EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[The_Barbarian]

All evolution is a lie and trap of the devil.

Evolution is a natural process. Can’t be a lie. Perhaps you meant that evolutionary theory is a lie and a trap of the devil. Or maybe not. Some creationists actually think the evidence was planted by the devil to fool us, or by God to test our faith. Which is it?

All of it, in any form and any way. The reason is because ALL evolution in some way denies the Sovereignty of God.

Not for Catholics. Learn about it here:

The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

You are not Catholic, your protestant. Good luck with trying to Reconcile to God why you denied him.

Perhaps if you read COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP in the link I provided, you could better understand the Catholic view of evolution and creation. Worth a try. And we can all become better Catholics than we are, um?

 

[c659smith]

If you can’t tell me what that means, I can’t answer it. I’ve never encountered that exact question before and the wording is unclear. How about this? Are you asking whether I’m a Catholic, loyal and faithful to the Church’s teachings? If so, yes. No one should take that to mean, though, that I’m not a sinner; at least I try to recognize it when I fall short.

I can be a little more helpful than merely repeating myself. Have you read Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis and the articles available here on catholic.com that I referred to in earlier posts?

What I am stating that a Catholic follows Sacred Scripture , Traditions and Teachings of the Church.

What I am stating is that the Catholic Church does not agree with or formulate to the ideas of evolution when it comes to the creation of Man.

So for us it is a mute issue like that of Abortion, going to Church on Sunday, Going to confession,etc…

 

[The_Barbarian]

What I am stating that a Catholic follows Sacred Scripture , Traditions and Teachings of the Church.

Yes. You don’t have to accept evolution to be a Catholic, but you are in direct disagreement with the Church if you assert that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic belief.

What I am stating is that the Catholic Church does not agree with or formulate to the ideas of evolution when it comes to the creation of Man.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, writes:
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

So for us it is a mute issue like that of Abortion, going to Church on Sunday, Going to confession,etc…

It is not a moot issue. You can accept evolution or not accept evolution, and still be a good Catholic. What you cannot assert, if you want to be a good Catholic, is that evolution is not consistent with our faith.

 

[rad314]

What I am stating that a Catholic follows Sacred Scripture , Traditions and Teachings of the Church.

What I am stating is that the Catholic Church does not agree with or formulate to the ideas of evolution when it comes to the creation of Man.

So for us it is a mute issue like that of Abortion, going to Church on Sunday, Going to confession,etc…

Asking my question a third time would seem to be a waste of time. I think the answer is that you haven’t and that you won’t. Actually learning what the Church teaches might disturb your complacency about what you think the Church teaches.

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble, it’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.” – attrib. Artemus Ward

 

[buffalo]

Yes. You don’t have to accept evolution to be a Catholic, but you are in direct disagreement with the Church if you assert that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic belief.

.

You are way off. The constant and clear teachings of the Church have defended against evolution since the beginning. Here is a quick primer.http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/article1.html
Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?

 

[StAnastasia]

Again all Evolution is atheistic and of the devil…

Do you have evidence to support this extraordinary claim? Besides, “of the devil” is unclear. The devil’s Ph.D. was not in biology.

 

[edwest2]

The devil’s primary weapon is deception. That scientism, which is a belief that only our senses and instruments can detect reality, leads to atheism which is the majority view among leading scientists. It denies the Church teaching that God can be detected in nature through natural (i.e. non-religious) reason alone.

By denying their own human capacity to detect God, scientists are denying God Himself, and some are envcouraging others to do so. This leads to idolatry: The worship of the human mind alone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Faith gets into trouble when it attempts to meddle in scientific matters, as it lacks the tools and the competence to distinguish between fiction and reality in the natural world.

Alec

Alec, you have a science website. Get a reality check. You didn’t mind using the Pope in an article on your website nor did you care about Catholic members (PhilVaz), Oregony (Tim), and others helping you write articles that are on your website. I came to your defense Alec in message 118. Ah, and least I forget, what about all the Catholic scientists who are members of this website and on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican. Catholics believe there’s ‘no contradiction between faith and science’ as noted in the Condendum of the Catholic Church. In my opinon, making a comment such as you have is a slap on the face and darn insulting, “Faith gets into trouble when it attempts to meddle in scientific matters, as it lacks the tools and the competence to distinguish between fiction and reality in the natural world.”:tsktsk: I forgive you. I think someone lead you down the wrong path regarding FAITH but you should have known better because of what I wrote above. Next time be a gentle man with a kind heart no matter what. Bless you! You little stinker!LOL! Lord help me!

