Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy

[AlanFromWichita]

Kay Cee:

Just because it may be true for relativity doesn’t mean it’s true for evolution.

There was not a discrepancy whether you were talking about evolution or relativity. Both are theories. It is not inconsistent to opine on the truth or non-truth of these theories. It is not inconsistent to use the word “truth” in the same sentence as “theory” simply by substituting “evolution” for “relativity” in the sentence.

I still want to know how there is a “discrepancy” betwen a theory and the truthfulness of that theory. If you can’t explain it, I understand because it seems I must be asking for something very abstract compared to your specific point that, I suppose, is you do not believe the theory of evolution is true Is that what you meant to suggest?

There’s a lot evolution cannot explain. It cannot explain how mankind supposedly made such a cognitive leap from animal to human. As G.K. Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man the one thing we know with absolute certainty about early man is that he created art. We know because his art can still be viewed.

I’ve never heard of an animal creating art. I’ve never heard of an animal drawing a recognizable picture.

We differ from animals not only in a matter of degree but in a matter of kind.

And that’s something evolution cannot explain.

There’s a lot religion does not explain either. My SD gave me a reading assignment once to help me since I tend to see the technical side of things, in helping see how scientific knowledge bows in humility to the entire body of knowledge. That was Job 38-40, I believe. There are a number of questions there that evolution, and in fact science, cannot adequately answer. I rather suspect the Church doesn’t teach them either.

We weren’t there when this all took place, so I can’t just give you the straight answer first hand. I can only take what I glean from the wisdom of others throughout the ages. The Church and science both seek Truth, sometimes together and sometimes from different points of view. Are you saying that the Church teaching on evolution is that is objectively false?

Alan

 

[Kay_Cee]

AlanFromWichita:

There was not a discrepancy whether you were talking about evolution or relativity. Both are theories. It is not inconsistent to opine on the truth or non-truth of these theories. It is not inconsistent to use the word “truth” in the same sentence as “theory” simply by substituting “evolution” for “relativity” in the sentence.

I still want to know how there is a “discrepancy” betwen a theory and the truthfulness of that theory. If you can’t explain it, I understand because it seems I must be asking for something very abstract compared to your specific point that, I suppose, is you do not believe the theory of evolution is true Is that what you meant to suggest?

There’s a lot religion does not explain either. My SD gave me a reading assignment once to help me since I tend to see the technical side of things, in helping see how scientific knowledge bows in humility to the entire body of knowledge. That was Job 38-40, I believe. There are a number of questions there that evolution, and in fact science, cannot adequately answer. I rather suspect the Church doesn’t teach them either.

We weren’t there when this all took place, so I can’t just give you the straight answer first hand. I can only take what I glean from the wisdom of others throughout the ages. The Church and science both seek Truth, sometimes together and sometimes from different points of view. Are you saying that the Church teaching on evolution is that is objectively false?

Alan

The “discrepancy” thing first.

The way I see it, to state that there is a discrepancy is to show that the two items don’t necessarily match.

By definition, a theory is something not proven true, so to call it true is a discrepancy with its own definition.

I’m not fully aware of the Church’s teaching on evolution, but my understanding is that the Church has not said evolution is false. I’m not saying it is either. I’m just incredibly uncomfortable with treating a theory as a fact. And so should any scientist.

Sorry if I’m not being clear. I’m running a fever of about 101, and the aspirin is not helping.

 

[Orogeny]

Kay Cee:

By definition, a theory is something not proven true, so to call it true is a discrepancy with its own definition.

I’m just incredibly uncomfortable with treating a theory as a fact. And so should any scientist.

From Dictionary.com:
your definition:
“An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

scientific definition of theory:

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

The definition of theory that you are using is the common, everyday usage, not the scientific usage. Please read the scientific definition closely. There is nothing regarding proven or unproven included in the definition.

Scientists aren’t uncomfortable with the truth of evolution because all the current scientific evidence fits into the theory. And there is a massive amount of evidence, none of which contradict the theory. None.

Peace

Tim
p.s. - I hope you get to feeling better.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Kay Cee:

The “discrepancy” thing first.

The way I see it, to state that there is a discrepancy is to show that the two items don’t necessarily match.

True they did not match, but nor were they intended to match so that’s why I saw no “discrepancy.”

By definition, a theory is something not proven true, so to call it true is a discrepancy with its own definition.

