Evolution and Original Sin

[reggieM]

Concerning Deism, the Deist position is actually similar to the Catholic Church’s definition in that Deists also believe that God can be perceived through clear reason by the things He has created. You won’t find a unified position on this matter from the Deist perspective though.

Ok, you may certainly be correct (I don’t know for sure) but if Deism holds that God can be perceived by the things He created, then that’s not the Deism I’m talking about.

I’m talking about the philosophical position that is very close to atheism, but differs only that it posits a “supreme being” who exists but is not involved in the creation or development of anything in the universe (except, perhaps a singular moment).

As I’ve read it, many theistic evolutionists take this view. God “started things”, but then does not guide the universe. More importantly, the presence of this supreme intelligence cannot be perceived in any of the works of nature. All of the things of nature were created by accident and if we could see them for what they are – they would all look like they were created by chance or accident.

We see this from Fr. George Coyne in this illuminating bit of text that ricmat surfaced recently:

Cardinal Schoenborn states in Chance or Purpose - page 169

When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely." The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”

This is what I’d consider the Deist (perhaps I need a better term for it) position. Fr. Coyne claims that the process was so exclusively natural, so “unguided”, so accidental or random – that “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution”.

That illustrates the point I’m making. Here’s a theistic evolutionist (Fr. Coyne) proposing that God was distant from the process. This is not much different than atheism. The difference is that there is an assertion that “God exists out there”. There can be no evidence of God’s intelligence in His works because He didn’t know what nature would produce.

I don’t think Fr. Coyne is alone in this belief – far from it. His view may be rare to find among Catholic priests, but I think he holds the standard theistic evolutionary view. I’ve seen this same belief posted here many times among some (vocal) Catholics whose defense of Darwin’s theory was perfectly compatible with the atheist view.

Where Deism departs gravely from the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is that the Deist denies the possibility of God performing True Miracles and they also reject Divine Revelation too. The idea that Jesus is God would also be scoffed at by most Deists, precisely because it goes directly against their uninvolved watchmaker philosophy which they have framed their concept of God into.

Yes, that is very similar to what I’m talkinga bout – so I agree here. I wouldn’t say “the uninvolved watchmaker” though (although that may be the correct way to look at Deism).

I think the term “uninvolved” was used by the Deists to mean that God didn’t care about His creation.

The way I would use “uninvolved” to describe the “neo-Deists” is that God cannot even be called “the watchmaker”. He was so uninvolved that he didn’t even create the watch (which requires at least that level of “involvement”).

The watch was created through accidental processes alone, according to this view. As Fr. Coyne would say, God didn’t know that a watch would emerge – chance combinations created it.

Others would say that the entire pattern for evolution (laws, processes, results) was what God created. Just that alone. Then, it all just played itself according to the script.

But where this doesn’t make sense (to me) is that there is opposition to the idea that one can detect that reality is, indeed, unfolding to a pre-designed script. We can see evidence of it.

The opposition holds that we can’t see that evidence because the script was written to make it look like it was entirely unplanned, undesigned. In other words, it looks like there was no script at all (but there really was one – and we know that because ???).

This is where we get a bald assertion that “God exists” and “He must have planned it all because that’s what God does”.

But any attempt to recognize the hand of a supreme intelligence in nature by observations of the design elements (and impossible coincidences or combinations, etc) is considered “not science”.

 

[reggieM]

Jesus Christ appearing as true God and True man was a significant intervention in natural processes. It is unknown exactly how many he healed and raised from the dead, returning them to the gene pool.

This is why I think it is difficult for any Christian to give uncritical acceptance to Darwinian theory. The dead organic matter was given life – brought back to the gene pool. The multiplication of loaves and fishes – the emergence of organic matter ex nihilo.

Some will say that while Jesus did those things, we cannot accept that He ever did or would do anything like that again, on earth or in the universe.

Appearances of the Blessed Virgin have also influenced lives, not to mention the miracles of saints. Every baptism, every commitment to Christ covers Original Sin in His blood.

