Evolution: Catholic High School

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin’s purpose was to show that the entire process could be explained without reference to God or gods of any kind.

So was Priestly’s or Lord Kelvin’s or Kepler’s. That is the function of science, to show the “how”, not Who is behind it. Even for believers like these.

But you should keep in mind Darwin’s thinking we can find in “The Origin of Species.”

**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. **
Last sentence of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”

 

[reggieM]

Barbarian, in case you missed this:

Certainly true [that science can never fully understand the human person].

On what basis do you find certainty on this? What aspects of the human person can science never know about?

 

[The_Barbarian]

On what basis do you find certainty on this?

Science is limited to the physical universe, and can never study or understand our souls, which are not physical.

 

[reggieM]

Science is limited to the physical universe, and can never study or understand our souls, which are not physical.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the traditional Catholic teaching on what the soul is:

**“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.” **

So, in your view, any so-called “science” that attempts to explain the ultimate animating principle of the human person is not science at all, but is some kind of fraudulent exercise, right?

In order to explain the human person, one would have to reference a supernatural or spiritual aspect, and science cannot do this. Therefore, any science based on materialist philosophy would be founded in false principles.

Science therefore cannot explain the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel and will and by which our bodies are animated. Stories about the so-called evolution of the human consciousness are not science, no matter how many nearly-countless numbers of evolutionist claim that they are.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that science agrees with the Church in saying that the body may have evolved, but the soul is not)

So, in your view, any so-called “science” that attempts to explain the ultimate animating principle of the human person is not science at all, but is some kind of fraudulent exercise, right?

“Fraudulent” indicates an intention to deceive. So it likely isn’t fraudulent. The “animating principal” as you know, is given directly by God, as opposed to the body, which is created naturally. The idea that the soul is a mere epiphenomenon of the body is, of course, an error.

In order to explain the human person, one would have to reference a supernatural or spiritual aspect, and science cannot do this.

It can only explain the natural functions of the body. How do we know which are natural? We can actually observe those. The supernatural things are beyond science.

Therefore, any science based on materialist philosophy would be founded in false principles.

Scientists would agree with you. Even atheists like Dawkins would agree on that.

Science therefore cannot explain the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel and will and by which our bodies are animated.

Science can only explain that which is observable. Hence, the working of the nervous system, and the observable consequences are part of science, but not the soul.

Stories about the so-called evolution of the human consciousness are not science, no matter how many nearly-countless numbers of evolutionist claim that they are.

None of us truly understands how the soul and body interact, because it is not accessible by science, and God has chosen to let this be a mystery for us. So how much of us He has chose to do by the soul, and how much he does naturally is unclear. As you see, the Church leaves only the vaguest outline, except to make clear that the connection between the two is essential, and the soul is the ultimate source of both life and mind.

 

[reggieM]

“Fraudulent” indicates an intention to deceive. So it likely isn’t fraudulent. The “animating principal” as you know, is given directly by God, as opposed to the body, which is created naturally. The idea that the soul is a mere epiphenomenon of the body is, of course, an error.

Probably not more or less fraudulent than what creationists do. But my interest is in the “non-science” which is very commonly offered as part of evolutionary theory.

None of us truly understands how the soul and body interact, because it is not accessible by science, and God has chosen to let this be a mystery for us. So how much of us He has chose to do by the soul, and how much he does naturally is unclear. As you see, the Church leaves only the vaguest outline, except to make clear that the connection between the two is essential, and the soul is the ultimate source of both life and mind.

That seems consistent with Catholic teaching, as I see it. Since science cannot fully explain the human person, I will conclude that there is a great deal of non-science passed of within the scientific culture.

 

[cpayne]

There are human-created self-replicating chemical systems that do that much. They are more alive than viruses, but less alive than cells.

Do you think they have souls? What about viruses? How about individual cells?

HeLa cells are parasitic organisms evolved from human cells that became capable of independent life and at one time were a serious pest in labs, infecting tissue cultures. Do they have souls?

In typical CC thought (with which I agree), anything that lives as a unitary system has some type of “soul” or animating principle which converts it from matter into life. Not everything, of course, has the intellectual soul with which we are most familiar.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for the testimony. Christianity shouldn’t ask seekers to check their brains at the door, and Catholicism doesn’t ask that.

I just read “The Trouble With Physics” by Smolin and he relates an airport meeting with a group of Evangelicals who insisted that dinosaurs still exist in Africa, and the reason nobody sees them is that they live in the deep jungles and hibernate in huge caves which they block up with dirt and rocks. What is a person supposed to do with that kind of thinking?

