Evolution and Original Sin

[The_Barbarian]

In other words, he can’t find a proof of gravity.

 

[drpmjhess]

This is a very good example of the point. Depending on how you define the term “proof”, one can either prove something or not. The definition is your philosophical opinion about what the term “prove” means. There is no scientific test to determine whether your definition is scientifically correct or not, since you’re using a concept (what it means to “prove” something). It’s based on some kind of consensus or mutual agreement – but it’s not in the nature of reality to see that the term “to prove something” means one thing or another. In time, the term can become obsolete. At one time, evolutionists claimed that the Darwin process was “random”. Then later they said it was not “random”. Part of the change had to do with the definition of the term “random” itself. That’s the philosophical strucuture which is essential (can’t live without it) to science…

What on earth are you saying?

 

[Camron]

No, you are wrong. Some theories (philosophical more than scientific) may be in conflict with Catholic teaching, but the fact of evolution is not. The Holy See, by it’s own statements, has clearly indicated that evolution is fact.

Peace

Tim

Actually, I think reggie has a partial good point on this one.

There are some theories of evolution which, concerning creation, are indeed considered not compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I don’t think there’s been enough effort made on the side of the theistic evolutionists to make this distinction clear enough. And I don’t think it’s fair to wholly reduce the argument to a purely philosophical one (or even religious ones) when there are indeed some scientific matters that are inevitably drawn into the discussion too.

For example, regardless of how it was done (and, for the record, I do believe that God used evolution to create the human race), God did indeed create everything. In fact, God created man in His own image.

He didn’t create man in the image of calculus. He didn’t create man in the image of gravity either. He created us in His own likeness, in His own likeness He created us man and woman. This, regardless of how it is worded, is a fact– a fact which is demanded by our faith, regardless of whether we can prove it scientifically or not.

Of course, on the other hand, in my own reflections regarding evolution, it seems to me that the only real distinction between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution is that theistic evolutionists assert that God did it whereas atheistic evolutionists claim there is no God. I don’t have a problem with this distinction (even though I do have a major problem with atheistic evolutionary claims) because I do believe that God created the various species of life on Earth via evolutionary processes. But to the casual observer who misses this crucial point, the atheistic evolutionist and theistic evolutionist appear much the same. So I can partially see what you are saying regarding the philosophies behind world view in one sense.

In the end, however, it still really requires faith in God to see that He created the various species using evolution, just as it takes faith in God to see that He created us in our mother’s wombs via ongoing biological processes occurring within our own mothers’ bodies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that God literally fashioned us with His hands as the divinely inspired poetic utterances in the Bible indicate. However, just because we can’t see His hands doing the work doesn’t mean He is not creating us via these biological processes within our mothers’ wombs either.

Either way, it still takes faith in God to see God’s invisible and intangible yet real and knowable influence in His creation. This is the part that, in my opinion, is causing the most confusion in these debates.

Perhaps it’s time to list in point form the similarities and differences between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, so that those who doubt that God used evolution to create the various species may understand more clearly what we are actually claiming.

I also think we need to be careful not to claim too much either. I too would say that it’s just not that easy to reconcile evolution and original sin. This doesn’t mean there is no answer. It just means that we don’t have the full answer to this reconciliation yet.

Or course, if God gave His creation little loving nudges here and there along the way (not to ‘correct’ but to ‘create’), I don’t think the theory of evolution would collapse anytime soon either. I’m fairly sure it will never collapse depite some of the claims I’ve read.

Unless some Earth-shattering evidence is found to the contrary, I think the theory of evolution is too strongly supported by science to go away anytime soon. Then again, if God really did use evolution to create the various species of the world (and I believe He did use evolution this way), then a theory which explains His creation so well – and is also strongly supported by scientific inquiry – would really be exactly what we would expect to see when inquiring further into God’s creation.

 

[drpmjhess]

For example, regardless of how it was done (and, for the record, I do believe that God used evolution to create the human race), God did indeed create everything. In fact, God created man in His own image.

How is this incompatible with evolution?

 

[Camron]

How is this incompatible with evolution?

It’s not incompatible in my opinion. Like the analogy given before of the child being formed in the womb via natural biological processes, simply saying that one can’t see God biologically “doing it” via evolution doesn’t prove He’s not doing it biologically via evolution.

