Evolution refuting catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brown10985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
What I’m afraid of is having a narrow-minded protestant fundamental view forced on Catholicism.
You really believe that could happen? Who would be forcing this view on Catholicism? The Catholic posiiton has been the same for 2000 years. However, I maintain we must get the science right, not force the popular belief into Catholicism.

Isn’t taking a position which excludes all others also narrow minded?
 
Steve Andersen:
The Pope, not wanting to comment on matters of science, didn’t distinguish between the mainstream theory and other hypothesis because frankly it is not his turf.

f
Right! That was my point. We must be careful to interpret what was really said and meant and not what the media reported.

So one could not say that the Church is telling Catholics that a theory of evolution is true.

The Pope used the word hypothesis, which is somewhat different than theory.

Funk and Wagnalls - hypothesis - a set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis of reasoning, experiment, or investigation; an unsupported or ill-supported theory.
Synonyms:conjecture, guess, scheme, speculation, supposition, surmise, system, theory. Antonyms: certainty, demonstration, discovery, evidence, fact, proof.
 
vern humphrey:
That must be a paragraph of the Catechism I haven’t read, then.

Nowhere in the Catechism do I find a requirement to believe the Bible is literally true…

The Catholic Church does not require a literal interpretation of the bible.

The catechism says “101. In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of thir time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.”

I don’t have to believe that John literally SAW a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns – nor that Babylon has seven hills.

Thank you for lecturing me on things you cannot support from the Catechism.
The Catechism does say you must interpret scripture with following senses and also what was said and not exclude the what in favor of the why.

The senses of Scripture

115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Vern Humphrey:
What I’m afraid of is having a narrow-minded protestant fundamental view forced on Catholicism.
40.png
buffalo:
You really believe that could happen?
You seem to be doing your best.
40.png
buffalo:
Who would be forcing this view on Catholicism? ?
You seem to be doing your best.
40.png
buffalo:
The Catholic posiiton has been the same for 2000 years. However, I maintain we must get the science right, not force the popular belief into Catholicism. ?
That’s almost a quote from some of the most fundamentalist Protestants – “We have to get the science right.” As if there were some deep error in science that only THEY can see.

Now, the Catholic position is set forth in the Catechism:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

[112](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/112.htm’)😉 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

[113](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/113.htm’)😉 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81). [114](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/114.htm’)😉 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
40.png
buffalo:
Isn’t taking a position which excludes all others also narrow minded?
You seem to be doing that – and in the process constructing a Fundamentalist house of cards that serves as a substitute for faith.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Welcome, Happy Camper! You and I agree on this! By the way, just to pick a nit with that statement, evolution does not describe how life came into being, only how it has changed over time.
It doesn’t? Darwinism? Atheistic evolution? Materialism?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Funk and Wagnalls - hypothesis - a set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis of reasoning, experiment, or investigation; an unsupported or ill-supported theory.
Synonyms:conjecture, guess, scheme, speculation, supposition, surmise, system, theory. Antonyms: certainty, demonstration, discovery, evidence, fact, proof.
From Merriam & Webster online edition (emphasis by me):
Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypoth10.wav=hypothesis’))
Pronunciation: hI-‘pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hypoth11.wav=hypotheses’)) /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from *hypotithenai *to put under, suppose, from *hypo- + tithenai *to put – more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a *hypothesis *explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>.**THEORY ****implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the *law *of gravitation>.

Peace

Tim
 
vern humphrey:
You seem to be doing that – and in the process constructing a Fundamentalist house of cards that serves as a substitute for faith.
Gee Vern, you are pretty sensitive. This is a discussion board. Do you believe we should strive to get the science right? I am simply holding science accountable to the truth. I am not a fundamentalist, but I am humble enough to know we have a very limited intellect. Our mind cannot visualize more than three dimensions but there could be more. Now if there truly are more dimensions, how can we see what lies in those dimensions and the effect it had on creation or evolution? How can we see what lies beyond the 15 billion light year horizon? How can we have one piece of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle and declare to everyone with certainty what the picture looks like, and if everyone doesn’t agree or see the same picture berate them?