How about asking them - the Evangelicals, not the dinosaurs - where the Klingons who brought the dinos to earth keep their space-ships ?​

One gratuitous assertion can be met by another - a daft premise cannot always be refuted, so it can only be matched by one equally daft, & equally gratuitous By seeing that one is gratuitous, someone who affirms it may understand that the other is equally so.

For the employment of mammoth-like beasts in war, see “The Return of the King”.

For invaluable eye-witness footage of the ravaging of NY by a giant ape, see “King Kong”

Only a diehard sceptic could dismiss their testimony -* real* ChristiansTM] accept that God can do anything, so if He says 100-foot high mammoths & 50-foot apes exist, then they do; those photos prove it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why are you concerned with “that kind of thinking.”? Are you certain that what they think is based on nothing? Have you taken any time to determine where this position comes from?

Instead of trusting someone else for the answer, why not contact one of these schools or groups that teach this? Ask them to give you their information directly. That way, instead of assuming they simply believe it, you may also find out why.

As far as teaching evolution in a Catholic environment, I strongly recommend reading Human Persons Created in the Image of God, especially part 69. The very valid concern of many parents is that their children will be taught in keeping with what the Church teaches, but, in order to do that, you need to get a solid footing. I know people who are Catholic who decided science had all the answers about human origins and human identity (at least enough answers to convince them that a belief in God could be replaced by a belief in evolution that, as far as they were concerned, answered scientific and philosophical/metaphysical questions at the same time).

You also have to be aware of the militant atheist environment your students are growing up in. Where images of prostitutes are easily obtainable and totally dysfunctional describes characters in movies, on TV and on the radio, either in lyrics or through shock jocks.

God bless,
Ed

If Catholics are careless enough to confuse different types of issue, they will be confused. Since God is Transcendent & the sciences are not, there is no “room” for them to “collide” with Him, any more than there is “room” for a character in a novel to disagree with the author of the novel - they exist & work at wholly different “levels”. One might as well expect Herman Melville to have got a soaking by writing about the great white whale of his. ​

Result - end of problem

 

[reggieM]

Since God is Transcendent & the sciences are not, there is no “room” for them to “collide” with Him …

One would think, therefore, that scientists would not attempt to explain such things as the human consciousness, since that is a transcendent “part” of the human person.

As explained above:

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the traditional Catholic teaching on what the soul is:

**“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.” **

Science cannot speak about the human soul. But this does not prevent many scientists from attempting to explain such via materialistic-evolutionary ideas.

There is, unfortunately for those scientists, quite a lot of “room for colliding”. And this is why Catholic should be very concerned about and ready to condemn these errors masquerading as science.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rogerteder,

The Catholic Church rejects materialistic theories of evolution which explicitly deny divine providence a causal role in the development of life. See paragraph 64 of this Vatican document:
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

What theory of evolution commonly taught by science is not materialist? And what materialism does not explicitly deny divine providence?

Bones etc are material objects - evolution deals with data that are…material - not with angels. One might as well object that cooking is “materialist” for bothering with pasta or meatballs. If it did not concern itself with food, it would not be cooking,for cooking is concerned with food.​

Apologists for the theory of evolution will say that science cannot deny the supernatural,but in fact methodological naturalism does forbid supernatural causes in the study of nature.

Two things which are unrelated cannot be in conflict - one might as well say that if God is real, man cannot be.​

God & secondary causes (of which evolution is one) exist at different “levels”; they do not conflict, because they are not comparable - one is transcendent, the other not. The objection, ironically enough, is materialist. The sun causes light - so, in a wholly different way, does God: the causality of God does not abolish the sun, but works through it - it does not abolish evolution, but works through it.

That is why it is called methodological naturalism,rather than just a method. To disallow for the activity of God in the natural world is,in fact,to deny it within the context of theory. A disallowal is also a denial.

It is not only “in” but also “beyond”, “before”, the NW; it “exceeds” the NW - it is not confined to it; any more than an author is confined to the world he invents in his story.​

God is methodologically irrelevant to the sciences - no amount of sanctity makes a scientist; to be any use as a scientist, one has to be conversant with science. This is not attained by dragging in theology or God; it’s a form of excessive supernaturalism.

In paragraph 68 of the Vatican document,it says: “In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.”

No quarrels with that ​

So natural selection acting upon randomness is out of the question.

