Evolution & the catholic church

[Steadfast]

Steve,

All I am saying is that there is no evidence of evolution on the scale we are talking about.

What there are are a lot of old primate and possibly hominid fossils from which a hypothesis has been formed.

I do not happen to favor that hypothesis over the Word of God.

 

[Orogeny]

Steadfast:

Steve,

All I am saying is that there is no evidence of evolution on the scale we are talking about.

You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence for evolution on a macro scale. You may choose to ignore that evidence, but the evidence is there.

What there are are a lot of old primate and possibly hominid fossils from which a hypothesis has been formed.

While there are hypotheses within the theory, we are beyond the hypothesis stage when it comes to evolution.

I do not happen to favor that hypothesis over the Word of God.

You don’t have to choose one over the other.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Tim << You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence for evolution on a macro scale. You may choose to ignore that evidence, but the evidence is there. >>

"Teach the controversy" for "both sides need to be taught"

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Frontpiece from Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible (Wittenberg, Germany: Hans Lufft, 1534)

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

hurst:

That is a very good question.

I personally think the answer lies in the fact that the Faith is in eclipse, even within the Church. This is undoubtedly due to the faith many have put into the scientific theories of the day. As a result, there are those who object and cause things to be left out or stated ambiguously.

Let me just quote from another encyclical on scriptural inerrancy that supports my view:

1. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.
   We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.
2. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. … Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science! …
3. Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles - which are only sound, if kept within due bounds - in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, …

• Encyclical Spiritus Paracletus

This shows that the Pope is lamenting the opposition to Church teaching by even those who teach in the seminaries.

I believe that these kinds of people have had much influence on many of the writings we see today in the Church. This is not to say that the Church is now in error because of them, but that we must be cautious about putting too much weight in recent writings that do not accord fully with what has always been taught.

I believe that God is allowing this - perhaps due to our general lack of faith. It will serve as a punishment for some, and a proving ground for others.

hurst

I think Spiritus Paraclitus tends to be overshadowed by Providentissimus Deus & Divino Afflante Spiritu - & possibly by the War.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

jasny << We should also discuss the baggage that Darwinism has gathered as an assault on belief in general. Not only the scriptural aspects >>

Hey you can’t stop there…

“I am against Evolution, I think it has led to other diabolical beliefs. As I investigated it more I have become far more of a creationist. Evolution has led to the Godlessness of society, and degredation of mankind and rejection of God and atheism.” (creationist #1)

“It goes hand in hand with atheism, racism, communism, etc. People are at risk of their faiths when they believe in evolution. Hitler had a hit list for prefered races. (With the Jews on bottom and blacks next.) Part of the title of Darwins book included ‘preferred races’. Stalin promoted evolution.” (creationist #2)

“Of course children should be taught about Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution so they will be prepared to refute it. That just makes good sense…” (creationist #3)

“…Satan and his ‘principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of this world’ (Eph 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and His redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world…The solid evidence for the above sequence of events is admittedly tenuous…If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution…Behind both groups of evolutionists [theistic and nontheistic] one can discern the malignant influence of ‘that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’ (Rev 12:9). As we have seen, it must have been essentially the deception of evolution which prompted Satan himself to rebel against God, and it was essentially the same great lie with which he deceived Eve, and with which he has continued to ‘deceive the whole world’.” (famous creationist #4 where #1 #2 #3 got their ideas)

And for good measure…

“I believe the real source of Modern Astronomy to have been SATAN,” wrote flat-earther David Wardlaw Scott. “From his first temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden until now, his great object has been to throw discredit on the Truth of God.” John Hampden agreed, calling the spherical theory “that Satanic device of a round and revolving globe, which sets Scripture, reason, and facts at defiance.”

:yawn: :whacky:

Evolution of Bible Science

Phil P

Since Old Scratch was (supposedly) the father of liberalism , that makes very good sense.​

If the globe is satanic, shouldn’t we all fall off the edge of the world ? And how thick is the earth ? Or is it a hemisphere ? If so, Australia does not exist - unless there are two flat sections of earth which are for ever separated, like a convict and a visitor separated by a screen. In which case, the Antipodes exist, but cannot be visited from our hemisphere.

Or again, perhaps the earth is shaped like one of those bendy German sausages: its continuous in part, but the two ends of the sausage don’t, so to put it, “meat”.

I like the suggestion of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the sixth century, that the earth was shaped like the Ark of the Covenant. ##

 

[PhilVaz]

Gottle << I like the suggestion of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the sixth century, that the earth was shaped like the Ark of the Covenant. >>

Like I said, both sides, or rather ALL sides need to be taught if we want our kids to have a “well rounded” (pun intended) eduKation, including but not limited to the Top side of the earth, the “underside” of the earth, the waters above and below the earth.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

Are you saying that the Church for 2,000 years has not understood Revelation?