Every Mass offered on every altar in the world is a profound miracle of grace. The supernatural intervention of God in our world seems to me to be profusive and overwhelming in its abundance.

But then we are asked to believe that the development of nature – all living things – was blocked off from this lavish power of God to change, guide and transform things (although He clothes the lilies of the field). I just don’t think it follows very well, from a Catholic perspective (I can understand the argument from an atheistic view).

 

[edwest2]

One also has to factor in the fact that miracles, no matter how repugnant to some, do occur. The “but-that’s-just-something-science-hasn’t-figured-out-yet” argument is only an ardent wish. The appearances of the Blessed Virgin cannot be wished away either.

It is interesting that “science” seems to exist in a bubble. Whereas the Church clearly teaches that the average man can discover God in nature.

Father Coyne, at some point, apparently forgot about God’s will. It came first, and it still matters now.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

We see this from Fr. George Coyne in this illuminating bit of text that ricmat surfaced recently:

This is what I’d consider the Deist (perhaps I need a better term for it) position. Fr. Coyne claims that the process was so exclusively natural, so “unguided”, so accidental or random – that “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution”.

Then your argument is against some aspects of Process Theology and not necessarilly Theistic Evolution.

One can believe in theistic evolution and still believe that the evolutionary paths were guided and controlled by God. One does not have to believe that that the process was so exclusively natural, so “unguided”, so accidental or random – that “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution”.

This is a well known error among process theologians—not theistic evolution per se. And a characteristic of process theology that each of these thinkers share is a rejection of metaphysics that privilege “being” over “becoming,” particularly a rejection of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[edwest2]

This is why I think it is difficult for any Christian to give uncritical acceptance to Darwinian theory. The dead organic matter was given life – brought back to the gene pool. The multiplication of loaves and fishes – the emergence of organic matter ex nihilo.

Some will say that while Jesus did those things, we cannot accept that He ever did or would do anything like that again, on earth or in the universe.

Every Mass offered on every altar in the world is a profound miracle of grace. The supernatural intervention of God in our world seems to me to be profusive and overwhelming in its abundance.

But then we are asked to believe that the development of nature – all living things – was blocked off from this lavish power of God to change, guide and transform things (although He clothes the lilies of the field). I just don’t think it follows very well, from a Catholic perspective (I can understand the argument from an atheistic view).

This is what happens when everything in the Bible is turned into a symbol rather than what it actually is. Yes, some things are given by analogy but the Church holds the deposit of faith as truth (i.e., they are not making it up as they go along which is the impression I get from reading some posts here regarding the Church). The reality of Jesus Christ is not a “maybe.” The reason He died for all men so that sins may be forgiven is not a maybe either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

One also has to factor in the fact that miracles, no matter how repugnant to some, do occur.

Science doesn’t rule out miracles; it just can’t say anything about them.

The “but-that’s-just-something-science-hasn’t-figured-out-yet” argument is only an ardent wish.

Not a wish; a myth, spread by those who don’t understand faith or science. Science will never “figure out” God; it’s not supposed to. You have to find Him other ways. Fortunately, He provided some for you, if you will only use them.

It is interesting that “science” seems to exist in a bubble.

Right. It’s a very limited method.

Whereas the Church clearly teaches that the average man can discover God in nature.

And they don’t use science to do it. It is apparent to any person who looks with an open heart, even if they know nothing of science. God intended it so.

Father Coyne, at some point, apparently forgot about God’s will.

No, he just understands it a bit better than you do.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think the current political hysteria over the Political version of ID/Stealth Creationism will give way to an information theory that will show that a device, even a relatively complex device, cannot program itself or create information, aside from a possible one-off copy/static duplicate.

Not likely. Information theory shows that it happens regularly. And we could build one, in principle. They are called “Von Neuman machines.” Your assertion, if true, would mean that animals can’t reproduce beyond one generation.