The Trinity is not proven true either.

I’m not fully aware of the Church’s teaching on evolution, but my understanding is that the Church has not said evolution is false. I’m not saying it is either. I’m just incredibly uncomfortable with treating a theory as a fact. And so should any scientist.

I agree with you. I don’t call a theory fact, and I have no problem with emphasizing to kids this isn’t proven. Intelligent design, though, is pure speculation with no scientific basis I know of except personal opinions of certain scientists. Therefore I neither think ID should be taught as science, though I wouldn’t mind it being taught in philosophy or comparative religions, or even a passing mention that there are theories that conflict with evolution. The thing that gets me is that people are adamant about this they would kill each other over something that they will never be able to settle in their lives or in their descendents’ lives.

Sorry if I’m not being clear. I’m running a fever of about 101, and the aspirin is not helping.

Oh, I’m sorry to hear that. I hope your posting here is helping!

Alan

 

[miguel]

buffalo:

…Recent comments by a cardinal close to the Pope that random evolution was incompatible with belief in “God the creator” are fiercely assailed in today’s edition of The Tablet, Britain’s Catholic weekly, by the Vatican astronomer.

In an article with explosive implications for the Church, Father George Coyne, an American Jesuit priest who is a distinguished astronomy professor, attacks head-on the views of Cardinal Christoph Shönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and a long-standing associate of Joseph Ratzinger, the German cardinal who was elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April…

Since when are astronomers experts in evolution?

 

[Kay_Cee]

buffalo:

The conflict at the highest level of the Catholic Church about the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution breaks out publicly today.

We seem to be talking past each other. I interpreted the above sentence to mean that an unproved *theory *was being accepted as *truth, *that is, as fact.

Thanks to all who wished me better health. My fever climbed to 102.5, but I switched to ibuprophen, and it’s down to 101 now. I’m still a bit woozy, though, so if I’m not making a lot of sense, that’s the reason why (in addition to my usual lack of knowledge and intelligence!).

 

[Pondero]

Kay Cee:

Just because it may be true for relativity doesn’t mean it’s true for evolution. There’s a lot evolution cannot explain. It cannot explain how mankind supposedly made such a cognitive leap from animal to human. As G.K. Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man the one thing we know with absolute certainty about early man is that he created art. We know because his art can still be viewed.

I’ve never heard of an animal creating art. I’ve never heard of an animal drawing a recognizable picture.

We differ from animals not only in a matter of degree but in a matter of kind.

And that’s something evolution cannot explain.

There is a great leap between the intelligence of the highest developed animal and man. Up to the point just below the creation of man, I think that evolution of species accounts for the progression of species from lower to upper, using the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations. Otherwise for these animals you have to say they were specifically created by God. I can’t see that being the case.

Now, with man the leap is so great. Man we are told in Genesis is specifically created by God from the dust of the earth. Now, we know it is our belief that man has an immortal soul and this sets him apart from other mere animals. That soul was created in him at the moment of conception.
Science can neither prove or disprove the creation of the soul.

Overlooking all is God who has given created things innate laws to follow, that we in our science can see only as random mutations and natural selection. In other words we think it is due to chance. It is not really, it is due to God’s planning. There is design or planning in all that has been created, the instinctive gut feeling that this is so is evident to me. Now this should not be confused with Behe’s idea of ‘intelligent design’. It is not the same at all. That I understand from other biochemists has been shown to be false.

That is in a nutshell what I believe about evolution. I doubt that there is a split in the Catholic hierarchy about this topic.

 

[Ahimsa]

AlanFromWichita:

In other words, do you see this model as valid, but neither confirming or disproving that some of these variations (such as the “large” ones for example) may actually be orchestrated by intelligence that simply appears random to our best efforts to decode?

Correct. Apparent randomness says nothing about whether its appearance is its reality.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pondero:

That is in a nutshell what I believe about evolution. I doubt that there is a split in the Catholic hierarchy about this topic.

There may not be a split the Catholic heirarchy, but I know Catholics are confused on this issue just like many others, especially when they get pro-life materials generated by non-Catholics who seem to think it’s God’s Plan for us to argue about evolution v creation. Kansas seems to be a national poster child/laughing stock center for this fight.

I can guarantee that there’s a split in the politics, though, about this case. It keeps the Fundies, mostly, who run the Republican party at odds with one another and prevents them from working together on anything, including abortion.