 

[cerad]

Again all Evolution is atheistic and of the devil…

I think it may be time to invoke Pope’s Law here.

 

[mpartyka]

Okay, this is all starting to wear me out. I’m going to bow out until April, if that’s okay with everyone, because there’s going to be a conference in Rome in March on the topic of evolution anyway, and I’d like to see what shakes out of that.

evolution-rome2009.net/

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Okay, this is all starting to wear me out. I’m going to bow out . . .

Ditto.

 

[Luke65]

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, writes:
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

False. Barbarian, you really need to learn how to read more carefully. Then maybe you wouldn’t mislead unsuspecting readers with your completely false assertions. Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) did not write that quote you attributed to him. Here’s what the document says (at the end):

The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give [sic] his permission for its publication.

Nor does this mean that Pope Benedict agrees with that statement. Here’s how the paragraph starts - which you conveniently leave out:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account…

And what follows that is what mainstream science teaches, it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and apparently it is not the opinion of Pope Benedict:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm
(2) As a scientific matter, the evidence for “micro-evolution” seems beyond doubt; the case for “macro-evolution” is less persuasive.

While Benedict does not believe it is the church’s role to settle scientific debates, that doesn’t mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls “macro-evolution.” (“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)

Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

"*No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.'*"

This distinction between “micro” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” after this experience.

 

[Luke65]

Would you like to give us some recent examples of “innovative scientists” now accepted who were once regarded as cranks or fruitcakes? In the whole of the 20th century, I am aware of Warren and Marshall, and possibly Wegener.

Well, there is Bretz. And Dr. Halton Arp might be added to the list one day. And I think the Electric Universe guys are on to something. But of course, ID’ers and creationists will never be acknowledged - without an act from God. Lookout!

 

[The_Barbarian]

False. Barbarian, you really need to learn how to read more carefully. Then maybe you wouldn’t mislead unsuspecting readers with your completely false assertions.

Well let’s take a look…

The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give [sic] his permission for its publication.

So he approved it. I don’t suppose it’s a surprise that a commission writes a report as a group, but when the chair must approve it, it doesn’t get published unless he approves of it.

Nor does this mean that Pope Benedict agrees with that statement. Here’s how the paragraph starts - which you conveniently leave out:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account…

Hmm… kind of a small snippet. Let’s see what you edited out…

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Hmmm… not anything about evolution. It’s about the Big Bang. What’s that thing about “conveniently leave out?”

Let’s review what he says about the subject at hand:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

He says it’s “virtually certain”, not that scientists think it is virtually certain. I’m sure you didn’t intend to be misleading by only introducing an edited bit, by editing out the actual subject of that sentence, you left the impression that he was talking about evolution, instead of the Big Bang.

And what follows that is what mainstream science teaches, it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and apparently it is not the opinion of Pope Benedict:
Quote:
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm
(2) As a scientific matter, the evidence for “micro-evolution” seems beyond doubt; the case for “macro-evolution” is less persuasive.

In a few years, his opinion seems to have changed. But then, that’s what the commission was there to do, to look at the evidence, and consider the theological implications. Certainly the Cardinal had quite a different understanding by 2002.

While Benedict does not believe it is the church’s role to settle scientific debates, that doesn’t mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls “macro-evolution.” (“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)

I don’t doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger was informed that such evolution has been directly observed, and thereby concluded that common descent was “virtually certain.”

It would be rather incredible for someone who thought that macroevolution was “impossible” to then approve a document saying it was “virtually certain.”

 

[buffalo]

Why Human Evolution can never become part of the Deposit of Faith

**ABSTRACT
**
**In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.
**

more…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes that the Church has no problems with evolution per se:

You are way off. The constant and clear teachings of the Church have defended against evolution since the beginning.

Well, let’s take a look…

**Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).**
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

The Catechism makes no statement one way or the other, except to acknowledge the soul is given directly by God. This is, of course, consistent with evolution of the body.

Here is a quick primer.
Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?

I think I’ll go with the Church on this one, thank you. BTW, your link ignores much of the recent Church teaching concerning evolution.

But it does acknowledge that Adam and Eve were real people, something also consistent with evolution. The Church has no problem with evolution, so long as it stays within the boundaries of science. Some people probably need to decide if the Church or creationism is more important to them, and then act on that decision.