By the way, if a clearly designed artifact were found on, say Mars, and no evidence of a designer were found, that would still not negate the existence of the object.

But so far, no one’s ever found one in nature. For good reason.

 

[reggieM]

Then your argument is against some aspects of Process Theology and not necessarilly Theistic Evolution.

That was interesting – thanks.

I think there are different varieties of Theistic evolution, right?

How would you describe TE and the role of God as creator?

Would there be a difference between “purely natural processes” and “processes that are guided by God”?

 

[Camron]

No, he just understands it a bit better than you do.

If Father Coyne really is saying that “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution” then I would say that the man just doesn’t understand it at all.

In fact, theologically speaking, he may indeed be a blind moron who is far more dangerous, theologically speaking, than any YEC was ever accused of being.

I am reserving judgment on this because I don’t know if Father Coyne really made that kind of blasphemously idiotic claim against God.

Does anyone have a link verifying this?

 

[The_Barbarian]

**"And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.”

He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.” …Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.” **
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Yeah, it appears that the quote they gave you is either an intentional attempt to deceive, or more likely, an inability to understand the Catholic conception of Creator.

 

[reggieM]

Yeah, it appears that the quote they gave you is either an intentional attempt to deceive, or more likely, an inability to understand the Catholic conception of Creator.

Apparently you believe that Cardinal Schoenborn was either intentionally trying to deceive people or that he is unable to understand the Catholic conception of Creator.

He gave the reference that was posted – citing Fr. George Coyne’s remarks in the German newspaper Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.

You can find this in Cardinal Shonborn’s book “Chance or Purpose” page 169.

 

[reggieM]

In fact, theologically speaking, he may indeed be a blind moron who is far more dangerous, theologically speaking, than any YEC was ever accused of being.

He may, indeed, be all of that. To me, it would explain why Fr. Coyne was removed from his role as director of the Vatican Observatory. It also explains why Cardinal Schonborn cited him in his book “Chance or Purpose” with a very harsh comment regarding his belief, stating that Fr. Coyne’s idea (that God couldn’t know that man would be the product of evolution) was an indication that “nonsense had taken over completely”.

 

[edwest2]

Science doesn’t rule out miracles; it just can’t say anything about them.

Not a wish; a myth, spread by those who don’t understand faith or science. Science will never “figure out” God; it’s not supposed to. You have to find Him other ways. Fortunately, He provided some for you, if you will only use them.

Right. It’s a very limited method.

And they don’t use science to do it. It is apparent to any person who looks with an open heart, even if they know nothing of science. God intended it so.

No, he just understands it a bit better than you do.

You don’t know me. And science is not the only method of finding truth. But apparently, you use it as some sort of litmus test. Reject science? Then that’s a big problem.

Science is used to study miracles. Look up the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. They call in doctors and whatever other specialists they need to examine the miracle. My recent favorite was a submarine accident where the captain called on a saint. He needed to open a door where the water pressure he was working against was at two tons. He opened the door after seeing what he described as a bright light. He saved some men that would have otherwise died. Naval specialists determined what he did was impossible.

Not trying to give you a hard time but yes, science is called upon by the Church to examine miracles.

There is also the testimony of a specialist who closely examined the tilma or cloak upon which the image of Our Lady of Guadelupe was created, which the Church ruled to be a miracle. His conclusion after examining the eyes was that reflected in them were the images of other people from the time period.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

There is also the testimony of a specialist who closely examined the tilma or cloak upon which the image of Our Lady of Guadelupe was created, which the Church ruled to be a miracle. His conclusion after examining the eyes was that reflected in them were the images of other people from the time period.

To me that sounds like science giving evidence of a supernatural phenomenon.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You don’t know me.

Your behavior is more telling than you think.

And science is not the only method of finding truth.

I’m glad you finally accept that.

But apparently, you use it as some sort of litmus test.

Litmus tests only work in science. There are, as you just realized, other ways of knowing.

Reject science? Then that’s a big problem.