Alan

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

The Catholic Church has supported science, and parcipated in scientific research.

Correct.

AlanFromWichita:

It sound like in this case she is planning to dictate scientific conclusions. Why?

Where did you get this idea? I don’t see this in the article or anywhere else.

AlanFromWichita:

How does evolution hurt the idea of God, or this generic sounding “intelligent creation” which sound to me like a code word for God?

It depends on which “ideas” of evolutionary theory are taught and what presupposing conclusions the teachers have made.

AlanFromWichita:

It sounds like the biggest beef is that darwinian evolution is based on “randomness.” What ever game them that idea? The theory involves random variations that cause slight differences. Their survival rate is a function of which variations do the best job at reproducing. That is not random, that is direct intelligent selection, whether or not you believe it is done from a Higher Power or from the collective mating instincts of the animals.

The beef, from the Church’s perspective, is with the unguided, unplanned and non-intelligent process that is subservient to the mind of man. The Church rightly believes that an intelligence greater than the mind of man created the world and continues to interact in the world through creating and other supernatural activities. Many of the key players in evolutionary theory have denied the possibility of God and gone to work to come up with evidence for their assumption.

The beef of the Church is NOT with random variations within species.

AlanFromWichita:

The fact is, evolution by natural selection is not just “randomly” changing from one thing to the other, as many media myrmidons of anti-evolution crowd have us believe. It is completely directed; that’s the whole point.

Directed by whomt? Do you have a school textbook that identifies a) the process is completely directed and b) by whom?

AlanFromWichita:

The word “random” is just a loaded word that means little in this cardinal’s context other than an uninformed or even gratuitous attempt at artificially making the theory appear less reasonable.

I beg to differ. You are making an unreasonable criticism of the Cardinal’s statements. His concern was not with random variation soley but with the concept of it being unplanned and unguided. The Cardinal was extremely generous in granting the possibility of common ancestry despite the utter lack of evidence for this.

AlanFromWichita:

We know beyond any reasonable doubt that “microevolution” happens, otherwise germs would never build up resistant strains to antibiotics.

You are right. Microevolution is continuously observable and makes complete sense.

AlanFromWichita:

The only question up for grabs is whether evolution also gets us from one species to another, or “macroevolution.” It has not been proven, nor has it been disproven except on shaky religious grounds.

Alan

The only question? That’s a mighty big question. It’s implications are large. It is science that has the responsibility for proving macroevolution and it has done a very poor job. It is the Church’s job to define theology and it has done an excellent job. The beef, again, is teaching macroevolution as truth in schools, undercutting the key religious tenants that all the world was created by God and all human beings are created in the mind of God and with a specific intent.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Here in Kansas, we are not only at the abortion epicenter of the nation, but I believe the evolution debate silliness capital.

It seems the most important thing on the planet is to argue about creation v evolution. Small minds think they are contradictory, and know no other solution than to try to destroy dissent, and that is most simply accomplished by trying to destroy the dissenters. Six out of seven days there is an editorial or letter to the editor in our newspaper arguing this issue.

:yawn:

Alan

There are some pretty big minds that believe macroevolution concepts, as taught in public schools, are in contradiction with the Christian faith. Especially when the teacher has concluded from these theories that there is no God. The biggest minds in evolutionary theory have thought this at one time or another. That is a problem.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

There’s a lot religion does not explain either. My SD gave me a reading assignment once to help me since I tend to see the technical side of things, in helping see how scientific knowledge bows in humility to the entire body of knowledge. That was Job 38-40, I believe. There are a number of questions there that evolution, and in fact science, cannot adequately answer. I rather suspect the Church doesn’t teach them either.

We weren’t there when this all took place, so I can’t just give you the straight answer first hand. I can only take what I glean from the wisdom of others throughout the ages. The Church and science both seek Truth, sometimes together and sometimes from different points of view. Are you saying that the Church teaching on evolution is that is objectively false?

Alan

Church teaching on issues of faith and morals are objectively true and this includes Sacred Scripture.

Science, by definition, is constrained to the realm of the natural. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. The Church, although in a limited fashion, can say things about the supernatural that are true. When someone says that science contradicts a supernatural truth, it is that someone that is wrong. This someone could be a scientist but it is a logical contradiction because you cannot disprove a supernatural truth using a discipline that is constrained to the natural.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Scientists aren’t uncomfortable with the truth of evolution because all the current scientific evidence fits into the theory. And there is a massive amount of evidence, none of which contradict the theory. None.

