Evolution: much ado about nothing

[georgeaquinas]

There seems to be a reoccurring assumption that it is not tenable to be Catholic and accept the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, this assumption is false. It seems to me that there are two broad objections that can be made against any theory of evolution:

1. 
   *]That it is untenable on religious grounds.
   *]That it is untenable on scientific grounds.
   
   It is the first of these premises that I would like to address, as it is the most pertinent to a Catholic apologetics forum.
   
   It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that the theory of evolution is not hostile to the Faith. See the CCC 283-289. Indeed, the CCC praises these studies because they lead directly to a discussion and questioning that “goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences,” ie. a discussion of God. I would also encourage a reading of ‘In the Beginning…’ A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
   
   Now someone might object and say that evolutionary theory denies the existence of God. That is not so. Science has nothing to say about God because God is not an object of scientific study. To talk about “theistic evolution” is a contradiction, notice that we do not talk about “theistic meterology” or “theistic agri-science.”
   
   If someone argues that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist, he is not making a scientific argument. He is making a philosophical argument based on an inference from science. The proper way to meet that argument is to use the tools of philosophy and religion, not the tools of science. The root of the problem is a cultural mindset that sets the background for, or makes easier, that type of inference to be made.
   
   Likewise if someone says that Christianity proves that evolutionary theory is wrong, he is not making a scientific argument. He is making a religious argument based on an inference from his religion. Noticed that I used Christianity, as it has already been demonstrated that Catholicism and evolution are compatable.
   
   I am afraid that by making a denial of evolution a pre-requisite for Christian belief you create a stumbling block where one is not needed. I also wonder how much of this discussion about evolution comes out of conservative/fundementalist Christianity. Afterall, the Vatican does have its own observatory (ran by a priest) that does cutting edge research in astro-physics—they are certainly not “young earthers” or anything else.
   
   There also seems to be a fear that an acceptance of evolution poses a problem for original sin. This would be another great topic of discussion. Again, I would direct you to the CCC 385-412.
   
   As to the second possible objection “evolution is untenable as science,” that is a matter for scientists to debate. It is clear that the first objection is false and thus any religious interest in the second objection vanishes.

 

[Charles]

I’ve known several Catholics, myself included, who do not see evolution as contrary to Catholic dogma. As long as it is not being used to deny the Creator, or to mitigate original sin, the theory itself does not seem, to me at least, to be at all unacceptable.

I’m off on vacation tomorrow! You all have a great week!

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

georgeaquinas:

It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that the theory of evolution is not hostile to the Faith. See the CCC 283-289. Indeed, the CCC praises these studies because they lead directly to a discussion and questioning that “goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences,” ie. a discussion of God. I would also encourage a reading of ‘In the Beginning…’ A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

There also seems to be a fear that an acceptance of evolution poses a problem for original sin. This would be another great topic of discussion. Again, I would direct you to the CCC 385-412. QUOTE]

I have read your referenced paragraphs and find my position solidified all the more. Evolution theory is in stark contrast and contradiction to the historical events described in the catechism.

I haven’t yet heard an explanation of how the original sin of Adam and Eve bringing death into the world can coincide with evolution. On the one hand you have no death or disease prior to the sin. On the other you have millions of beings of the same flesh as Adam and Eve, whose ancestors presumably have died due to disease, old age, accidents, etc.

If we evolved from apes, at what point did sin enter into the picture to bring us to our current fallen state? If evolution is true we did not fall we started at the bottom and have been gradually working our way upwards, and are continuing to work upwards to higher states of physical being.

This is the crux of the issue so masterfully avoided by the spinners of the evolution story but never directly addressed or explained. Describe to me in plain english the exact steps that occurred in history in the evolutionary story that brought about the fall of mankind and necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ.

I leave one small crack open in the door temporarily only in so far as I have not read Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, to which I will make a point to delve into in the near future. But if it glosses over, avoids, does not directly address the above points or relegates them to “mystery” however, I do not anticipate it will produce much change in my current thinking.

 

[Catholic2003]

Edwin Taraba:

I have read your referenced paragraphs and find my position solidified all the more. Evolution theory is in stark contrast and contradiction to the historical events described in the catechism.

Could you clarify what your position is? Is it (1) that you personally don’t believe in the theory of evolution, or (2) that you dissent from the Church’s magisterium on their teaching that the theory of evolution is compatible with Catholicism?

 

[Tirian]

I’m willing to be corrected by any of you out there who have insight into this.