No - I’m asking for some careful linguistic analysis - it may seem terribly dull, but even so, it is very important for conveying meaning.​

===========

This may be as good a place as any for this:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p43.htm

Why would all but a handful of fundamentalist geologists reject what is “unquestionably true” ? Henry Morris suggested that the answer might be found in the Tower of Babel:

"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the host of heaven, Satan and his ‘principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of this world’ (Eph 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and His redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God’s power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere.

"The solid evidence for the above sequence of events is admittedly tenuous…

This is a not unfair description​

If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution." (Morris 1975, p. 74-75)

One detail - Babylonian cosmology was anything but non-theistic. As for the sovereignty of God, Divine sovereignty was immensely important, not least in several mythological texts. It wasn’t as sovereign as the sovereignty of the Christian God - but neither was that of the Jewish God, until very late.​

It’s interesting to see Nimrod popping up again - for no Nimrod was ever ruler of Babylon. Presumably the source is Genesis 10.8 ff.

It would be very nice if people would bother to look at the primary & secondary sources on the subject, before coming up with such interesting but curious ideas. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Gottle << I like the suggestion of Cosmas Indicopleustes in the sixth century, that the earth was shaped like the Ark of the Covenant. >>

Like I said, both sides, or rather ALL sides need to be taught if we want our kids to have a “well rounded” (pun intended) eduKation, including but not limited to the Top side of the earth, the “underside” of the earth, the waters above and below the earth.

[snip]

Phil P

Nice - but take a look at this:​

The shape of Arda before the end of the FIRST** AGE**(somewhat conjectural)



Middle Earth in the Third Age

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/maps/middleearth2.gif ##

 

[Jasny]

steveandersen]your making the mistake of imposing a religious model on science

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
(“How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?” National Post May 13, 2000) †

Though he is trying to save it from staying this way. He is honest enough to admitt the history.

One can not just sweep away the vast majority of evolutionist before Hitler supported Eugenics.

I’m not even sure what your point is.

My point is that evolutionist run from facts of the history of their movement. Its leadership has showed time and again they devalue human life. But Darwinist just deny it but it is a historical fact! Why can’t most Darwinist accept it? Ruse has.

(You said) but if it is true, that says nothing about evolution

**if ** Darwin said other stuff that was silly, stupid or misused by others that has absolutely nothing to do with the robustness of the theory.

If infers thatyou don’t believe that Darwinism was the basis for “scientific” racism. You again infer that Darwin was missunderstood in this quote:
" With savages. the weak in body or mind are soon aliminated; and those that survive commonly exibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilsed societys propogate their kind. No one who has attented to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurous to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wronly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as allow his worst animals to breed."
(Charles Dawin, “The Descent of Man” 2nd ed. 1922 pp. 205-206)
Don’t believe me believe THE MAN – Darwin. Do your own research

 

[Jasny]

I’ve read things that put the blame for the anti Semitism in Nazism squarely on Luther…that doesn’t make that true either. There have always been folks who will misuse, misquote, or other wise abuse the works of others for their own ends.

Are not interested in the facts? Read about the leaders of Darwinism leading up to Hitler they applied “survival of the fittest” (read “Kill the weak”) to society not Lutherism. Read the history about Planned Parenthood, and the Monist Society even official forced sterilization in the USA. Eugenic thinking is not the exception it is the rule. Right now, 2005, Singer at Princeton is advicating infanticide. How can he do that without losing his job? Because Darwinism is taught as dogma in Universities. It is the same process the Germans when through before Hitler. They excepted a Eugenic mentality based on Darwinism.
As German philosopher Erich Fromm observed, “If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties.” Sir Arthur Keith, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in the 1940s: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”

Eugenics ideas are nothing new: The Spartans exposed sick babies 2500 years ago. And given the romantic and classical revival aspects of some parts of 19th century culture that seems just as likely a tree top bark up as Darwin.

Spartans were not “scientific” racists. Eugenics was started by Dawin’s cousin Francis Galton (if we be truthful :ehh: )

"The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. Francis Galton Essays in Eugenics (1985) p.68

 

[steveandersen]

Jasny:

…
Spartans were not “scientific” racists. Eugenics was started by Dawin’s cousin Francis Galton (if we be truthful :ehh: )…

Once again, who cares whose friend’s second cousin’s uncle thought something?

do you have any technical problems with the theory besides guilt by association?

your rants about eugenics are similar to stating that since Jim Jones claimed to be Christ and got 900 people to drink poison cool aid, then religion or Christianity is somehow to blame

Hitler used evolution and eugenics the same way he used Nietzsche or Christianity or mythical Teutonic rituals, as a handy political tool and nothing more.

 

[PhilVaz]

steve << do you have any technical problems with the theory besides guilt by association? >>

Yeah I am waiting for this guy’s scientific critique of evolution and response to the Index to Creationist Claims. BTW a few responses to him in the philosophy and theology section of that index.

