Evolution according to the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter tori2323
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
Freddy:
Are you being purposely obtuse?

Creationism and evolution are completely different processes . God could have used either one. Please select your favourite method. He’s involved in both.
Click to expand...
Stop thinking in a polarised fashion There is no law that says its an either / or process. There are 2 chapters where the creation of all things is described, one much older then the other. There is also a conversation between Job and God about creation.

Lets not get into a debate about what day means or time.

God created all things. That includes the evolution of things, if we take that away from God and say
‘well you cannot create evolution’
we are trying to be greater then God.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
I think ultimately though the Bible isn’t a biological account, in correct dichotomic order. It’s a book of spiritual truth. And it should be read spiritually. There is so much we don’t know. And would it really help from a spiritual angle to say “on day 1.6 the birds were created, but only after the algae blooms…but not bacteria yet.” At some point I think we’re getting into the weeds.

Further what gets me is people take science as irrefutable and infallible. It really isn’t. Sure there are some theories which are quite well understood, elevated to laws. But often times what we “know” is a somewhat consensus of certain scientists. Historically however many things thought to be common knowledge in science have been proved incorrect. They seemed to make sense given the available knowledge, but once a greater understanding came about they were proved incorrect. I love science, I have a BS in a science, but it is still subject to interpretation, politics, data collection methods, and biases if all kinds unfortunately.
 
I don’t think I necessarily is though. Who is to say how God created things. When I was in Catholic school the understanding was “it doesn’t necessarily matter how God did it, but He did it and it was good”. This was to say there is nothing necessarily wrong with an evolutionary understanding of biology. If that’s how God made it work then OK great. We are discovering as we learn. There isn’t necessarily a conflict. I think the creationist vs evolution is often a talking point by atheists and the Christians who believe science is against God.
 
I am sorry you reached that conclusion. I am actually a major proponent for reviving the patristic method of exegesis… and certainly believe in scriptural infallibility. But I think you have some blind spots. That’s all for me…

-K
 
Servant31 said:
I don’t think I necessarily is though. Who is to say how God created things. When I was in Catholic school the understanding was “it doesn’t necessarily matter how God did it, but He did it and it was good”. This was to say there is nothing necessarily wrong with an evolutionary understanding of biology. If that’s how God made it work then OK great. We are discovering as we learn. There isn’t necessarily a conflict. I think the creationist vs evolution is often a talking point by atheists and the Christians who believe science is against God.
Click to expand...
He did it via the process of evolution. Those who read the bible literally will deny this because it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis (and they then seem determined to accuse those who ridicule this view as somehow denying God).

So one has the galactic amount of evidence for evolution versus the first chapter of the bible. Your call.
 
The major point at issue is the leap from non-human to human. Whatever the position is (material evolution, or “special creation” of Adam - right from the ground), what is inadmissible is that the rational soul is an “epiphenomenon” which “emerged” from matter. This is the crucial point. Everything else is, well, not that important, relatively speaking. Stuff that doesn’t die lives - and changes in genetic material propagate themselves over time if they are useful for staying alive. Okay. But the point is “whence” come human beings? The answer: not “purely” from a material development, as the form is not something which is merely a disposition of matter - it subsists.
 
kapp19 said:
The answer: not “purely” from a material development, as the form is not something which is merely a disposition of matter - it subsists.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Consciousness can arise in a scientifically explainable manner.
 
That is quite the claim. I’m intrigued to see how you would argue for that.
 
Look at the brain. And in fact one runs into trouble if consciousness isn’t explainable by the brain as opposed to a soul. Look at people with disabilities.
 
I’ve “looked at the brain.” Why does “this” brain produce “this consciousness with this unique personal identity”? If we could copy the material of that brain precisely, would there now be two identical consciousnesses? One person in two bodies? I would suppose not.

The brain is the instrument for conjuring the phantasms required for cognition (and for processing sense data through the sensory organs) but is not what is actually doing the “knowing”… Brains are flesh, they cannot take in immaterial data (like “triangularity”), let alone an indefinite amount of it.
 
That you know of. That doesn’t mean we won’t one day explain it purely materialistically. People said the same thing about lots of things that we know the answer to now.
 
Then there is no such thing as the subsistent immaterial soul - or no need to posit it except by faith, which seems problematic. You are essentially saying we could be purely material things… if one day we “know” that we are. What exactly is doing the knowing? We seem to be running into a problem - which I think is addressed by Kripke’s “quusing” example about AI.

Look, I think you are conflating “consciousness” with “rationality.” Of course consciousness depends on the brain - and the functioning of the intellect (as explained above) - but it’s a different claim to say that the flesh can produce a rational soul. The rational soul is of a different order entirely, as its object is not material. See the Summa on intellect, and also the neothomistc theses (the section on psychology): 24 Thomistic Theses

You can also listen to a nice talk by Prof. Feser on the subject on YouTube, just look up “feser immateriality of the intellect.”

Emergence is wildly problematic for Catholic anthropology - and runs up against heresy (though I fail to recall a definition against emergence - yet the sense of Vienne’s condemnation of Olivi regarding the soul as the form of the body is proximate to this - and you must also explain the immortality of the soul, which would seem to dissolve with the body on the emergence theory).
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
You can also listen to a nice talk by Prof. Feser on the subject on YouTube, just look up “feser immateriality of the intellect.”
Click to expand...
I’m on the fence about Feser myself. I read a pretty thorough review of his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God. I’m still mulling it all over.

You’re talking the soul. I’m talking consciousness. I’m saying one day we may be able to explain consciousness purely in scientific terms without reference to faith. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a soul. I’m drifting more towards Eastern Catholicism in my spiritual thinking and the regard for mystery there is intriguing. I may be misapplying it but it makes sense to me right now at least.
 
You read a review of the book - or the book itself? Would suggest reading the text for yourself and then making up your own mind (immaterially, of course!)…

Consciousness is just an integration of faculties of body and soul. It is not a power or faculty itself - it has no object.
 
Freddy said:
He did it via the process of evolution. Those who read the bible literally will deny this because it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis (and they then seem determined to accuse those who ridicule this view as somehow denying God).

So one has the galactic amount of evidence for evolution versus the first chapter of the bible. Your call.
Click to expand...
Mmmh Not close.
No such thing as evolution. It doesn’t happen
 
StudentMI said:
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Consciousness can arise in a scientifically explainable manner.
Click to expand...
Consciousness trying to understand itself?! Not possible.
StudentMI said:
That doesn’t mean we won’t one day explain it purely materialistically
Click to expand...
‘One day’, ‘explain’ are both subsets or subject or a construct of the mind so you are busy going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
No such thing as evolution. It doesn’t happen
Click to expand...
What is your explanation, then, for the fact that all living things share genetic material that is passed on through descent?

The only possible explanation of this is that all living things are related by descent, and that therefore species have evolved.

Evolution, like gravity, is a fact.
 
FiveLinden said:
What is your explanation, then, for the fact that all living things share genetic material that is passed on through descent?
Click to expand...
All living things share life and so the way of life shouldn’t differ from one living thing to another.
FiveLinden said:
The only possible explanation of this is that all living things are related by descent, and that therefore species have evolved.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t explain anything, it is a hypothesis which is not demonstrable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top