It seems to me that when we’re talking about “evolution” we need to define the term carefully. There are at least two irreconcilable meanings to this word as it is popularly used. One is the “molecules to man” theory popularized a generation or two ago by men like the Huxleys. They wanted a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the cosmos. In their view the only things operating to bring this about are matter, energy, space, and time. The universe is essentially self-creating and self-organizing. The supernatural is not needed to explain the existence of anything.

The other view is that a gradual development from simple to complex took place over vast periods of time, but that this development was the result of the purposeful activity of intelligence. This view is really a creation view–the term evolution simply a synonym for “development” as opposed to the kind of creationism that sees everything brought about in finished form in 6 literal days.

I think the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” are sometimes used for these ideas. Macroevolution meaning that all existence can be explained on the basis of the purposeless movement of atoms and molecules creating and organizing themselves. Microevolution meaning that gradual development and adaptability have taken place but this is insufficient to explain the appearance of the larger categories of life–families, orders, phyla, etc.

Am I understanding things if I say that the Church can accept evolution in the sense of meaning II above, but not meaning I?

Until someone shows me how meaning II is incompatible with the Christian understanding of the origin of the cosmos, I’ll make room for it in my thinking and the thinking of others.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Tirian:

I’m willing to be corrected by any of you out there who have insight into this.

Righty-ho

It seems to me that when we’re talking about “evolution” we need to define the term carefully.

Scientists do. The two most general definitions are:

1. change in allele frequency in (ie change in the genetic make-up of) a population over time
2. all living things being derived from a shared common ancestor by descent with modification.

Both of these are scientific facts; the Theory of evolution is (as is any scientific theory) the bundled set of hypotheses – some most well confirmed, some quite well confirmed, and a few that are more speculative – which taken together explain some big, general fact of nature, in this case evolution (as above).

There are at least two irreconcilable meanings to this word as it is popularly used. One is the “molecules to man” theory popularized a generation or two ago by men like the Huxleys.

T H was a contemporary of Darwin, so in the 1860s-1890s; Julian was T H’s grandson, died in 1975. The other Huxleys (author Aldous, and Leonard) weren’t particularly involved with evolution.

They wanted a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the cosmos.

Not that I know of, necessarily. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.

In their view the only things operating to bring this about are matter, energy, space, and time.

All science is naturalistic, because the supernatural is not amenable to the scientific method.

The universe is essentially self-creating and self-organizing. The supernatural is not needed to explain the existence of anything.

Not needed does not mean it’s not there nor involved, merely that we can’t tell.

The other view is that a gradual development from simple to complex took place over vast periods of time, but that this development was the result of the purposeful activity of intelligence.

Sure… but then the intelligence is rather inscrutable. Too many mass extinctions – too many extinctions! – and too many ‘design’ foul-ups, y’see. But these don’t mean that there actually was no intelligence involved, just that it doesn’t operate in directly, obviously intelligent ways. It presumably has its own agenda.

(continued…)

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Tirian:

I think the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” are sometimes used for these ideas.

Not in scientific circles they aren’t .

Macroevolution meaning that all existence can be explained on the basis of the purposeless movement of atoms and molecules creating and organizing themselves.

Nope . Macroevolution is simply to do with broader, longer-timescaled factors: evolution above the species level, which takes into account things like extinction patterns, plate tectonics, and the ‘bigger’ changes in lineages – certain artiodactyls becoming aquatic; certain osteolepiform fish becoming amphibian-like, for instance. It has nothing to do with self-organisation (perilously close to abiogenesis here), nor does it make anything ‘purposeless’ (though as I said, macroevolutionary patterns do look that way).

Microevolution meaning that gradual development and adaptability have taken place

Microevolution is changes within populations, up to and possibly including speciation (which is an observed phenomenon, btw).

but this is insufficient to explain the appearance of the larger categories of life–families, orders, phyla, etc.

Nope. One major school of thought is that ‘macro’ is simply ‘micro’ writ large: accumulate enough micro, and you get macro. The other view, from people like Gould (which is more bluster and perspective than actual difference), is that other factors such as plate tectonics and mass extinctions are in themselves things that affect the course of cumulative microevolution. ‘Microevolution’ is what happens on the ground from generation to generation in populations. Nobody from any ‘camp’ thinks that there is anything more to it in terms of genetic lineages: ‘macro’ is ‘micro’ plus time, it’s just that one side accuses the other of ignoring meteorite strikes, while the others think the former are claiming the other stuff is a substitute for cumulative adaptation.

The thing is, these “larger categories of life” started small, as speciation, which is only populations becoming divided and the evolution of reproductive isolating mechanisms between them. Since there is no major difference between micro and macro except time (and the stuff that happens to the planet on longer timescales), microevolution does explain the origin of larger taxonomic categories too. There are no sudden jumps involved.