Reducing this to a “philosophical” matter doesn’t do justice to the “theological” answers that have been revealed. While science cannot “prove” that God exists, science can (and does) force the scientifically minded to ask philosophically motivated questions which inevitably lead toward theologically revealed answers. And there’s really no excuse for the scientifically minded to not honestly seek and find theological answers to these questions either.

In other words, honeslty seeking answers to these philosophical questions without any materialistc bias should naturally lead toward the supernatural answers, something which science can (and does) inform our opinion of.

For example, we can (and do) use science to prove that God did not directly “create” life as the creationists claim. So science can (and does) have something to say about how God operates even if we cannot use science to directly measure God Himself.

This is where faith comes in. And while our faith in God is informed indirectly by science, our faith in God should not be reduced to the philosophical questions which led us toward our faith in God. Only divine revelation can answer these philosophical questions.

 

[ricmat]

In the end, however, it still really requires faith in God to see that He created the various species using evolution, just as it takes faith in God to see that He created us in our mother’s wombs via ongoing biological processes occurring within our own mothers’ bodies.

snip…

Either way, it still takes faith in God to see God’s invisible and intangible yet real and knowable influence in His creation. This is the part that, in my opinion, is causing the most confusion in these debates.

I agree with much of what your post says. But on the item above I will take exception.

The first Vatican council stated a doctrine “that by the light of human reason we can come to know that there is a Creator who is guiding the world.” We are not asked to accept God on blind faith (fideism). Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 are used to support this doctrine. Refer to Chance or Reason, by Cardinal Schoenborn, pages 18-20.

There are some who want to segregate science and religion, and make statements like “Science can’t find God for you, the method is too weak.” But we are actually called to find God through his work, and these bible verses chastise those who have so much knowledge of creation, but fail to find God. I think you might be minimizing this required use of human scientific reason to find God when you put the emphasis on faith as above.

I realize that this was just a minor point of your post, and as I said, I agree with much of what was in your original (longer) post.

 

[tonyl]

I agree with much of what your post says. But on the item above I will take exception.

The first Vatican council stated a doctrine “that by the light of human reason we can come to know that there is a Creator who is guiding the world.” We are not asked to accept God on blind faith (fideism). Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 are used to support this doctrine. Refer to Chance or Reason, by Cardinal Schoenborn, pages 18-20.

There are some who want to segregate science and religion, and make statements like “Science can’t find God for you, the method is too weak.” But we are actually called to find God through his work, and these bible verses chastise those who have so much knowledge of creation, but fail to find God. I think you might be minimizing this required use of human scientific reason to find God when you put the emphasis on faith as above.

I realize that this was just a minor point of your post, and as I said, I agree with much of what was in your original (longer) post.

I would like to extend what you said just a little bit. We should be able to know of the creator through reason. But we should remember that science is not the only source of knowledge to which we apply our reasoning. While I agree that it would be incorrect to say “Science can’t find God for you, the method is too weak”, The statement “Science alone is unlikely to find God” may be more reasonable. Science is a tool for figuring out how things work and how things happen. It’s results may be extremely useful, when combined with other sources of knowledge and insight, in finding god. However, it would be unwise to assume that all of life’s answers can be divined from science alone.

 

[ricmat]

I would like to extend what you said just a little bit. We should be able to know of the creator through reason. But we should remember that science is not the only source of knowledge to which we apply our reasoning.

Agreed…

Also, some people have no aptitude for science, so it won’t do them much good.

While I agree that it would be incorrect to say “Science can’t find God for you, the method is too weak”, The statement “Science alone is unlikely to find God” may be more reasonable. Science is a tool for figuring out how things work and how things happen. It’s results may be extremely useful, when combined with other sources of knowledge and insight, in finding god. However, it would be unwise to assume that all of life’s answers can be divined from science alone.

Essentially I agree with you here too. Science cannot answer everything.

But I think the situation depends on the person. Some people “find” God through music or art or math or philosophy. Wisdom 13 and Romans 1 speak specifically to those who know about the wonders of creation, and fail to find Him. This includes what we call today scientists. Many scientists see the wonders of creation but fail to see God - for lack, perhaps, of some formal scientific proof which they demand as being necessary. But they don’t need a formal proof. They already have enough information without it.

Well, enough of this, it’s off topic anyway

 

[reggieM]

For example, we can (and do) use science to prove that God did not directly “create” life as the creationists claim. So science can (and does) have something to say about how God operates even if we cannot use science to directly measure God Himself.

