Evolution - it's about religion

[R_McGeddon]

My apologies, I wasn’t aware of the fact that you’re not Catholic.

You don’t have to apologise.

But, for Catholics, Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts are a fact of which we are certain de fide.

If it’s a fact, there will be some evidence to back this up. If not then it’s just faith.

I think it’s very clever, myself. It’s specific enough to express some certain fundamental truths to all people at all times, yet “vague” enough that our understanding of the details is able to improve over time (in light of other discoveries and revelations) without actually ever being in error. Plus, there’s a lot of symbolism, and a whole lot of deeper significance hidden in the text, especially when you go back to the original language.

I’m a pretty kind of black and white person myself. Vague symbolism is not my thing, particularly when only a select few say they’re qualified to interpret.

we don’t share any DNA with dirt. Dirt doesn’t have DNA.

I know, it’s hard to convey sarcasm

But I still don’t understand why this isn’t reasonable? Whether you believe God picked up a handful of dirt (I think the correct translation is more literally “earth”, anyway) and fashioned it into a human body, or guided an evolutionary process over time, all the way back from a giant puddle of primordial slime (which had to have been made from the earth)… it all comes down to the same thing. I mean, earth (“dirt”) is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons… and so are our bodies. The point is simply that our bodies, ultimately, came out of the earth in some way, and are composed of the same materials. Proof for this being that, when we die, our bodies break down and decompose into simpler elements.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple, or alchemists would have transformed base metals into gold.

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics -

The Church has spoken with great clarity on this issue. Do not be confused by those who distract from them.

Fact: Any evolutionary theory, including the current neo-Darwinian theory, that does not include God, denies God. It is by its nature - atheistic. The Church does not accept it.

Fact: Pope Benedict has stated that science and faith are complementary, not separate. But to exclude God is to separate two halves that make a whole.

Fact: Evolution without God cannot exist.

When you pray tonight, you pray to the rational mind that guided, yes, guided, the process of Creation. The living God who became flesh and died for you.

Do not be confused that there are scientific truths and truths given by God. The truths given by God are no less true. They are no less facts.

Keep these things in mind and you will be able to see that what the atheist clings to is random chance and natural selection but nothing more. This is the whole of the Atheist creation story. It ends in oblivion, without a soul and without existence, at least, according to them. Do not accept this since it is in violation of the truths given by God. And pronounced as truths by the Church and evident in each of us.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SacredHeartFan]

You cannot deny evolution. Scientist have fossils and other evidence. But God is not limited to your thinking. Why couldn’t he use evolution or the “Big Bang”? He sure enough has the right and power to do so. Genesis is NOT a science book. Most of it are stories to point out WHO made the earth, not HOW it was made. Does this clear it up??

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics -

Do not be confused when someone tells you man evolved through random events and natural selection. God arranged every event infallibly and provided for an infallible selection (See Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.)

Only the Catholic Church has both parts of the answer. The full answer. Only the atheist wishes that man came into being by accident as well as all you see around you. God, through His divine providence, gave shape to everything as HE desired. This is a fact recognized and taught by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[masterjedi747]

Fact: Any evolutionary theory, including the current neo-Darwinian theory, that does not include God, denies God. It is by its nature - atheistic.

Again, this is exactly where I don’t follow you.

Excluding is a form of not including, yes.
But not including does not imply excluding.
Remaining silent is not the same as rejecting.

To speak about God falls outside of the domain of “pure” science, and into the realms of philosophy and theology. Therefore science must always remain silent on the issue. The moment you start talking about God, the nature of chance, or the purpose in the universe, you overstep the boundary of “pure” natural science, and enter into a whole new playing field.

 

[edwest2]

And that has always been my problem with this discussion on a Catholic Answers forum. The answers should start with God, not “pure” science. Do you understand?

I’m not trying to be combative. However, what I see is not a complementary relationship between science and faith as spoken about by Pope Benedict. It is a separation that does not exist according to Pope Benedict. Also, the Pope has spoken about problems in evolutionary theory but all I see addressed is how the Church “accepts” evolution. It accepts aspects of evolutionary theory but as Cardinal Schoenborn has written “Common descent might be true.” The word is ‘might.’ For the Church, evolution is not a finished idea and clearly, the Church is evaluating the science for itself, since as Cardinal Schoenborn warns, when scientists begin to speak outside of what science can demonstrate, it stops being science and becomes ideology. This ideology is represented by many scientists who say the theory of evolution negates a role for God, which, of course, is against Church teaching.

I hope I’ve been clear.

Thank you,
Ed

 

[R_McGeddon]

Do not be confused when someone tells you man evolved through random events and natural selection. God arranged every event infallibly and provided for an infallible selection (See Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.)

We exist on this planet in spite of the conditions, not because of them.

Only the Catholic Church has both parts of the answer. The full answer.

If this was irrefutable there would not be this debate!

Only the atheist wishes that man came into being by accident as well as all you see around you.

Where on Earth did you hear/read this utter nonsense? This couldn’t be further from the truth.