Phil P

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

steveandersen:

do you have any technical problems with the theory besides guilt by association?

.

It is more than guilt by association. The theory of evolution in the absence of spiritual values leaves man as nothing more than a non-glorified animal.

When people like Hitler and the founder of Planned Parenthood stumble, discover, use the theory of evolution they find a perfect tool to advance the notion that man is just an animal.

While it is very true that evolution scientifically speaking makes no ethical or moral claims whatsoever, it provides a convenient gateway to the assumption that man can treat his fellow man like an evolutionized ape as opposed to a being created in the image of God.

While this is NOT a problem with the theory of evolution, it is a huge problem for humanity in how we apply the theory of evolution to our own cultural weltanschauen, to our own children.

The problem with evolution in the classroom is not the theory itself, but the presentation of the theory in the absence of spiritual and cultural values from the secular state.

If you teach by absence that man is just an animal we will all reap what you have sewn. And watching 15 minutes of MTV is a pretty strong indicator that the fare our children want is what evolutionized apes would want–lustful and objectifying their brethren.

 

[zian]

The creed of eugenics is founded on a truly warped version of evolution. Evolution is about successful adaptations, not about “improvement”. Any “evolutionist” who thought he could breed humans into “perfection” had failed to complete all of the required course work. Lots of people believe stupid things about both science and religion, that are contrary to fact.

 

[steveandersen]

MichaelTDoyle:

…While it is very true that evolution scientifically speaking makes no ethical or moral claims whatsoever, it provides a convenient gateway to the assumption that man can treat his fellow man like an evolutionized ape as opposed to a being created in the image of God…

perhaps, but religions have long been used to separate “us” from “them” and excuse all sorts of behavior. That is no more religion’s fault than eugenics is science’s

science is just a tool, how we use it is a different matter

 

[rossum]

MichaelTDoyle:

The theory of evolution in the absence of spiritual values leaves man as nothing more than a non-glorified animal.

There are many possible reactions to man being just another animal. One is to think that men should treat animals a lot better than they sometimes do. Buddhism denies the existence of any soul, hence men and other animals are all in the same category of “living things”. The first of Buddhism’s five moral rules is: “to avoid injury to living things”. By emphasising the similarities between humans and other animals Buddhism extends morality to cover all living things rather than just humans. Animals and humans will all attain nirvana eventually so in a sense by putting both in the same category the animals have become “glorified”. When merging two categories you can level up rather than levelling down.

MichaelTDoyle:

When people like Hitler and the founder of Planned Parenthood stumble, discover, use the theory of evolution they find a perfect tool to advance the notion that man is just an animal.

Hitler used whatever he could lay his hands on to advance his political agenda. He used Christianity, Paganism, Psychology, Social Darwinism, Evolution and a lot of other stuff as well. All to often he misunderstood what he was using. As I said initially the notion that men and animals are in the same category is not intrinsically morally bad.

MichaelTDoyle:

The problem with evolution in the classroom is not the theory itself, but the presentation of the theory in the absence of spiritual and cultural values from the secular state.

Every school that I have been to, and taught in, has instilled cultural values: obey the law, don’t use violence, don’t tell lies etc. While not specifically tied to any particular religion such values are generally accepted across all major religions and atheism. I would be very surprised if there was any school that did not do this. Apart from anything else these sorts of values are needed to allow both the school and society to function.

If you want your children to understand the spiritual values of Catholicism then you should teach them yourself, send them to Sunday school or to a Catholic school. In a state school teachers can be from any religion or none. I am a Buddhist so I am certainly not qualified to teach the details of Catholic doctrine. That is why teachers in state schools do not teach specific spiritual values.

rossum

 

[Ender]

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.

It is important to understand that evolution and Darwinism are not the same things. Evolution (for which there is a great deal of evidence) can be true while Darwinism (for which the evidence is less compelling) can be false.

It is also important to understand exactly what Darwinism is, and here there is disagreement even among leading scientists. Darwinism holds that species evolve by natural selection working on random changes - the disagreement is over what “random” means. Some (e.g. Richard Dawkins) claim that the process is truly and totally random, therefore man’s existence is accidental. This form of Darwinism is directly counter to Christianity.

This is really where the debate ought to be aimed as it avoids being placed in the false dilemma of choosing between science and faith. I don’t think that most Darwinists are ready to insist on this type of randomness but I also think that many who oppose Christianity use this implied position as a tool to marginalize religion. If this is what is being taught in schools then this is what ought to be opposed.

Ender

 

[hecd2]

Ender:

It is important to understand that evolution and Darwinism are not the same things. Evolution (for which there is a great deal of evidence) can be true while Darwinism (for which the evidence is less compelling) can be false.