Excellent point, thank you. It’s an obvious refutation of the notion that “science can say nothing about religion or God”.

 

[reggieM]

However, it would be unwise to assume that all of life’s answers can be divined from science alone.

That was a good post.

An interesting follow-up question might be:

“Which questions about life does modern-science believe cannot be answered by science alone?”

 

[puzzleannie]

Pick up a biology textbook. You’ll see the Theory of Evolution is self-contained. There was no outside inteference. No God to affect any of it. Ed

the actions of God are outside the realm of science. you will also fail to see any reference to God in a geology book the explains the ages of layers of rock on the earth, or in a physics book that explains the atom, or an astronomy book that explains the origin of the universe. all of these books present theories, and when these theories have been bolstered by actual scientifice evidence, the books say so. they also generally go out of there way to explain when and how some scientists differ in there interpretation of the evidence.

since science books are not religion texts one would not expect to find any explanation of how God acts in His creation. For that you go to religious texts, beginning with the Bible. The Bible does not claim to be a science book, so you will not find the modern scientific method used as a means of explaining God’s actions in creation and human history, nor should hou espect to find it.

science and religion both come from God so by definition they cannot contradict or impede each other. Humans, who also come from God, have however a seemingly infinite ability to do bad science, to make unwarranted assumptions from insufficient evidence, and to fail to make use of the rules of science, especially when they try to make science function as something it is not: philosophy, religion, or scripture.

 

[Camron]

I agree with much of what your post says. But on the item above I will take exception.

The first Vatican council stated a doctrine “that by the light of human reason we can come to know that there is a Creator who is guiding the world.” We are not asked to accept God on blind faith (fideism). Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 are used to support this doctrine. Refer to Chance or Reason, by Cardinal Schoenborn, pages 18-20.

But I’m not suggesting that we go on blind faith. Of all the world religions there is no doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church is the most reasonable faith in existence. It doesn’t mean that we have all the answers. But we do possess the fullness of truth regarding theological questions to the extent that God has thus far revealed them.

Regarding Romans 1 and Wisdom 13, I agree with you. But I think that some take this too far and insert their own interpretation of the Bible into the Biblical texts given.

For example, many creationists seem to be authentically convinced that the earliest parts of Genesis must be interpreted as referring to a literal six days. I strongly disagree with them because the Biblical text does not demand this and the Church has revealed a safer means to interpret these Biblical texts. Nonetheless, creationists of all forms often insist that all scientific evidence must be interpreted within this 6-day framework. When this is done, however, this actually distorts what Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 actually indicates.

When I read Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 I don’t see this as a call to re-interpret the entire body of scientific evidence in the light of any presupposed Biblical narrative. I simply assert that if evidence can be scientifically determined to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is a good indicator that God most likely did do it in the way that science has revealed His creation unfolding.

On the flip side of the argument, the other problem comes down to when someone claims that the supposedly purposeless and extremely harsh nature of evolution means that God did not create anything, which simply isn’t true.

What they are saying is that they don’t like the way that God did it and they refuse to believe in God precisely because they don’t like the way God operates. This is often camouflaged in the language of “logical arguments” against God’s existence, but there is no “logical argument” against God’s existence, which is exactly what Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 states clearly.

In the end, when someone tries to use science to argue against God’s existence, God reveals His loving wisdom through the Church to demolish their arguments (and their every pretension they use to set themselves up against the knowledge of God) and we take captive their every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

 

[Camron]

There are some who want to segregate science and religion, and make statements like “Science can’t find God for you, the method is too weak.”

Then I would partially disagree with them to some extent.

For example, when someone counts tree rings and notes that a tree is approximately 4000 years old, I see no reason to suspect that this tree is not actually approximately 4000 years old. This is apparently the way God did it. The same holds true with other factors too.

So when EPICA can determine via ice cores from Antarctica that the Earth has at least been around for approximately 800,000 years, I see no reason to doubt the science behind this research. The same holds true for the various radiometric dating processes too. This too is apparently the way God did it. And I simply see no valid reason to re-interpret this vast amount of evidence in order to squeeze it within the literal 6-day period.

I think some people make too much of Galileo. But, to be fair, we did take the Bible too literally concerning the heliocentric/geocentric debates years ago precisely because we took the poetic language of the Holy Writ at face value. Many made the same error concerning the age of the Earth. I also think this same error is happening regarding the whole creation/evolution debate too.