God, through His divine providence, gave shape to everything as HE desired. This is a fact recognized and taught by the Church.

It is a matter of faith not fact.

 

[masterjedi747]

And that has always been my problem with this discussion on a Catholic Answers forum. The answers should start with God, not “pure” science. Do you understand?

I guess I don’t.
I mean, I see why the role of God in nature (and everything else) cannot be excluded, and that ultimately it all reduces back to God’s Divine Providence… is that all you mean? If so, I then fail to see how that applies to this discussion, since we haven’t been denying that.

…what I see is not a complementary relationship between science and faith as spoken about by Pope Benedict. It is a separation that does not exist according to Pope Benedict.

Can two separate things not compliment each other? If evolution addresses the “how”, but cannot answer the “why”… and our faith gives us the “why” (the purpose)… I don’t understand what the problem is. All atheists are doing is denying the existence of the “why”, which is something the science itself doesn’t do… it just can’t address the question, and therefore relies on philosophy and theology in order to give us the most complete possible answer.

…when scientists begin to speak outside of what science can demonstrate, it stops being science and becomes ideology. This ideology is represented by many scientists who say the theory of evolution negates a role for God, which, of course, is against Church teaching.

Yep. We’re good on that.

 

[masterjedi747]

masterjedi747;3786634:

But, for Catholics, Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts are a fact of which we are certain de fide

.
If it’s a fact, there will be some evidence to back this up. If not then it’s just faith.

Now you’re just playing word games.
Not all uses/definitions of “fact” require “evidence to back it up”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

A fact is something that is the case. Consequently, anything that is not considered “fact” is, in fact, NOT the case. A “fact” is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. There is a range of other uses, depending on the context.

You’re sticking primarily with the last definition. But I wasn’t using the word in that manner. The fact is (check that usage!) that, for Catholics, the existence of Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts is something of which we are certain de fide (which means by faith).

I don’t think it’s quite that simple, or alchemists would have transformed base metals into gold.

No one said the process was simple, just that the idea behind it was.

edwest2;3789705:

This is a fact recognized and taught by the Church.

It is a matter of faith not fact.

See above. ^^

masterjedi747;3786634:

My apologies, I wasn’t aware of the fact that you’re not Catholic.

You don’t have to apologise.

I do. Because unfortunately, I think we’re carrying out this discussion at the moment under the premise that everything definitively taught by the Catholic Church is true (and thus a fact, whether it’s held by faith or not). So if you want to debate that, I think you’re really going to have to move it to another thread.

 

[edwest2]

We exist on this planet in spite of the conditions, not because of them.
If this was irrefutable there would not be this debate!
Where on Earth did you hear/read this utter nonsense? This couldn’t be further from the truth.
It is a matter of faith not fact.

Hello,

You are aware that Catholics do not just believe but know that a physical, historical Jesus Christ existed? But are you aware that faith enters the physical world in concrete, observable ways?

This debate, for many, is not about science and was never about science; it is about ideology. Man emerged from random mutations and natural selection. End of story. But Catholics, not only believe the physical, historical Christ but the Word of God as well.

It is the atheist who says, “Show me God.” But if God did indeed speak to man, in fact, what would you say? It didn’t happen? That would not be a rational reponse to an actual event.

For example, a simple cloak weaved from cactus fibers has survived much longer than is normal. It bears upon it an image of Mary, mother of God. It is quite real and has been examined by specialists. The Church has proclaimed the image was not painted by human hands.

Yes, God still intersects the world of faith with the physical world in concrete ways. We have artifacts as proof.

But here, on a Catholic Forum, only the word of man is exalted as the whole truth. This is not and cannot be the case for the Catholic Church. I hope you understand.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MacRath]

The first level of spiritual experience is propitiatory: it is evidenced in the worship of idols. But it is not the idol that is at fault. Or we would remove all statuary from our sanctuaries…which would please protestants who accuse us of idolatry because like many of us they confuse they confuse a part for the whole.

It isn’t the idol-it is the intention-see the catechism regarding moral action. Idolatrous prayer is in effect asking God to suspend His natural law for ours or another’s benefit. The prayerful dialogue is not one of simple longing for communion, for wisdom to navigate what is…it is a seeking of magic. For example, if I should say to myself: I will say three Holy Mary’s and God will give me a real hand to replace the atrophied ‘accident’ of birth I was born with it would be idolatrous- I would be asking asking God to submit His universe to my petition, rather than asking him How I can find harmony with Him and His Universe. I would be asking for magic.

Science is the study of natural law- and there are rules of engagement, for at its essence is the desire for truth. Because of that any real scientist accepts that all science is postulatory: it cannot be truth, it is a model which through time becomes accepted because theoretical prediction continues to bear fruit in empirical observation- if it persists it may be called a Law, like Newton’s Laws. But Newton’s laws are not complete, and indeed if you apply them to a world which is very small they fail…are they wrong? No. They are the first approximation to a truth, which proved inadequate…and they are now supplemented by quantum mechanical formulations which do provide theoretical predictability for little things that do the ‘impossible’,say electrons tunneling through a potential that would exclude them classically.