Simply put - we shouldn’t be so smug that evolution is the whole truth.

With respect I would expect an answer to any challenges that I post. These challenges make us think and reason much deeper.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Correct, it doesn’t.

Peace

Tim
If not, explain to me the baisc tenets of Darwinism? of Materialism? of Determinism?

My understanding is Darwinism says all life came from a single cell?

Materialism - no need for God

Determism - all human behavior can be explained by physical laws thereby eliminating free will

Common thread - no God.

Evolution itself does allow for a God - so it is important to identify the argument.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
From Merriam & Webster online edition (emphasis by me):
Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses m-w.com/images/audio.gif /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from *hypotithenai *to put under, suppose, from *hypo- + tithenai *to put – more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a *hypothesis *explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>.**THEORY ****implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the *theory ***of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the *law *of gravitation>.

Peace

Tim
So which dictionary was the Pope using?
 
40.png
buffalo:
If not, explain to me the baisc tenets of Darwinism? of Materialism? of Determinism?

My understanding is Darwinism says all life came from a single cell?
Please re-read my comment that you replied to.
Originally Posted by Orogeny
*Welcome, Happy Camper! You and I agree on this! By the way, just to pick a nit with that statement, evolution does not describe how life came into being, only how it has changed over time.
*
I stated (clearly, I thought) that evolution does not say how life came into being, only that it has changed over time.
Materialism - no need for God

Determism - all human behavior can be explained by physical laws thereby eliminating free will

Common thread - no God.
Correct on all three statements. Now, please explain where you will find any of those in evolution. Mind you, I am not saying that many, if not most, scientists would ascribe to those ideas, but I’m not talking about scientists. Where in any scientific theory is God ever mentioned?
Evolution itself does allow for a God - so it is important to identify the argument.
Science does not allow for God to be the answer to anything because God is supernatural and science deals strictly with observations of nature. Using your logic, gravitational theory is wrong because it doesn’t allow for God.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
I stated (clearly, I thought) that evolution does not say how life came into being, only that it has changed over time.

Correct on all three statements. Now, please explain where you will find any of those in evolution. Mind you, I am not saying that many, if not most, scientists would ascribe to those ideas, but I’m not talking about scientists. Where in any scientific theory is God ever mentioned?

Science does not allow for God to be the answer to anything because God is supernatural and science deals strictly with observations of nature. Using your logic, gravitational theory is wrong because it doesn’t allow for God.

Peace

Tim
You did explain it clearly.

I was not suggesting that scientific evolutionary theory incorporated God - what I was trying to say it doesn’t exclude or directly refute God. Scientists who are advancing evolution with the idea of disproving God as their agenda should be suspect and accountable for their purported evidence.

The main problem we continually have to wrestle with is the that science is limited to repeatable observation. I see much disdain for the supernatural in science. This suggests a bias, and could preclude the truth from being known or published.

I believe that many people and people on this board mistrust science for that very reason.
 
40.png
buffalo:
You did explain it clearly.
So you agree with my original statement that evolution doesn’t describe how life came into being?
I was not suggesting that scientific evolutionary theory incorporated God - what I was trying to say it doesn’t exclude or directly refute God.
Well, specifically, the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with God, period.
Scientists who are advancing evolution with the idea of disproving God as their agenda should be suspect and accountable for their purported evidence.
Agreed 100%. However, their evidence has stood up to pretty extreme review, so I don’t have a problem with it. All legitimate science is held up to scrutiny and scientists who are found to have forged data are quickly castigated and shunned by the scientific community.
The main problem we continually have to wrestle with is the that science is limited to repeatable observation. I see much disdain for the supernatural in science. This suggests a bias, and could preclude the truth from being known or published.
No, this doesn’t suggest any bias. Like I said, science cannot deal with the supernatural because, by definition, science is the study of the natural.
I believe that many people and people on this board mistrust science for that very reason.
You are probably right. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a lack of understanding of what science is and does and how it works. I say that not as a put down to anyone, just an observation based on the many statements made in this and all the other evolution threads.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
From Merriam & Webster online edition (emphasis by me):
Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis m-w.com/images/audio.gif

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a *hypothesis *explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>.**THEORY ****implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the *theory ***of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the *law *of gravitation>.

