Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[SeraficLeo]

There’s no Catholic position on evolution.

False.

To say it’s against religion and God is simply false.

False.

Emma Darwin - Wikipedia​

https:// en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ Emma_Darwin

Emma Darwin. Emma Darwin ( née Wedgwood; 2 May 1808 – 2 October 1896) was an English woman who was the wife and first cousin of Charles Darwin. They were married on 29 January 1839 and were the parents of ten children, three of whom died at early ages.

Darwin had an axe to grind with God and Christianity.

 

[buffalo]

Retroviruses are not good.

Yes, that is what they used to think. I believed I linked here or in another thread about the latest on ERV’s.

 

[buffalo]

that God put an awful lot of work designing us in a way that fools us and contradicts the rationality that He gave us. A “deceiver God” is also something that’s anathema to Catholic thought.

Correct. God cannot deceive or be deceived. Was He deceptive by not showing us what is going on inside the cell in the beginning?

 

[PickyPicky]

Darwin had an axe to grind with God and Christianity.

Not at all. Both Darwin and his wife came from Unitarian backgrounds, and Darwin himself was an Anglican, (he studied for the ministry), until he slowly lost his faith. In his later years he described himself as agnostic. But he and his wife were both supportive of his local Church of England parish, and he refused to be drawn into anti-religious movements and debates.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, that is what they used to think. I believed I linked here or in another thread about the latest on ERV’s.

By ‘ERV’, you mean the remnants left in our genetic code, right?

Yeah… they’re inactive. However, the retrovirus which gave rise to the ERV in the first place, was not ‘beneficial.’

Correct. God cannot deceive or be deceived. Was He deceptive by not showing us what is going on inside the cell in the beginning?

OK. So, if you’re rejecting that possibility, then you’re either saying that God designed us with infections already in us?

 

[Anrakyr]

Only 20 percent of life is non parasitic. That’s not entirely true.

 

[Lou2U]

Please cite Catholic teaching that is against evolution, and says that it is against God and religion.

 

[rossum]

Science explicitly denies God a truly causal role.

For good reasons. If a Hindu scientist publishes a paper ascribing a causal role to Vishnu, Durga and gravity. When Catholic teachers in Catholic schools comes to teach the contents of that paper do you expect them to ascribe a causal role to Vishnu and Durga as the paper says? Do you expect the teachers to lie and ascribe the causal role to a different God, not mentioned in the paper or do you expect the teachers to lie by omission and ascribe the causal role solely to gravity?

There are a great many gods who are worshipped by many different scientists. Science avoids the problem by restricting itself to purely material causes. That way we do not get theologians arguing over a scientific paper to determine if it was Amaterasu or Allah that caused the piezoelectric effect.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let me ignore retroviruses and other minutiae of biology. Instead, let’s go with Rossum’s point and the broader perspective.

Let’s say you are a pious Muslim. If you mention the future, you always add “in sha’ Allah” (“If God wills”). For example, “I’m going to buy a new car tomorrow, in sha’ Allah.”

And of course it works in the past, as well. Taking an actual example from personal experience: “Ahmad, why didn’t you do your homework?” Ahmad: “ma sha’ Allah (God didn’t will it.)” Which is of course similar to what we hear everyday in the West: “It was meant to be.” “It wasn’t according to God’s plan.” “It will all work out for the best.” etc.

Now the pious Muslim might think that those Christians and Jews running around saying things like “I’m going to buy a new car tomorrow” without adding “if God wills” are denying the existence and/or power of God. But of course if you were a Christian or Jew, you’d be doing no such thing. It’s just that your assumption of God is a given: You don’t need to explicitly state it every time you talk about the future. It’s understood.

So edwest et al. are a lot like the pious Muslim: If you don’t explicitly say “God is the cause of evolution…” you are denying God in their view. And of course (!) that’s not true. It’s (to a Christian or Jew) an underlying assumption that doesn’t need to be explicitly stated all the time. And yes, an atheist could also say “I’m going to buy a new car tomorrow.” But that doesn’t make the act of buying a car–or the act of planning to buy a car–an atheistic act in its very essence. Nor is the theory of evolution an atheistic theory.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Thanks to those who have mentioned “Communion and Stewardship.” It’s a very interesting document, and as always (!) repays close reading. Parts of it have been quoted by edwest, et al., but strangely section 69 has been ignored:

"69. 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. "

Please note particularly: “…cannot be settled by theology.” and “…true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence…even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process [i.e., evolution proceeding by the means of random mutations] can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”

“Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree.” Exactly. The first belongs in religion/theology class; the second belongs in science class.

 

[edwest211]

I want to present actual Church teaching. That’s all. Some here want to deny parts of it and can do so, but that doesn’t change anything.

 

[edwest211]

Woah. A lot of stretching and assuming here.

 

[edwest211]

Where did I write that? Modern science, by definition, is strictly limited. I have no interest in theology infringing on everyday science, But what you are missing is that the Church provides critical information that it knows science cannot. So, it can combine the two. Some people don’t like that.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Where did I write that?

Write what???

Modern science, by definition, is strictly limited.

Yes. No one is disputing that.

what you are missing is that the Church provides critical information that it knows science cannot. So, it can combine the two. Some people don’t like that.

But when you combine science + theology, you get theology, not science. That’s what you, buffalo, etc. are missing. And you’re right–some people (me…) don’t like that. (And the implications are almost endless–Rossum pointed out one big one. How would we feel about a ‘science’ book that brings Shiva into the picture as creator? Or a ‘science’ book that says “If you add water to the mixture, in sha’ Allah it will produce X.” Should each religion have its own science?)

 

[edwest211]

Now you’re going on a wrong tangent. You are incorrect. The Church can combine science and theology to bring the full answer out. Science is limited, you know that. The Church has no such limitation.

Where did I say God or any god should be in science books? I never said/wrote that.

 

[Techno2000]

Evolution can spit out fit new offspring overnight, but evolution takes millions and millions of years… so which is it?

Waiting for the vague answers to pour in.

 

[edwest211]

Keepin’ it vague

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Where did I say God or any god should be in science books? I never said/wrote that.

Aren’t you saying that the science books should say that the universe and its subsequent development are part of God’s plan? And that God is the ultimate cause? And that “intelligent design” (i.e, creationism) should be taught in science classes? No? Did I miss something???

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Church can combine science and theology to bring the full answer out. Science is limited, you know that.

If you prefaced this with “I believe…” that would end the discussion. If you say (as you seem to…) “Every school should teach in its science classes that…” then we have a problem.

 

[rossum]

Evolution can spit out fit new offspring overnight,

Correct. Some bacteria can reproduce after as little as 30 minutes. How many fit human babies are born every day? How many mice are born? How many krill? A great many fit new offspring are born/budded/hatched/whatever every day and night.

but evolution takes millions and millions of years… so which is it?

You want Australopithecus to Homo then it took about 1.5 million years. Tiktaalik to Homo took 375 million years. You are asking how long is a piece of string.