Is quantum formulation the truth? No…it is the next approximation. It succeds by ‘apostolic’ succession however! The quantum formulation must reduce to classical law in the limit of large objects. The same with special relativity for that matter.

It is rather like Jesus- he came to fulfill the Law. So we have a new covenant, but it does not make the old law of Moses wrong…it does suggest we stop putting old wine in new skins…but people like to pin things down so they tend to like laws…Einstein was unhappy with quantum because of the issue of determinism…classically if you tell me where, how fast and what forces, I can give you the exact trajectory forever.

Quantum says I cannot measure sufficiently accurately to make that sort of deterministic solution, but I can give you a probabiliity distribution to describe where the thing might be…an s orbital is not real, it a spherical probability distribution for an electron.

What I’m dragging you through this for is this: Both classical and quantum mechanical formulations disallow magic for the same reason the church does. God is something far deeper… even in ‘chaos’ he shows His hand…there is something exquisitely beautiful about a bifurcation point or a Reynolds number.

It suggests God is not confined to two dimensions or linear systems…and does suggest that it is a laugh that we will ever completely grasp how His mind works, for His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways…

But in the meantime the church encourages sciense to study the natural world ethically within the same sort of logical, ordered constraint she demands of Herself.

A scientist is not free to wave hands and say God intervened, that’s how we get from A to B. Of course God intervened…though I dislike that word as it suggests He went elsewhere, and then stepped into fiddle things…he was always there and always will be…

No, some scientist don’t believe in God. Some athletes don’t either, and plenty of Christians by their actions suggest they haven’t any real faith…

Intelligent design does not appear to be rooted in scientific methodology… You can believe it if your conscience leads you thus, or not. Just as you are free to dismiss science if you wish.

Understand the difference though.

When Ratzinger suggested faith and science were complementary he may not have been referring to the complementarity between red wine and meat, but the complementarity of modern physics.

So rather than argue evolution we might look at the richness that concept provides philosophically- and how it might greatly deepen our understanding of a Trinitarian God…a God who is Spirit, Father and Son all at once, all orthogonal…

It’s what distinguishes us from our furry upright brethren - this ability to contemplate.

As to Adam and Eve…there are far more profound revelations in Genesis than just a biological lineage…and coming back to science, the use of, far more worth considering…since every time we eat from the tree of knowledge the first thing we do is make an atomic bomb to murder.

 

[verum]

I have just joined this forum. I have read some but not all of the contributions on the subject of evolution, so if what I write has been covered before I apologise.

Whist I am not a fundamentalist, evolution has always been problematic for me , as I don’t see how it can be reconciled with Roman Catholicism, or indeed any mainstream Christian phiosophy. I am not educated in any science discipline, which I recognise puts me at a disadvantage, but these are in my view some of the major problems with evolution from a religious perspective.

1. A more traditional reading( but not necessarily a literal one ) of Genesis has the Fall of Man preceding the Fall of the animals. Evolution has no place for this, so how are we to explain the animals’ Fall? Furthermore, if there was no Fall of the animals, God must have deliberately created a world of suffering and terror, in which sentient creatures are torn limb from limb and consume each other. How could a good God do such a thing? Plainly he couldn’t, therefore we have to believe that God is either good, but not all-powerful, or all-powerful but not good.

2)Leaving aside the problem of animal suffering, we are told by theistic evolutionists that Adam’s body was born from an animal. This means that the first human being had no human father or mother.( This difficulty was of course pointed out by Pius XII). Anyway, the animal population had plainly in some sense fallen by then, so how could Adam have been a suitable receipient for a human soul.If we abandon the traditional doctrine of the soul, we have a sort of Sorites Paradox situation. In other words: How could there ever have been a first man?

3)If ( as is taught in virtually all schools, colleges and universities ) evolution is a struggle for the survival of the fittest, a struggle in which it is hard to see room for a God, how could there have been a Fall of Man? "Progressive " theologians have come to just that conclusion, and have abandoned ( quite logically from their point of view) traditional doctrines of Original Sin,Grace, the need for Redemption, Baptism ( which now becomes a ceremony for inclusion into the Christian community ), and indeed the whole concept of sin becomes problematic. Evil becomes “inappropriate behaviour”, the Sacrifice of the Mass becomes a sort of secular common meal, and some theologians actually conclude that “God” is a reality which only exists when we make him present through our interaction. I’m not suggesting that everyone who believes in evolution thinks like this, but those who have thought it through tend towards this type of thought ,even if unconciously, in my view.

1. Attempts to “glue God” into the theory seem quite unconvincing, and one can hardly blame non-believers for being sceptical.It is ( or so it seems to me ) a theory which doesn’t need recourse to the supernatural. Despite what Newman said, logically the theory IS atheistic.

It is interesting that CS Lewis, a man with an unusually clear and logical mind, after a lifetime of defending evolution, began to abandon it in his later years, regarding it as part of the “Great Lie” that is the modern world.