Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[Gorgias]

And just for the record, I don’t know how others feel about your emoticons, your sarcasm, and your “tsk, tsk, tsk’s”, but to me it is very rude and uncalled for.

Emoticons are a facility that are a part of the board. Sorry if you don’t like them.

If I’m calling you to task for what appears to be an approach that’s unreasonable, why is that uncalled for? Why is that rude?

And sarcasm? Well… we all have the register in which we talk, eh?

They way I see it, someone who has the intelligence to graduate from M.I.T. in any scientific field, has sufficient intelligence to learn about other scientific disciplines, whether he learns about them on his own, or in a university.

Yep. But, there are lots of folks who have impressive degrees who are out there spouting off unreasonable stuff, too. Can’t rely on a degree to measure the value of a person’s statement…

 

[goout]

It’s tragic when atheists have a better handle on the relationship between faith and reason than some Catholics.

That is an absolute failure of basic catechesis.
F

 

[niceatheist]

And what of it? We live in free countries by and large. I’m not clear as to how whether or not some people become atheists due to their interpretations of science (or misinterpretations) has anything to do with science itself. Really this complaint can be pushed all the way back to the enlightenment, when some philosophers rejected Christianity in favor of deism and pantheism. Christianity will prosper or fade on its merits, but setting up a false narrative that you either reject large bodies of science because it poses insoluble problems with your own theological narrative strikes me as a problem with your narrative. Augustine warned precisely against this, because even then it was apparent that if Christianity was set in opposition against what even nonbelievers knew to be true, Christianity would suffer for it.

 

[goout]

Little birdies took the dinosaurs by the hand and said: “look here, let’s build a nest. I will show you how”. And the dinosaurs said “yes thank you little birdies”

That’s really the only possibility right?

 

[edwest211]

Where did I write “Why do you feel the need to make the rankly radical suggestion that we ditch eveolutionary teaching altogether”? Anybody? What I did write was that I accept what the Church actually teaches about evolution but not this lame science only/atheist only version being peddled here.

 

[edwest211]

Nonsense. Unlike science, the Catholic Church can comment on both.

 

[edwest211]

You should read Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast

 

[Techno2000]

Little birdies took the dinosaurs by the hand and said: “look here, let’s build a nest. I will show you how”. And the dinosaurs said “yes thank you little birdies”

That’s really the only possibility right?

Maybe,when evolution was shrinking the dinosaurs down to bird size ,aliens had to impart that knowledge to them?

 

[edwest211]

You’re arguing with the Church, not me.

 

[goout]

goout:

Little birdies took the dinosaurs by the hand and said: “look here, let’s build a nest. I will show you how”. And the dinosaurs said “yes thank you little birdies”

That’s really the only possibility right?

Maybe,when evolution was shrinking the dinosaurs down to bird size ,aliens had to impart that knowledge to them?

Yea, is that the best answer available?
I know! Let’s ask mainstream scientists how this works!

 

[goout]

Our Catholic catechesis is woefully failing us if this is the best we can do with our intellectual tradition.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Little birdies took the dinosaurs by the hand and said: “look here, let’s build a nest. I will show you how”. And the dinosaurs said “yes thank you little birdies”

That’s really the only possibility right?

You speak my language! Sarcasm!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What I did write was that I accept what the Church actually teaches about evolution

And what is that exactly? And why does it conflict with “lame science only/atheist only version being peddled here”? You lost me.

 

[niceatheist]

No, the church’s stance isn’t as you interpret it. You are not the Magisterium.

 

[edwest211]

From Communion and Stewardship:

1. 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. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God."

 

[edwest211]

Opinion | Finding Design in Nature - The New York Times

 

[Bradskii]

Where did I write “Why do you feel the need to make the rankly radical suggestion that we ditch eveolutionary teaching altogether”? Anybody? What I did write was that I accept what the Church actually teaches about evolution but not this lame science only/atheist only version being peddled here.

Straw man. Evolution doesn’t deny God.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Pope John Paul II stated some years ago

I am very familiar with that, and I’ve quoted it myself.

There are two major points:

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

Fine. So you have a theory, and some scientists say “We deny any role of God in a causal role…” (They wouldn’t say this though–speaking as scientists–since by addressing “causal role” they are entering the “why” question, which is theology.) But it doesn’t matter to me–or others that acknowledge the role of God “in a causal role.” I can take the same exact theory and believe it is true.

Point two: Origin and role of man. Some scientists believe in the origin of modern man in one individual (after all, groups don’t have all their genes changed by mutations simultaneously; individuals do). And again, with “the role man” we enter the realm of “why?” which is a religious / metaphysical question, not a question that is answered by science.

Conclusion: There is nothing that conflicts with Church teaching.

As for Schonborn, the same thing. He doesn’t want someone to believe in a theory that is “unguided and unplanned.” Fine. You can have the exact same theory, and two people. One person says, “Yup, I think this process is “unguided and unplanned.”” And the second person (me, for example) looks at the same theory and says “Yup, I think the processes outlined in the theory make sense. But I think that ultimately God is responsible–which of course is a personal belief and has nothing to do with science.”

Why is that impossible for you to accept? You seem to be telling me (and others) what is in my mind. I know perfectly well what is in my mind. Just because some people (scientists, if you like) believe it is “unguided and unplanned” that is not an ESSENTIAL part of the theory. Whether you believe that part or not simply doesn’t matter. Why insist that it does?

 

[edwest211]

It is clear that the Church is not limited by science. God has to be part of the equation. That’s the conflict. The Church’s version or the incomplete ‘science only’ version.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Church’s version or the incomplete ‘science only’ version.

That’s a false choice. As I said, you can take the entire theory of evolution, assert that mankind descends from some individual man in the past, and also assert that God is ultimately (i.e., indirectly) responsible for the results, and you are orthodox in the eyes of the Church. Why keep insisting it’s Church vs. atheism? It’s simply not.