Not true - Divine Providence includes all secondary causality, including the absence of it; where we see randomness, it need not be the case that God also does: the objection is reminiscent of the idea that because a motorist cannot see the lorry that is about to turn the corner & collide with him, the lorry is non-existent, & is not travelling too fast to stop in time. The ignorance of the motorist that he is about to crash won’t prevent his doing so. So with randomness - what we see as such, need not be seen in as limited a way by God, & isn’t.​

The theory of evolution offers an ontologically naturalistic explanation of natural history. Natural history is interpreted as if nature is all that there is. There is no way to put a theistic spin on the theory of evolution,because the theory itself,and methodological naturalism which lies behind it,won’t allow for divine providence.

Good !!! To leave the God-stuff alone in teaching about NH is an entirely proper way to proceed; it is essential for the integrity of the subject. God has no function in the subject, & explains nothing whatever in it. To bring in God is not only thoroughly illegitimate as a method of teaching NH, it shows a failure to allow subjects to be studied by methods appropriate to them. Natural history is NH - theology has no more place in the teaching of it than Aramaic, calculus, or plumbing have.​

Some Catholics such as PhilVaz do not realize that. He takes paragraph 63 of the Vatican document as a nod of approval for the theory of evolution,when in fact it just summarizes the scientific account of origins.

It does not make sense for anyone to say “God created the creatures of the world,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it.”

No,the theory of evolution does not allow for God to be working in his created world.

It does exactly that, & very well too ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

One would think, therefore, that scientists would not attempt to explain such things as the human consciousness, since that is a transcendent “part” of the human person.

As explained above:

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the traditional Catholic teaching on what the soul is:

**“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.” **

Science cannot speak about the human soul. But this does not prevent many scientists from attempting to explain such via materialistic-evolutionary ideas.

There is, unfortunately for those scientists, quite a lot of “room for colliding”. And this is why Catholic should be very concerned about and ready to condemn these errors masquerading as science.

Saying what a thing is made of, is not the same as saying what it is. ​

Try telling a child a teddy bear is “only” a piece of material & glass - it’s made of those things, but is not those things, not to the child. From one POV, we are a bunch of chemicals, in that we are made of them; since we believe in the (theological) doctrine, of which the sciences know nothing, that a man is a union of soul with body, we are saying something which is simply not within their competence. So materialism is both perfectly reasonable, & irrelevant to our belief, which cannot be contested by theories which do not “connect” with it.

 

[edwest2]

So we are back to religion is over here and science is over there. There would be no debate here or anywhere if the subject concerned plumbing. Everyone can be shown how to handle the tools and do the repairs. Mathematics has no bearing on human identity.

As Catholics, it is not just a matter of belief but of history. God intersected our human senses and experiences as a human being and God. We pray to Him, He is in the bread and wine.

To create something called “evolutionary psychology” and assign to our genes the reason why we are who we are and how we are who we are, violates some Church teaching. Apparently, truth can flow from science but it cannot flow back to scientists, some of whom wish to distance themselves as far as possible from any sort of god. The scientific method is fine, but the ideology that comes out if it cannot, by any scientific means, be proved. Yet, this scientific data is put in the service of ideologues who tell us, this is all there is. You are your genes plus some environment and that’s all you are.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

From one POV, we are a bunch of chemicals, in that we are made of them; since we believe in the (theological) doctrine, of which the sciences know nothing, that a man is a union of soul with body, we are saying something which is simply not within their competence.

The problem, as I see it, is that science is saying that “we are a bunch of chemicals”. This is not true. It is not even true to say that we are “made out of a bunch of chemicals”. It would be true to say that a human person has a chemical and material accidental (in the Thomistic term) structure.

So materialism is both perfectly reasonable, & irrelevant to our belief, which cannot be contested by theories which do not “connect” with it.

The philosophy of materialism is false since it asserts that there is not supernatural order. It is not reasonable on that basis.

Since science cannot speak about foundation of cognition, emotion, will, consciousness and imagination (the soul of man), then any science that attempts to explain the material origin of such things is false, and does conflict with our Faith.

The Holy See has warned about this and has condemned “several theories of evolution” which are “incompatible with the Catholic Faith”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tim will you listen!!! PLEASE!! I am asking these questions in anticipation of a student questioning how we should interpret Genesis in light of the scienece of evolution. I am not talking(as i have said) about preparing a lesson on this. I know students are going to ask if we should take Genesis literaly or figuratively and how that relates to moden science(particularly evolution). I have only said this like" one trillion times" during this thread.