(cont…)

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Tirian:

Am I understanding things if I say that the Church can accept evolution in the sense of meaning II above, but not meaning I?

The church naturally [sic] wants to include some non-naturalism… and few people this side of Richard Dawkins would argue. But till I found certain folks here, I had thought there was no problem accepting the shared-ancestry / macroevolution position as far as Catholics were concerned.

Until someone shows me how meaning II is incompatible with the Christian understanding of the origin of the cosmos, I’ll make room for it in my thinking and the thinking of others.

So… do you think humans are a species of ape, or not?

Cheers, Oolon

 

[Catholic2003]

It is important to understand the terms correctly. Here is a key definition from one of PhilVaz’s links:

Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale, and each modern organism is the genetic descendant of one original species.

Notice that this says nothing about where that first original species came from. In particular, abiogenesis (that life arose from non-life) is a different theory that is not required in order to believe in universal common descent.

 

[Melchior]

Edwin Taraba:

This is the crux of the issue so masterfully avoided by the spinners of the evolution story but never directly addressed or explained. Describe to me in plain english the exact steps that occurred in history in the evolutionary story that brought about the fall of mankind and necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ.
QUOTE]

Very good point, Edwin. I too, would love to see this addressed directly.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

Catholic2003:

Could you clarify what your position is? Is it (1) that you personally don’t believe in the theory of evolution, or (2) that you dissent from the Church’s magisterium on their teaching that the theory of evolution is compatible with Catholicism?

Are you saying that to disagree with evolution is to dissent from the Church? Logically, if Edwin believes option 1 then he also agrees with option 2.

But…

He is only dissenting from the magisterium if the magisterium requires Catholics to believe in evolution. So it is *disagreement *, not dissent, with an obviously less than well thought out opinion that is certain to be revised in the far future when evidence for or against evolution becomes poplularized and normalized.

Mel

 

[Catholic2003]

Melchior:

Are you saying that to disagree with evolution is to dissent from the Church? Logically, if Edwin believes option 1 then he also agrees with option 2.

No, these are two different things. If someone agrees with option (2), then he or she is saying that it is not possible for anyone to be a good, faithful Catholic and at the same time believe in evolution.

Melchior:

He is only dissenting from the magisterium if the magisterium requires Catholics to believe in evolution.

The magisterium does not require Catholics to believe in evolution. However, the magisterium does state that it is within the bounds of Catholicism to believe in evolution. If Edwin were to claim that I am not a faithful Catholic because I believe in evolution, then Edwin would be dissenting from the Church’s magisterium on this issue.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Melchior:

Edwin Taraba:

This is the crux of the issue so masterfully avoided by the spinners of the evolution story but never directly addressed or explained. Describe to me in plain english the exact steps that occurred in history in the evolutionary story that brought about the fall of mankind and necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ.

Very good point, Edwin. I too, would love to see this addressed directly.

I don’t see what’s so difficult. The Fall is allegorical, explaining mankind’s sinful, God-disobeying nature in terms of a story that Bronze Age goat-herders could understand. And Jesus died for our sins. Apparently . In other words, mankind is sinful, and so something had to be done about it, but it’s a mistake (and non-factual) to think there was actually an Adam and Eve and a talking snake. That the first chapters of Genesis are myth does not mean that man’s sins didn’t require holy intervention.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

I do wish posters here could get their heads around the concept that evolution does not require ‘belief’, suggesting that it is in any way similar to religion. Catholic2003 may ‘believe’ in evolution if he/she wants to not bother investigating it, I suppose. But I for one do not *believe * in it. I have seen more than enough evidence for evolution to accept what that evidence shows. The big advantage with science, you see, is that anyone can check for themselves if they’re willing to put the effort in. One has to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because the evidence is entirely hearsay; but I can go and dig up more fossils and do PCR tests on retroviral insertions.

 

[Steph700]

Oolon Colluphid:

I do wish posters here could get their heads around the concept that evolution does not require ‘belief’, suggesting that it is in any way similar to religion. Catholic2003 may ‘believe’ in evolution if he/she wants to not bother investigating it, I suppose. But I for one do not *believe *in it. I have seen more than enough evidence for evolution to accept what that evidence shows. The big advantage with science, you see, is that anyone can check for themselves if they’re willing to put the effort in. One has to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because the evidence is entirely hearsay; but I can go and dig up more fossils and do PCR tests on retroviral insertions.