Peace

Tim
p.s. - I hope you get to feeling better.

This is the “squashing dissent” techinique Alan mentioned earlier. Continually repeat that there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution and therefore we must accept it. In the meantime, we are still waiting for this “massive amounts of evidence” that shows

1. Everything came from nothing

and

1. One species came from another species.

and

1. Macroevolution or microevolution occurs through purposeless, unguided processes that are solely natural.

 

[miguel]

AlanFromWichita:

…The only question up for grabs is whether evolution also gets us from one species to another, or “macroevolution.”

This is not the only question. Some in the evolutionary camp want us to believe the jump from inanimate matter to life was also a random event. This is utterly irrational. To go from carbon and hydrogen to a single cell amoeba is a huge leap in itself. The amoeba has packaged within it such abstract (i.e., intelligent) concepts as mobility, digestion, reproduction, etc. All of these complexities must come together simultaneously into the same “simple” critter or it ceases to exist. This is engineering. Inanimate matter is not an engineer.

 

[buffalo]

miguel:

This is not the only question. Some in the evolutionary camp want us to believe the jump from inanimate matter to life was also a random event. This is utterly irrational. To go from carbon and hydrogen to a single cell amoeba is a huge leap in itself. The amoeba has packaged within it such abstract (and intelligent) concepts as mobility, digestion, reproduction, etc. All of these complexities must come together simultaneously into the same “simple” critter or it ceases to exist. I know engineering when I see it.

Assume for a minute that DNA molecule could arise out of the swamp (for the sake of argument) - the language contained in the DNA is complex. How did the language arise?

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

The Trinity is not proven true either.

It is a revelation from God. It is a supernatural truth. Natural humans are incapable of proving the trinity using natural means. We can make philosophical proofs but they will not satisfy the demands scientific proofs. To say that evolutionary theory should be taught as truth simply because it has not been proven untrue is not a very good educational plan.

AlanFromWichita:

I agree with you. I don’t call a theory fact, and I have no problem with emphasizing to kids this isn’t proven. Intelligent design, though, is pure speculation with no scientific basis I know of except personal opinions of certain scientists. Therefore I neither think ID should be taught as science, though I wouldn’t mind it being taught in philosophy or comparative religions, or even a passing mention that there are theories that conflict with evolution. The thing that gets me is that people are adamant about this they would kill each other over something that they will never be able to settle in their lives or in their descendents’ lives.

I agree with you that ID should be taught in a philosphy or metaphysics class. I think macroevolution should be included and taken out of science.class.

I disagree about your assessment of ID’s science however. ID makes extaordinary scientific statements about the world and it’s creatures that wow the mind. These are facts. I suggest reading “The Case for a Creator” for a taste.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

There may not be a split the Catholic heirarchy, but I know Catholics are confused on this issue just like many others, especially when they get pro-life materials generated by non-Catholics who seem to think it’s God’s Plan for us to argue about evolution v creation. Kansas seems to be a national poster child/laughing stock center for this fight.

I can guarantee that there’s a split in the politics, though, about this case. It keeps the Fundies, mostly, who run the Republican party at odds with one another and prevents them from working together on anything, including abortion.

Alan

The fault here lies with more with Catholics that do not take God’s word seriously than with Protestants that have misguided theology.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Church teaching on issues of faith and morals are objectively true and this includes Sacred Scripture.

Science, by definition, is constrained to the realm of the natural. Science can say nothing about the supernatural.

You mean, like a designer?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

This is the “squashing dissent” techinique Alan mentioned earlier. Continually repeat that there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution and therefore we must accept it.

As opposed to constantly stating that there is NO evidence for evolution?

In the meantime, we are still waiting for this “massive amounts of evidence” that shows

1. Everything came from nothing

Strawman - not part of evolution.

1. One species came from another species.

from vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”

1. Macroevolution or microevolution occurs through purposeless, unguided processes that are solely natural.

Since you already agree that science cannot address the supernatural, what, other than a natural process, would you expect?

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

You mean, like a designer?

Peace

Tim

It can say that the world appears to be designed by something more intelligent than scientists and that science operates within such constraints. I think ID belongs in a metaphysics class.