This is a question of Biblical interpretation - not of biology or physics or palaeontology or of any other life-science. Evolution is simply irrelevant to Genesis - the book contains no answers to the modern debate, for the simple reason that the modern debate is dealing with the issues in terms wholly alien to the compilers of the book.​

To expect Genesis to answer questions which could be formulated only about 3000 years after it was composed, is to mis-match ancient cosmological ideas with modern concerns. The only possible result is complete confusion.

Genesis has as much to say about evolution as about electronics or psychiatry - IOW, nothing. It was not intended for us, but for men of ancient times. Only in God’s intention is it intended for us - & what the original authors intended cannot be answered or accounted for by ignoring them or by attending only to God.

Besides, there are other creation-texts in the OT - such as in Wisdom, Job, & in Ecclesiasticus 18. Gen.1-2 is not the only text about creation - far from it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The problem, as I see it, is that science is saying that “we are a bunch of chemicals”. This is not true. It is not even true to say that we are “made out of a bunch of chemicals”. It would be true to say that a human person has a chemical and material accidental (in the Thomistic term) structure.

Science is not philosophy - scientism is a philosophy. Scientific *data *may be of philosophical interest; but they do not impose themselves on philosophy - they can be adequately accounted for without that; which is why philosophy is not needed in scientific work, & why it has no function in science - which makes it extrinsic to science, just like religion or God. By creating the world as an intelligible thing, God made Himself non-necessary, able to be ignored; if He had imposed Himself by making the unoverse as an intrusively theological entity, this would have been self-defeating.​

The philosophy of materialism is false since it asserts that there is not supernatural order. It is not reasonable on that basis.

It can be reasonable yet false - like many things​

Since science cannot speak about foundation of cognition, emotion, will, consciousness and imagination (the soul of man), then any science that attempts to explain the material origin of such things is false, and does conflict with our Faith.

Science has to deal with the data proper to it - this is as legitimate as for theology to deal with God​

The Holy See has warned about this and has condemned “several theories of evolution” which are “incompatible with the Catholic Faith”.

A philosophical theory based on scientific data is not the same as the *data *​

 

[anthony022071]

Science is limited to the physical universe, and can never study or understand our souls, which are not physical.

The soul includes the body. They are created as one living being. They are not separate entities. No-one can understand the origin of the human body without having an understanding of it’s supernatural life.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
< 28. The view that bodiliness is essential to personal identity is fundamental, even if not explicitly thematized, in the witness of Christian revelation. Biblical anthropology excludes mind-body dualism. It speaks of man as a whole. Among the basic Hebrew terms for man used in the Old Testament, nèfèš means the life of a concrete person who is alive (Gen 9:4; Lev 24:17-18; Proverbs 8:35). But man does not have a nèfèš; he is a nèfèš (Gen 2:7; Lev 17:10). Basar refers to the flesh of animals and of men, and sometimes the body as a whole (Lev 4:11; 26:29). Again, one does not have a basar, but is a basar. The New Testament term sarx (flesh) can denote the material corporality of man (2 Cor 12:7), but on the other hand also the whole person (Rom 8:6). Another Greek term, soma (body) refers to the whole man with emphasis on his outward manifestation. Here too man does not have his body, but is his body. Biblical anthropology clearly presupposes the unity of man, and understands bodiliness to be essential to personal identity. >

 

[anthony022071]

Bones etc are material objects - evolution deals with data that are…material - not with angels.​

I didn’t bring up angels. This is about God creating creatures through his reason.

Two things which are unrelated cannot be in conflict - one might as well say that if God is real, man cannot be.​

The Church teaches that God works in the natural world,so methodological naturalism is in conflict with that truth. It rejects the supernatural a priori.
The supernatural and the natural meet at all points of origin of life and order in the natural world.

God & secondary causes (of which evolution is one) exist at different “levels”; they do not conflict, because they are not comparable - one is transcendent, the other not.

Evolution is not a cause,it is an effect. God is not only transcendent,but active in the world he created. Creation is not a one-time event – God is always the Creator and is always creating.
I never said that God and secondary causes are in conlict. God has authority over secondary causes and guides them in the creation of living organisms. Methodological naturalism doesn’t allow for that. It explains natural history as if nature were a closed system in which nature is all that exists.

 

[Deconi]

**If God created the human body and its soul, and science ‘studies’ the physical infrastructure, how can the articulation of the body structure and existence of the soul be kept separate?

To say one discipline does not or cannot speak of the other, is a ruse and a cop out!
**

 

[cpayne]

I have a practical suggestion for Rogerteder, since the OP concerned teaching a class: How about photocopying this thread and letting your students read it? It would certainly present a variety of views.