Woah, back up there. I’d say that both evolution and Jesus’ resurrection require faith. We didn’t see either one happen. We have different evidences for both (and great evidence at that!) but all things require belief. Just because someone tells you something is a fact doesn’t mean you MUST chose to believe it.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Hi Steph

Steph700:

Woah, back up there. I’d say that both evolution and Jesus’ resurrection require faith. We didn’t see either one happen. We have different evidences for both (and great evidence at that!) but all things require belief. Just because someone tells you something is a fact doesn’t mean you MUST chose to believe it.

I think I see what you’re saying, but you’re not quite correct when you say we didn’t see evolution happen. Not only can we observe it happening now, up to and including speciation; we can also see the effects of it having happened in the past.

Of course we can’t observe past events, but we can observe the traces of past events, and so test our hypotheses about them. A hypothesis about the past should make predictions: that if humans derive from a (more) apelike ancestor, then there might be fossils of such things; that if someone rose from the dead, some folks might be impressed enough about it to start a new religion . (Though there is a logical discontinuity in the latter example .) If the predictions are confirmed, then we can be that little bit more sure that the past was like the hypothesis suggests.

In a nutshell: we can’t see the past, but we can see its traces.

 

[davidv]

Edwin Taraba:

georgeaquinas:

It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that the theory of evolution is not hostile to the Faith. See the CCC 283-289. Indeed, the CCC praises these studies because they lead directly to a discussion and questioning that “goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences,” ie. a discussion of God. I would also encourage a reading of ‘In the Beginning…’ A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

There also seems to be a fear that an acceptance of evolution poses a problem for original sin. This would be another great topic of discussion. Again, I would direct you to the CCC 385-412. QUOTE]

I have read your referenced paragraphs and find my position solidified all the more. Evolution theory is in stark contrast and contradiction to the historical events described in the catechism.

I haven’t yet heard an explanation of how the original sin of Adam and Eve bringing death into the world can coincide with evolution. On the one hand you have no death or disease prior to the sin. On the other you have millions of beings of the same flesh as Adam and Eve, whose ancestors presumably have died due to disease, old age, accidents, etc.

If we evolved from apes, at what point did sin enter into the picture to bring us to our current fallen state? If evolution is true we did not fall we started at the bottom and have been gradually working our way upwards, and are continuing to work upwards to higher states of physical being.

This is the crux of the issue so masterfully avoided by the spinners of the evolution story but never directly addressed or explained. Describe to me in plain english the exact steps that occurred in history in the evolutionary story that brought about the fall of mankind and necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ.

I leave one small crack open in the door temporarily only in so far as I have not read Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, to which I will make a point to delve into in the near future. But if it glosses over, avoids, does not directly address the above points or relegates them to “mystery” however, I do not anticipate it will produce much change in my current thinking.
Since evolution is a theory, and there is no scientific “history” in which to describe the steps you are asking for. History is in quotes because, more often the not, scripture is not chronological history as we have come to expect based on how we are taught in school.

 

[Prometheum_x]

A couple thoughts:

First, the Church certainly does not require anyone to “believe” in evolution. Neither has it said that evolution is true. All it has said is that is that a “belief” in evolution per se is not incompatible with the faith.

Second, if genetic similarities indicate that two species are somehow related, then all it would take to prove a single universal ancestor would be to demonstrate a shared genetic inheritance in all living creatures. Supposing that there is a common genetic inheritance in all living creatures (I don’t really know; I haven’t looked at that aspect very much at all), this would seem to indicate that we all have a single ancestor.

The problem that I have with this is the premise: similarities indicate shared ancestry. What is the basis for this premise?

My apologies if I am not using the most precise terminology. . . I try. . .

 

[Kent_Wendler]

I think it is possible to reconcile a very literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis and “natural science”, including evolutionary theory, in a way that essentially isolates them from each other while allowing them both to be quite true.

I posted a thread to that effect in that other forum, but it has expired from there. Perhaps I’ll repost it here in edited form if appropriate.

 

[dredgtone]

If you don’t believe in evolution you believe in creationism. Creationism has been torn to shreds by science but the fanaticism of most “creationist scientists” takes over in their pursuit to twist empirical facts to support their fallible claims. So next time that Dr. Dino starts to appeal to you, just remind yourself that he’s a nutcase and deserves to be locked up for spreading lies.

Yes there are holes in the theory of evolution, this is why it’s a theory! You don’t have to believe in it, just accept the facts at hand. Microevolution is true and macroevolution is being worked on.

As for being incongruent with religious beliefs, face it. Science has posed many things that seemingly go against religion and this is why over the course of all these years religious interpretations have been altered. Either way, science is congruent with religion.