoted above - ("no well-educated person…"etc) is a prime example of someone taking liberties where they shouldn’t on this subject. It is coercive in its attempt to have one believe a particular theory where one clearly isn’t obliged.

I remember asking my spiritual director about that statement several years back and he told me it sounded rather arrogant.

Scientifically, the theory of evolution would appear kind of limited too (my own opinion) - not that imaginative. The Big bang theory, on the other hand, had already incorporated the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation as early as 1964.

One principal reason why the Church may not have spoken definitively on this issue is because, in the eyes of Holy Mother Church, evolution isn’t really the issue at hand… hence there isn’t really any direct conflict. As further confirmed by these Catholic authors I’d read :

Evolution attempts to answer the question “how ?” .

Religion answers the question “why ?” .

The old how-why argument is not valid. Both the biology textbook and individual scientists state that man is not part of any plan. We are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. Both in the biology text and among leading scientists, there is no why. We just happened to come into existence through chance and error followed by a supposed system of selection.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

The old how-why argument is not valid. Both the biology textbook and individual scientists state that man is not part of any plan. We are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. Both in the biology text and among leading scientists, there is no why. We just happened to come into existence through chance and error followed by a supposed system of selection.Peace,Ed

Ed, you say this a lot about biology texts, but we have no reason to believe you are telling the truth. Can you cite an example of a biology text that includes the words “We are the product of a cold, uncaring universe”?

StAnastasia

 

[JackQ]

JackQ, I think they’re serious. But I had the same reaction you do when I encountered my first geocentrist on this forum: “Geocentrism in 2009? You’ve got to be joking!”

Well, there are things just as weird that are taken seriously by its proponents. The constitutionalist movement comes to mind. But here I can’t help but suspect a tongue in cheek attempt to point out a supposed absurdity in the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals. You know the argument: how can the Church claim to be infallible when it made such a blunder in the Galileo affair? That argument misses the point, of course, but it is continually made nonetheless. But you see the thought process: take creationism, expand it to even more absurd lengths, watch people argue about it, and laugh.

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, there are things just as weird that are taken seriously by its proponents. The constitutionalist movement comes to mind. But here I can’t help but suspect a tongue in cheek attempt to point out a supposed absurdity in the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals. You know the argument: how can the Church claim to be infallible when it made such a blunder in the Galileo affair? That argument misses the point, of course, but it is continually made nonetheless. But you see the thought process: take creationism, expand it to even more absurd lengths, watch people argue about it, and laugh.

Would that it were a laughing matter. As a Catholic I don’t like it when untutored atheists make assumptions about what we accept or don’t accept of science.

I had a meeting over tea last week with Richard Dawkins, who was very surprised to learn about a consortium of Catholic schools who are sponsoring a year-long program called “Evolution across the Curriculum.” He asked me whether the theology department had been dragged into the project kicking and screaming. His jaw dropped when I told him that the initiative for the project had come jointly from the theology and the science departments. He expressed interest in hearing how the project goes in the coming year.

StAnastasia

 

[dixieagle]

Do I think Satan is capable of deceiving us through science? Yes.

This does not imply, however, that all scientific achievements are therefore of the Devil. I simply cannot believe that God is all-loving, but at the same time, cruel enough to try and trick us for leaving scientific evidence that contradicts His machinations.

My daughter, who is married to a practicing Catholic with a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, says that the God she believes in isn’t a “huckster” who would try to deceive us. Well put, I say.

Though this isn’t a problem since the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, so why traditionalists make a big deal of this is completely beyond me.

Beyond me, too!

 

[buffalo]

Would that it were a laughing matter. As a Catholic I don’t like it when untutored atheists make assumptions about what we accept or don’t accept of science.

I had a meeting over tea last week with Richard Dawkins, who was very surprised to learn about a consortium of Catholic schools who are sponsoring a year-long program called “Evolution across the Curriculum.” He asked me whether the theology department had been dragged into the project kicking and screaming. His jaw dropped when I told him that the initiative for the project had come jointly from the theology and the science departments. He expressed interest in hearing how the project goes in the coming year.

StAnastasia

Evolution across the curriculum? Elementary? High School? What diocese? Amazing.

We cannot get Catholicism integrated.

 

[buffalo]

Faith and Evolution

Is evolution compatible with faith?
Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time? Does evolution devalue human life? What is evolution, anyway? This website is designed to help you explore these and many other questions at the intersection between faith, science, and culture. Here you will find articles, debates, video and audio, discussion questions, and many other free resources...

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you say this a lot about biology texts, but we have no reason to believe you are telling the truth. Can you cite an example of a biology text that includes the words “We are the product of a cold, uncaring universe”?

StAnastasia

Please note that I mentioned biology texts and scientists:

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.)

“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.)

 

[buffalo]

My daughter, who is married to a practicing Catholic with a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, says that the God she believes in isn’t a “huckster” who would try to deceive us. Well put, I say.

Beyond me, too!

Exactly - God cannot deceive or be deceived.

That really has nothing to do with what our 5 senses can detect. If there are other dimensions does that make God a deceiver?

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution across the curriculum? Elementary? High School? What diocese? Amazing. We cannot get Catholicism integrated.

Two neighboring Catholic high schools, one for girls, the other for boys. Two grammar schools peripherally involved.

 

[buffalo]

Two neighboring Catholic high schools, one for girls, the other for boys. Two grammar schools peripherally involved.

What Diocese is this?

Do the parents of these kids know this?

Will you give me an idea of how they are going to do this?

 

[JackQ]

Would that it were a laughing matter. As a Catholic I don’t like it when untutored atheists make assumptions about what we accept or don’t accept of science.

I had a meeting over tea last week with Richard Dawkins, who was very surprised to learn about a consortium of Catholic schools who are sponsoring a year-long program called “Evolution across the Curriculum.” He asked me whether the theology department had been dragged into the project kicking and screaming. His jaw dropped when I told him that the initiative for the project had come jointly from the theology and the science departments. He expressed interest in hearing how the project goes in the coming year.

StAnastasia

Wow, you had a meeting over tea with Richard Dawkins? I didn’t realize people of your stature came to this forum.

Please tell him for me that I always suspected that Occam’s Razor was an unwarranted assumption, and he convinced me of it.

 

[historyb]

I forgot – that’s another YEC ploy – fob evolution off on Satan. I guess Satan is the father of plate tectonics, atomic theory, cell theory, Einsteinian relativity, Boyle’s laws, etc. Satan as father of all knowledge, perhaps, since knowledge is the result of Adam’s and Eve’s snack?

evolution is not science but a religion

 

[StAnastasia]

evolution is not science but a religion

How do you understand “science”? How do you understand “religion”?

 

[historyb]

How do you understand “science”? How do you understand “religion”?

Science is about prove things, evolution can not be proven. Religion is Christianity

 

[EphelDuath]

Science is about prove things, evolution can not be proven.

There’s as much evidence for biological macroevolution as there is for gravity. Am I rejecting Christ by following a false religion by accepting that gravity is a real force?

 

[StAnastasia]

Science is about prove things, evolution can not be proven. Religion is Christianity

No, science not about prove things. Christianity is religion, but religion not exhausted by Christianity.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow, you had a meeting over tea with Richard Dawkins? I didn’t realize people of your stature came to this forum. Please tell him for me that I always suspected that Occam’s Razor was an unwarranted assumption, and he convinced me of it.

JackQ, I am of average stature. I happened to be at a meeting on the West Coast, and Dawkins was out there for a lecture, I doubt I’ll see him again, so I won’t be in a position to tell him what you suspected about Occam’s razor. I think you’re correct about it.