Evolution in Catholicism?

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks what in evolutionary theory is contrary to the Church’s teachings)

Two items, one scientific and one philosophical. The theory that life came from nothing is contrary to God’s active creation of life and contrary to Scripture.

That’s not part of evolutionary theory, which makes no predictions about the orign of life. Even Darwin made no claims about that, other than to say God did it. And abiogenesis, which is an entirely different theory, says that the earth brought forth living things.

The scientific community presumes this to be the case since the action of God or any supernatural force cannot be acknowledged.

No. Many important evolutionists, like Dobzhansky, Ayala, Miller, etc. are and were devout Christians who accepted that evolution is God’s way of doing things.

This presumption is not based on any body of scientific evidence,

Which is why no scientist says that science denies God. Even Richard Dawkins won’t say that. At any rate, the origin of life is not part of the theory, so we can eliminate that one.

The second item is philosophical in nature and, thus, not technically part of evolutionary theory. However, even though science cannot address supernatural or spiritual matters directly, the scientific method implies the absence of the spiritual by definition and, thus, attempts to explain the world strictly in physical terms.

So does plumbing. It’s an essential limitation of science; it can’t confirm or deny the supernatural. This is the reason why people of all faiths, or no faith at all can do science.

Science cannot address the human soul, however, evolutionary theory claims to be able to explain the development of man from some lower form to our current state of existence in the absence of God or the human soul.

Cardinal Ratzinger did that himself. Our species evolved over time, physically, but our souls are given to each of us by God, and do not evolve.

In fact, many evolutionary scientists are atheists and teach that man’s whole existence is physical in nature.

They may say so, but they don’t say that science tells them so. And of course, truth doesn’t become a lie just because atheists agree with us on it.

So, even though science cannot address philosophy or spiritual matters, it does implicitly by claiming to explain the nature of man in purely physical terms.

No. Even Dawkins explicitly says that science can’t do anything like that.

The Church clearly teaches that the human soul is created by God and there had to be a point in human history where the first human soul was infused into a body.

That’s perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory rejects this notion implicitly,

No.

The danger with claiming that all evolutionary theory is compatible with our faith is that people can have a faith crisis when faced with the proposition that we could exist as we are as purely physical beings, without a soul and without God, which is precisely how it is presented by most evolutionary scientists.

Hmmm… don’t know of any like that. None of them say that the theory rules out God. Notice this is symmetrical; Miller, Ayala, et al don’t say that the theory proves God, either. For the same reason. Science must be strictly neutral with regard to the supernatural.

Once this possibility is seriously considered, that man can have come into being and can exist without God and without a soul, then atheism is just around the corner.

But that happened long before science. It’s not a conclusion you can draw from science. One might as well point out the existence of horrible things happening to innocent children as proof God does not exist.

In fact, creationism is a far more effective atheist-maker than science could ever be. I know of many people who had crises of faith, when things like creationism (which had been taught to them as Christian doctrine) turned out to be demonstrably false.

One of the more touching examples is here:

**But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.**
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

 

[edwest2]

You are obsessed with a diversion, a supposition that has caught your attention. Your contention that being taught Creationism leads to atheism is dubious at best. Of the one or two occasions where it did happen, there are places like the Creation museum that is picketed by atheist supported groups like Rally for Reason. And why, if evolution is a fact, should they, you or anyone, complain when people go into such a museum of their own free will? It seems that the reason for the protests by atheist supported groups has nothing to do with scientific facts, but the idea that people might go into such a place and believe what they see. Or worse, believe in God.

Catholicism is where the reality of the five senses and the reality of God meet. If you just insist on looking at it from the point of view of science, you miss the actual gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on each one of us and the truths revealed by God Himself. Or don’t you think a real, physical Jesus Christ actually lived among us?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ignatius]

I have always personally believed in Evolution from a scientific viewpoint. Granted, I have not always believed in God, let alone Catholicism. (I’m a convert from Protestantism, which I first converted to from atheism).

It has been a blessing to me that my Catholic parish had never really hammered the issue on evolution. Maybe because they didn’t want the controversy? But recently, a third, less drastic conversion. Catholicism… to Traditional Catholicism, has made me uneasy.

Even though I hadn’t conversed with anyone about evolution, I can tell from my parish bookstore that this is a no-evolution community.

In between Tridentine Mass Missals and Latin-English Bibles, I find the occasional “Why Evolution is Wrong” publication.

Is there a place for evolutionary minded faithful in the Church?

A quick Wikipedia on the subject shows that Pope Benedict and Pope Pius XII were either neutral-to-friendly with evolutionary thinking.

The Catechism of The Catholic touches briefly on the subject of evolution. It says: “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies that have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).
Hope this helps.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Camron]

Maybe I’m a bit slow, but I’m not sure quite how to respond to your comments. It was hard to tell through the sarcasm what your point is. I was simply stating that it is not required of Catholics to reject elements of evolutionary theory. In some places you would appear to agree with this notion and in other places you would not. I wasn’t trying to give the OP an overly technical answer, but if you’d like to discuss the scientific or philosophical elements of evolutionary theory, I’d be happy to comply (provided we can leave out the sarcasm) .

I have to admit that I sometimes don’t know where the Barbarian is going with his posts.

From the scientific perspective I think he has great knowledge and I am often impressed with his answers. There’s been more than a few times where I was impressed with the answers he provided, some of which I was not aware of.

But from the way he presents himself in his posts, he seems to have a very sarcastic edge that really bites hard into the person that he’s speaking online with. I’m not actually sure if he is aware of this, or even helping the cause of theistic evolution with his posts for that matter-- I’m fairly sure that only those who already agreed with the idea that God used evolution (like us) appreciate his level of understanding.