But we are actually called to find God through his work, and these bible verses chastise those who have so much knowledge of creation, but fail to find God.

True. But then what is the purpose of divine revelation? Why did God call forth a Church if things can be known through nature itself?

One could draw an imperfect analogy of the Trinity through the triune nature of light consisting of three primary colors forming white light. But no one would ever be able to look at the triune nature of light and, without divine revelation, conclude that God is Triune in essence.

One could also draw an imperfect analogy of the hypostatic union of Christ as true God and true man through the ultimate nature of matter having a wave-particle duality. But no one would ever be able to look at that ultimate nature of matter having a wave-particle duality and, without divine revelation, conclude that Christ is true God and true man.

The wonders of God’s creation can only lead a person so far. After a reasonable inquiry into the nature of God’s creation, one ultimately requires faith to see what the creation has been pointing toward all along—her Creator.

I think you might be minimizing this required use of human scientific reason to find God when you put the emphasis on faith as above.

Perhaps so. But I think you also need to ask yourself what the purpose of divine revelation is if indeed these things can be known through nature.

Perhaps we can work on this together and then look at how this applies to Original Sin.

 

[ricmat]

But I’m not suggesting that we go on blind faith. Of all the world religions there is no doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church is the most reasonable faith in existence. It doesn’t mean that we have all the answers. But we do possess the fullness of truth regarding theological questions to the extent that God has thus far revealed them.

Regarding Romans 1 and Wisdom 13, I agree with you. But I think that some take this too far and insert their own interpretation of the Bible into the Biblical texts given.

For example, many creationists seem to be authentically convinced that the earliest parts of Genesis must be interpreted as referring to a literal six days. I strongly disagree with them because the Biblical text does not demand this and the Church has revealed a safer means to interpret these Biblical texts. Nonetheless, creationists of all forms often insist that all scientific evidence must be interpreted within this 6-day framework. When this is done, however, this actually distorts what Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 actually indicates.

Points of clarification. One - I’m not a YEC, and I don’t believe in the 6 day thing. Two - I wasn’t suggesting that you or anyone in particular is relying on blind faith. I was more making the point that science is a part of human reason.

When I read Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 I don’t see this as a call to re-interpret the entire body of scientific evidence in the light of any presupposed Biblical narrative. I simply assert that if evidence can be scientifically determined to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is a good indicator that God most likely did do it in the way that science has revealed His creation unfolding.

Neither was I suggesting these verses as a call to re-interpret scientific evidence. I mentioned them in the light of science being part of human reason - and part of that responsibility is to learn about God. If you appreciate God’s creation better because e.g. you have a good understanding of science, whoopee!!! That’s what we’re supposed to do!

 

[ricmat]

Then I would partially disagree with them to some extent.

For example, when someone counts tree rings and notes that a tree is approximately 4000 years old, I see no reason to suspect that this tree is not actually approximately 4000 years old. This is apparently the way God did it. The same holds true with other factors too.

So when EPICA can determine via ice cores from Antarctica that the Earth has at least been around for approximately 800,000 years, I see no reason to doubt the science behind this research. The same holds true for the various radiometric dating processes too. This too is apparently the way God did it. And I simply see no valid reason to re-interpret this vast amount of evidence in order to squeeze it within the literal 6-day period.

I agree. If that’s the way it appears, then that’s probably the way God did it. I have no quibbles with that.

The other people here who say that science is too weak a method to find God are Catholic Biologist Evolutionists, not YECers or atheists. They want to separate science and God, never the twain shall meet. Science cannot say anything about God, so they say. The verses I quoted say the opposite. I think we should use science to get us as close to God as possible. Just as people in other vocations should use their particular knowledge and insights to get closer to God.

True. But then what is the purpose of divine revelation? Why did God call forth a Church if things can be known through nature itself?

Again, I’m not suggesting that science negates the need for divine revelation. There’s a lot of revelation beyond “God exists.”

Coincidentally, I just read the following in Christ is Passing By - by St. Escriva.

If the world has come from God, if he has created man in his image and likeness and given him a spark of divine light, the task of our intellect should be to uncover the divine meaning imbedded in all things by their nature…And with the light of faith, we can also perceive their supernatural purpose…

The wonders of God’s creation can only lead a person so far. After a reasonable inquiry into the nature of God’s creation, one ultimately requires faith to see what the creation has been pointing toward all along—her Creator.