Peace

Tim
Just yesterday or the day before one of the scriveners on this thread took issue with me for saying "theory of evolution " and “law of gravity”.
As Buffalo and I have both said repetition is crucial to scientific observation just as the definition of “LAW” states above.
Neither of us is protestant nor do we believe sola scriptura. It is an act of faith to believe that an unproven theory is a fact. It is a fact that the theory of evolution is based on assumptions or acts of faith.
It is a different act of faith to believe in design and creation. That is certainly AT LEAST as logical as believing in a random series of events - in pure chance.
Newman60
 
40.png
Newman60:
Just yesterday or the day before one of the scriveners on this thread took issue with me for saying "theory of evolution " and “law of gravity”.
As Buffalo and I have both said repetition is crucial to scientific observation just as the definition of “LAW” states above.
Neither of us is protestant nor do we believe sola scriptura. It is an act of faith to believe that an unproven theory is a fact. It is a fact that the theory of evolution is based on assumptions or acts of faith.
It is a different act of faith to believe in design and creation. That is certainly AT LEAST as logical as believing in a random series of events - in pure chance.
Newman60
I agree, which is why I wonder why you keep saying that evolution is characterized by a random series of events and pure chance. It has been said over and over that this is a mis-characterization. It was also pointed out that “law” of gravity is a misnomer, applied to Newton’s laws before they were recast in the new light of general relativity. It is indeed more accurately called the gravitational theory. Also, why are you making such an issue out of “repeatability”? Repeatability can establish the fact that things fall, or that the genetic makeup of organisms changes from generation to generation. Both are facts. There is nothing “repeatable” about general relativity that is not also “repeatable” in evolutionary theory. We can examine the natural evidence in many ways to verify (or contradict) either. So far, there are no contradictions for either. What’s the problem?
 
40.png
Newman60:
It is an act of faith to believe that an unproven theory is a fact.
In science, we collect data, make observations and we develop an model to explain them. When the data set is small, the confidence in the model may be low . When there is a very large data set and that data fits the model, the confidence in the model is very high. The data set for evolution is huge and it fits the model very well. That evidence is readily available to anyone who wants it on-line. If you object to the data or the interpretation, make your case. If you want to continue making the argument that regardless of the data, it is only a matter of faith to accept evolution, then you won’t convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with you.

By the way, can you please tell me how do you prove a scientific theory?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
In science, we collect data, make observations and we develop an model to explain them. When the data set is small, the confidence in the model may be low . When there is a very large data set and that data fits the model, the confidence in the model is very high. The data set for evolution is huge and it fits the model very well. That evidence is readily available to anyone who wants it on-line. If you object to the data or the interpretation, make your case. If you want to continue making the argument that regardless of the data, it is only a matter of faith to accept evolution, then you won’t convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with you.

By the way, can you please tell me how do you prove a scientific theory?

Peace

Tim
Thank you!

The overwhelming prepondernace of evidence supports evolution – to the extent the confidence level approaches near certainty.

It is a typical Fundamentalist trick to equate acceptance of a scientific theory with “Faith” (just as it is another trick to denegrate scientific theory by saying, “It’s only a theory” and pretending that a “law” is somehow a higher level of scientific proposition.)

Now, can we stop playing these silly games? The Catholic Church does not demand a literal interpretation of the Bible, does not hold that all must believe Creation took place in seven, 24-hour days, and that we must reject any explanations that dont’ conform to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top