Others who do not agree with the idea of God using evolution to diversify life would probably walk away with a hardened heart and assume that all “theistic evolutionists” were just as sarcastic too, effectively closing their minds to theistic evolution in the process.

I admit that I could be wrong. I’m not a mind reader. But that’s what I think is happening.

For the record, I though your post was great. I too think that God used evolution to diversify life into what we see today. The Catholic Church certainly has no problems with it, except for process theologies (which claim that God did not know that evolution would create humanity) and atheistic evolution (which seeks to explain the soul as being merely an epiphenomenalism-- or outpouring of purely biological processes into a rational human mind fully capable of knowing morality in terms of good and evil).

And, technically, you are right-- people who rely solely on science to inform them of their own existence’s “true meaning” are fairly well leaning in the direction that their lives are void of meaning and worth-- aside from the meaning they create for themselves.

This is indeed a very dangerous path to take.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are obsessed with a diversion, a supposition that has caught your attention.

Sounds like a confession to me, Ed. You don’t like the Church’s stance on evolution, and you’re trying to find a way to deny the Church to anyone who accepts evolution.

Your contention that being taught Creationism leads to atheism is dubious at best.

Documented fact. St. Augustine himself remarks on the way such spurious doctrines harm the Church:

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

And why, if evolution is a fact, should they, you or anyone, complain when people go into such a museum of their own free will?

Because the museum is run by non-Catholics who actively attempt to persuade Catholics to leave the Church. Other than that, it seems a relatively harmless way to spend their time. I enjoy going to them myself.

Or don’t you think a real, physical Jesus Christ actually lived among us?

I suppose you should ask Pope Benedict XVI that question, if you suppose acceptance of evolution entails a rejection of a real, physical Jesus.

C’mon ed. You can do better than this.

 

[Bendo]

Hi all,

I have a free CD available for download at…

www.isidore.org.au

click on pub folder and then download the CD. It is an ISO file and you burn it to a CD.

It explains a lot about evolution and what you are not told about evolution. There is also another CD available called Miracles. Which I think is the answer to evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Bendo writes:
It explains a lot about evolution and what you are not told about evolution.

If it’s free, why not post the things we aren’t told about evolution right here?

I think I know why.

 

[Bendo]

well it’s many hours of data…
you can either download it and review it or ignore it.

It takes on many of the questions assumed about evolution.
For instance how about the apemen? Do you know they were all faked?

It deals with this and many other questions to do with evolution.

If you download it and review it then it would be interesting to know your thoughts on the many subjects if brings up.

It’s up to you.
www.isidore.org.au

thanks,
Bendo.

 

[Dale_M]

One can view the evidence to just as well be supportive of devolution as opposed to evolution. In fact, that would even seem to be the more logical conclusion to make based on the available evidence, as well as real time observations of the tendency to degrade as seen during our own lifespans.

Oh yes, the Y chromosome in humans seems to have been decaying for thousands of generations.

Although most men are unaware of the peril, the Y chromosome has been shedding genes furiously over the course of evolutionary time, and it is now a fraction the size of its partner, the X chromosome. Sex in humans is determined by the fact that men have an X and a Y chromosome in each of their body’s cells. Women have a pair of X’s.

The decay of the Y stems from the fact that it is forbidden to enjoy the principal advantage of sex, which is, of course, for each member of a pair of chromosomes to swap matching pieces of DNA with its partner.

The swapping procedure, known to biologists as recombination, occurs between the chromosomes inherited from the mother’s and the father’s side as a first step to produce the eggs or sperm. Not only does that swapping create novel combinations of genes, making each individual different, but it also enables bad genes – those damaged by mutation or DNA changes – to be replaced by their good counterparts on the other chromosome.

Nature has barred the Y chromosome from recombining with the X, except at its very tips, because otherwise the male-determining gene, carried on the Y chromosome, would sneak into the X, making everyone male.

The cost of this abstinence, however, is that most of the Y’s genes have been rendered useless by mutation and physically shed. The X and the Y chromosomes were once as similar as the 22 other pairs of human chromosomes, and each carried about 1,000 genes. Now the Y carries fewer than 100. What prevents it losing even those?

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9804EFD81138F93AA25755C0A9659C8B63

And there are animals (I can’t remember which) who, through the course of evolution, have gone from dwelling in the water, to living on land, to dwelling in the water again. Evolution is not a linear progression of increasing complexity and diversity. Species die off all the time and sometimes simple organisms have a good fit with their environment so change isn’t favored.

 

[Dale_M]

It takes on many of the questions assumed about evolution.
For instance how about the apemen? Do you know they were all faked?

What are apemen?

 

[steveandersen]

I don’t really have the time, patience, or bandwidth to download something that large.
Especially if, as you seem to indicate, it is full of wild claims such as hominids “all” being fakes.

If you could summarize what you think are a few key points that might be easier.

 

[rossum]

For instance how about the apemen? Do you know they were all faked?

That is a very strong claim. All faked? I know that Piltdown was a fake, but what about the Dmanisi finds, DM 2700? What about the Taung Child? Toumai, TM 266-01-060-1? Various Australopithecines: KP 29281, KP 29285, AL 129-1, AL 288-1, AL 333, AL 444-2, TM 1512, Sts 5, Sts 14, BOU-VP-12/130, Stw 573? There are also the many Homo finds. What evidence do you have that all these finds are faked? I strongly suspect that your creationist source is lying to you.

rossum