 

[reggieM]

Nor does this mean that Pope Benedict agrees with that statement. Here’s how the paragraph starts - which you conveniently leave out:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account…

Exactly. Pope Benedict is giving a reference to mainstream evolutionary theory and not to his own view.

And what follows that is what mainstream science teaches, it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and apparently it is not the opinion of Pope Benedict:

Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”

This distinction between “micro” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” after this experience.

This is an important view of the true teaching of the Pope on this matter which is far from an embrace of evolutionary theory.
That last quote from Alma von Stockhausen says a lot, obviously. There certainly has been some distortion of Pope Benedict’s views given many times in these threads. This does set the record straight.

 

[edwest2]

The last two lines of this article are important:

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1548519/Pope-stirs-up-evolution-debate.html

Nature has no intelligence and the same for random mutations.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Luke65]

Hmm… kind of a small snippet. Let’s see what you edited out…

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Hmmm… not anything about evolution. It’s about the Big Bang. What’s that thing about “conveniently leave out?”

Let’s review what he says about the subject at hand:

While there is little consensus among scientists…

Why do you separate those quotes as if they’re unrelated? Its the same paragraph! That whole paragraph is the party line of mainstream science, as I’m sure most readers here, including you, know. Cardinal Ratzinger by approving it is simply saying that he agrees that this is what mainstream science teaches. And I will prove this again momentarily.

He says it’s “virtually certain”, not that scientists think it is virtually certain.

Why do you say “He says” when you and everybody else reading this now know that he didn’t say it?

In a few years, his opinion seems to have changed. But then, that’s what the commission was there to do, to look at the evidence, and consider the theological implications. Certainly the Cardinal had quite a different understanding by 2002.

What did I just tell you? Learn how to read more carefully!

Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”

Did you catch that?

It would be rather incredible for someone who thought that macroevolution was “impossible” to then approve a document saying it was “virtually certain.”

Not when you understand that “virtually certain” was not his opinion but the opinion of mainstream science, which is what the document says, but you refuse to accept. By the way, apparently Pope Benedict still expresses doubt about macro-evolution in the book Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (2008), but I haven’t seen any quotes from it yet.

And just to scare the tar out of you, here’s Dr. Dominique Tassot:

Pope Benedict became familiar with the discoveries of Professor Berthault [YEC] many years ago, from the time he was a cardinal. He met Berthault at a conference center and spent several days with him, quite by accident. This is a center in the Alps that Ratzinger used as a meeting place for a theological conference, and Berthault was one of the directors of the association that owned the place. Ratzinger came several times over a period of years, and got to know Berthault. I think that has had some influence on him. It was an opportunity for him to see that even on the scientific questions surrounding evolution, debate is possible.
…
In the past, Cardinal Ratzinger was convinced that evolution was true, and being an intelligent man, he devised a way to make it compatible with theological truth. Today I think his view is different. Some years ago, he began to understand that there is a difference between micro and macro-evolution, which is an important point for him. At a conference in Germany, he actually said that this was one of the most important experiences of his life. The fact that he devoted three pages to the subject of evolution in Truth and Tolerance is by itself abnormal. He grasps that micro and macro-evolution are not the same, and I think he believes people accepted an atheistic world view in relation to evolution because they accepted the confusion between micro and macro-evolution. He wants people to understand this important truth.

 

[c659smith]

Asking my question a third time would seem to be a waste of time. I think the answer is that you haven’t and that you won’t. Actually learning what the Church teaches might disturb your complacency about what you think the Church teaches.

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble, it’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.” – attrib. Artemus Ward

Nowhere does John Paul assert that “sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact.” He does not claim that the theory “has been proven true.” The Pope’s reticence to say such things—if he believed them, he could have said them plainly, after all—more rightly should lead a reader to suspect that the Pope is not entirely convinced that evolution is true. The theory is still that—just a theory. It’s more than a hypothesis, since there seems to be substantial evidence in its favor, but there was substantial evidence in favor of Ptolemy’s theory too.

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

The Popes are telling science to prove their case and then we will discuss. Up to this point it is just that a theory and Catholics are not to disregard Genesis.

So yes I did read your postings and find them really reaching and stretching. It is not ok for you to believe in evolution as some scientists suggest and disregard Genesis. The Popes were placating the receiver but maintain Catholic Teaching on Devine Design.