Perhaps you would favour us with a definition of ‘evolution’ and a definition of ‘Darwinism’. Furthermore, perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence that the evidence for one is so much compelling than the evidence for the other with particular reference to evidence that supports evolution but doesn’t support Darwinism.

It is also important to understand exactly what Darwinism is,

It would be helpful if you would tell us **exactly **what Darwinism is. Will you?

and here there is disagreement even among leading scientists. Darwinism holds that species evolve by natural selection working on random changes - the disagreement is over what “random” means. Some (e.g. Richard Dawkins) claim that the process is truly and totally random, therefore man’s existence is accidental.

I assume that for someone who represents what Richard Dawkins claims with such confidence that you are thoroughly familiar with what he actually claims. You say that he claims that the process is ‘truly and totally random’.

Well anyone with merely a nodding acquaintance with the biological theory of evolution will know that the ‘process’ is anything but random - one has to have a deep misconception of the science to claim that Natural Selection (the fundamental process of Darwinism) is random.

Even if we are to consider the variation from generation to generation on which Natural Selection acts, do we find that Richard Dawkins considers it to be ‘truly and totally random’? Well, let’s see what he himself says (quotations from ‘The Blind Watchmaker’).

• There is randomness and randomness, and many people confuse different meanings of the word. There are, in truth, many respects in which mutation is not random.
• Mutations…don’t just spontaneously happen
• Not all genes are equally likely to mutate
• Mutations in some directions can be more likely than mutations in the reverse direction
• It is only if you define ‘random’ as meaning ‘no general bias towards bodily improvement’ that mutation is truly random.

Hmm, so, now we know what Dawkins actually claims as opposed to what you said he claimed. (By the way, his claim is supported by the evidence. There *is *a challenge to it based on what is called adaptive mutations based on the work of Barry Hall and John Cairns, but that is limited to bacteria, and the general scientific consensus is that it doesn’t undermine the concept that mutations are not biased in the direction of improvement).

This form of Darwinism is directly counter to Christianity.

This ‘form of Darwinism’ is the foundation of the modern biological theory of evolution - it’s called the Synthetic theory or ‘neo-Darwinism’. Given that the founders of neo-Darwinism included very devout Christians such as Theodosius Dobzhansky and R A Fisher, and that the overwhelming majority of Christian professional biologists today agree with it, it’s hard to see how it’s inherently anti-Christian.

This is really where the debate ought to be aimed

Are you prepared to be engaged with me in a debate about a) whether the fundamental mechanism of evolution is variation and natural selection and b) whether the variation or mutation is unbiased in a particular adaptive direction?

I don’t think that most Darwinists are ready to insist on this type of randomness but I also think that many who oppose Christianity use this implied position as a tool to marginalize religion. If this is what is being taught in schools then this is what ought to be opposed.

Ender

Non-adaptive mutations (random with regard to adaptive quality) form the basis of the modern Synthesis and most biologists agree with that. If you wish to oppose the principle that mutations are not adaptive, you will have to produce some evidence that mutations are adaptive or otherwise non-random in the direction of improved adaption (or in any other direction). My fairly confident prediction is that you have no such evidence.

On the other hand, if you want to oppose religious conclusions being taught in science class, but nevertheless accept the idea that mutational change is random with respect to direction, then I agree with you.

Which is it?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

hecd,

Do you agree with the definitions in this article?

Apes “R” Not Us: Catholics & the Debate Over Evolution

Catholics should not hesitate to get involved in the debate over Darwin’s theory, especially since they occupy a reasonable middle ground between scientific and biblical fundamentalists. Nor should we leave popular science writing to people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or Richard Dawkins, whose charming expositions mask a fierce hostility to religion. These writers are masters of what Darwin called the “slow and silent side attacks” against Christianity. But they are fighting a losing battle. Because the more we learn about the universe and the complexity of living things, the closer we come to the mysteries of our Faith.

[more…](http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0038.html)

 

[steveandersen]

Buffalo

I really didn’t see any definitions in that article

while I did agree while a lot of the what the author says about the allegorical reading of Genesis, his stuff addressing Evolution appears to be just the same tired old complaints.
By flatly stating that the observed facts are useless without a mechanism he is missing the basic point of scientific inquiry and
by harping on alleged inconsistencies he also misses the point of what exactly facts, theories, and beliefs are.

I’m not sure what Mr Johnston’s background is, but since his bio indicates that he writes for non-technical magazines I just wonder how much he knows about the subject he is writing on.

Sad really.

I mean if someone has a problem with evolution on theological grounds, fine. that’s great. Just say so

but to try to argue via specious naturalistic methods is disingenuous at best and I feel that it is bordering on the scandalous in that it tars Christians as some sort of luddites in the eyes of those we would seek to bring the Good News to.

I don’t see how it is pro or anti catholic to describe Creation accurately