Depends on what the problem is.

Science is used to study miracles. Look up the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. They call in doctors and whatever other specialists they need to examine the miracle. My recent favorite was a submarine accident where the captain called on a saint. He needed to open a door where the water pressure he was working against was at two tons. He opened the door after seeing what he described as a bright light. He saved some men that would have otherwise died. Naval specialists determined what he did was impossible.

Sounds like a miracle to me. Got the details? And science, as you pointed out, could only see if there was a physical explanation. If not, science can go no farther. As your specialists realized. Science can’t evaluate miracles.

Not trying to give you a hard time but yes, science is called upon by the Church to examine miracles.

To see if there’s a physical explanation, yes. A lot of “miracles” turn out to be just something natural that people didn’t understand. Science can say that something happened for natural reasons. But if it can’t say that, then it is unable to say anything else.

There is also the testimony of a specialist who closely examined the tilma or cloak upon which the image of Our Lady of Guadelupe was created, which the Church ruled to be a miracle. His conclusion after examining the eyes was that reflected in them were the images of other people from the time period.

I’d sure like to see the data, and the details on this, um…“specialist.”

There’s no scientific way to say such a thing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Apparently you believe that Cardinal Schoenborn was either intentionally trying to deceive people or that he is unable to understand the Catholic conception of Creator.

He gave the reference that was posted – citing Fr. George Coyne’s remarks in the German newspaper Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.

You can find this in Cardinal Shonborn’s book “Chance or Purpose” page 169.

If he really wrote that, it would be deeply troubling. For it egregiously misrepresents what Father Coyne wrote and believes.

And it conflicts with the teaching of the Church (report of the International Theological Commission)

Granted, that Cardinal Schoenborn is not scientifically trained, but still, one would think he would be more careful.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

Science can and does evaluate miracles as they are properly called. I think you do not accept the fact that the impossible happens but it is a key component of Catholic faith and truth.

Science does not happen in a room isolated from real space-time. Even the Church realizes that there is a relationship between the observer and the thing being observed. Clearly, science can observe whatever it likes. It certainly did not stop the CIA. To paraphrase their researchers: “We had to look under every rock because of the possibility the enemy was doing the same. We couldn’t afford to ignore anything.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science can and does evaluate miracles as they are properly called.

The Church acknowledges that science can show that a putative miracle has a natural explanation. But it can’t verify a miracle. That is beyond the reach of science, as Pope Benedict XVI says.

I think you do not accept the fact that the impossible happens but it is a key component of Catholic faith and truth.

I know miracles happen. I just have enough faith that I don’t need science to prop it up for me. Which is a good thing, because science can’t do that.

Science does not happen in a room isolated from real space-time.

Real space-time is accessible to science. It is the supernatural that it cannot reach. Have some faith in faith.

Even the Church realizes that there is a relationship between the observer and the thing being observed.

That is not limited to science, nor does it define science.

Clearly, science can observe whatever it likes.

No, it is a very limited method.

It certainly did not stop the CIA. To paraphrase their researchers: “We had to look under every rock because of the possibility the enemy was doing the same. We couldn’t afford to ignore anything.”

You mean the goofy “investigation” into ESP? ESP isn’t supposed to be magic, or some kind of God. Those who believe it exists think that its a natural process. Problem is, no one can find even a bit of evidence for it.

And I suppose that a great many things in the past been taken for ESP are really spiritual phenomena. Which would explain why science can’t find anything to support it.

 

[edwest2]

Your view of science is strange. Regardless of the examples I’ve given, it seems you believe that “science” is walled off from the totality of existence. The Church has recognized that science has certain limits but, and this is the important part, it provides the other forms of reason that we still need, according to Pope Benedict. You appear to not be very interested in those other forms of reason which provide factual information.

A scientist, today, can examine the tilma or cloak with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadelupe. What would he say? Nothing? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Link to a recent miracle:

romancatholiconline.net/posts/000993/

God bless,
Ed