I absolutely agree. I’ve been saying for ages that science can get scientifically inclined people “into range” but the final leap is not scientific, it is philosophical.

 

[drpmjhess]

I agree. If that’s the way it appears, then that’s probably the way God did it. I have no quibbles with that.

Coincidentally, I just read the following in Christ is Passing By - by St. Escriva.

Ricmat, I like that quotation; in fact, I’d like to quote it in an article I’m writing on evolutionary theology (long overdue to the publisher!). Since I have no time to find that book, would you be so kind as to post for us the complete quotation, along with the page number(s) on which it appears and the bibliographical information?

I would be indebted to you!

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, I like that quotation; in fact, I’d like to quote it in an article I’m writing on evolutionary theology (long overdue to the publisher!). Since I have no time to find that book, would you be so kind as to post for us the complete quotation, along with the page number(s) on which it appears and the bibliographical information?

I would be indebted to you!

Petrus

From “Christ Is Passing By - Homilies by Josemaria Escriva” Scepter Publishers, 1973. Pages 22 and 23. Chapter titled “The Christian Vocation” and the sub-chapter titled “Belief and Reason.”

Here is the entire quote.

“If the world has come from God, if he has created man in his image and likeness and given him a spark of divine light, the task of our intellect should be to uncover the divine meaning imbedded in all things by their nature, even if this can be attained only by dint of hard work. And with the light of faith, we can also perceive their supernatural purpose, resulting from the elevation of the natural order to the higher order of grace.”

I think I got that typed in exactly right

You would also enjoy the paragraphs leading up to that quote. But no, you’ll have to buy the book yourself

 

[drpmjhess]

You would also enjoy the paragraphs leading up to that quote. But no, you’ll have to buy the book yourself

Thanks much, ricmat – I will order it; it looks very stimulating. But even if Amazon.com delivered at the speed of light, it would not arrive in time, as I should have sent the completed manuscript to the editor off hours ago!

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Thanks much, ricmat – I will order it; it looks very stimulating. But even if Amazon.com delivered at the speed of light, it would not arrive in time, as I should have sent the completed manuscript to the editor off hours ago!

Petrus

You’re welcome

 

[Camron]

Points of clarification. One - I’m not a YEC, and I don’t believe in the 6 day thing.

I know. And I wasn’t suggesting your were. Not that being a YEC would an “evil thing” even if it is an incorrect conclusion from science done poorly.

But this point does apply to the ID movement and various TE movements as well.

For example, if someone from the ID team insists that God had to interfere with His creation to make it work, I would disagree strongly. I think God is competent enough to create something that will not immediately break down to the level that some ID proponents have suggested. It’s true that without God nothing would exist. But it’s not necessarily true that God must constantly tweak His creation to fix it.

On the other hand, if someone from the TE team were to say that the ToE totally eradicates any possibility of God nudging His creation out of His divine love for creating new life forms along the evolutionary tree, I would strongly disagree with this too. We simply don’t have that much information and I think it’s equally dangerous to assume that the ToE vindicates this position.

Two - I wasn’t suggesting that you or anyone in particular is relying on blind faith. I was more making the point that science is a part of human reason.

So where does science end and faith begin?

This is the part that I think is not clearly understood.

Neither was I suggesting these verses as a call to re-interpret scientific evidence. I mentioned them in the light of science being part of human reason - and part of that responsibility is to learn about God. If you appreciate God’s creation better because e.g. you have a good understanding of science, whoopee!!! That’s what we’re supposed to do!

And like you said, God could reveal himself through many things, such as art, music, professions or even various parables from His creation itself. I have no problem with any of these points.

For example, I would suggest that Spring was Christologically pointing toward the Resurrection of Christ since the first Spring season on Earth began millions of years ago. The purpose of creation, I believe, is oriented toward (and finds its fulfillment in) the Coming of Christ. It is in this way that I think God’s creation reveals sublime nuances that can only be perceived through clear reason and sound faith.

In other words, I don’t think it was merely a coincidence that Jesus rose from the dead during a time of the year that (in that part of the world) life was re-emerging from a deep slumber of winter time, with plants growing again and animals coming out of hibernation. I don’t think that it was a coincidence that that Easter happened during the springtime at all.

Can I prove this using science?

No. But I believe this to be true.