Evolution & the catholic church

  • Thread starter Thread starter algran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I must say that I’ve read through every post on this thread and I read through a number of the articles. To this day, I have not been given a single satisfactory explanation for how the death and chaos in the universe could pre-exist the Fall. I read the article that attempted to show that the fall only affected the spiritual condition of man and I thought some of the readings of Scripture were forced. Here is something else to consider.

The eschatological passages of the old testament, which suggest the lion lying down with the lamb, seem to suggest a kind of restoration. If Christ came to restore the cosmos, then wouldn’t it be the case that the cosmos was in a state of innocence to begin with? Genesis 2 has Adam naming all of the animals who come to him peacefully. The sacred author is clearly suggesting that there was complete harmony between man and nature. The difficulty of work, the thorns on the vine, physical suffering and pain, are all attributed to the Fall.

Here is my problem: I find it hard to believe that the Church fathers, or anyone prior to 1900, would have thought that there were generations of animals living and dying prior to the creation of man. Even if man is taken out of the picture, the natural world is subject to brutal strife and a struggle for existence. Why would God create animals in a state where they hunted down one another and inflicted pain? To my mind, theistic evolution destroys the traditional answer to the problem of evil; namely, that the Fall is the cause of all pain, suffering, and death in creation. I suppose one could argue that animal pain is no big deal, but its hard to imagine an all powerful, all loving being, creating a world where, even without a fall, animals will hunt one another and kill one another. I seriously doubt the biblical authors would buy into this.
 
How are these passages reconciled with macro-evolution?

Genesis 1:12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird** according to its kind.** And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
 
They might want to know what a “kind” is, since this is not a standard biological designation.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I wish you took some pictures. 😃
Click to expand...
I did, but the dadgum photolab screwed up the negatives!!! I’ve gone digital since!😃

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
I did, but the dadgum photolab screwed up the negatives!!! I’ve gone digital since!😃

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Are you sure the speed of light was so different it didn’t register on your film? 😃
 
40.png
dts:
How are these passages reconciled with macro-evolution?..
Click to expand...
I don’t see a problem at all. God made the kinds through evolution.
What is your concern?

PS What is a “macro” evolution? To paraphrase the old saying, you can’t just be a little bit evolved. 😉
 
Evolution, creationism both right, renowned scholar says
His theory: Intelligent force used natural selection to make world

PHILADELPHIA - A Nobel laureate in physics believes that some intelligent force probably created the universe but He (or it) used evolution to do it.

Charles Townes, an intellectual giant in both the sciences and humanities, told religious scholars at a conference in Philadelphia that “life probably started once, but not much more than once.”

Mr. Townes, 89, is one of the few men in the world who could step into the fray between creationists and scientists, and command everyone’s attention: He won the Nobel Prize in 1964 for his work on the laser, and, earlier this year, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for his contributions in uniting science and faith.

The prize is the largest cash honour in the world, worth $1.4 million U.S. It was established 33 years ago by the British philanthropist Sir John Templeton as a sort of “spiritual Nobel.” Other Templeton laureates include Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.

The professor, who lives in Berkeley, California, with Frances, his wife of 63 years, is also an Officer of the French Legion of Honor, and holds the Niels Bohr International Gold Medal as well as nearly 125 other awards and honorary degrees.

Mr. Townes didn’t place himself in the middle between creationists and scientists, so much as above them, with a third theory gaining credence these days, intelligent design.

more…
 
Hitler, Adolf, during meal times to his innermost circle plus the
occasional reliable guest, e.g. Himmler, as prepared by Hitler’s
secretary Martin Bormann. 1953. Hitler’s Secret Conversations:
1941-1944, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, with an
introductory essay “The Mind of Adolf Hitler” by H.R. Trevor-Roper (NY:
Farrar, Straus and Young), 597pp. On 69, from the entry for 24
October 1941:
Code: 
 Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of
 free research.  The Church's opposition to science
 was sometimes so violent that it struck off sparks.
 The Church, with a clear awareness of her
 interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the
 result that science has lost some of its
 aggressiveness.  The present system of teaching in
 schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m.
 the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at
 which the creation of the world is presented to
 them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible;

 and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural
 science, at which they are taught the theory of
 evolution.  Yet the two doctrines are in complete
 contradiction.  As a child, I suffered from this
 contradiction, and ran my head against a wall.
 Often I complained to one or another of my
 teachers against what I had been taught an hour
 before-- and I remember that I drove them to
 despair.  Christian religion tries to get out of it by
 explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to
 the images of Holy Writ.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Why ID has no Project Steve? Because they can’t!

I have read the good doctor’s excuse. It’s understandable. I would be too embarassed to have my name associated with ID as well!😉

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Granted, amassing a list of “authorities” never constitutes a valid argument. I don’t think that was the point of the list though. I think the point of the list was to show that there are intelligent academics with credentials who dissent from Darwinian evolution (at least in its orthodox form). Whether evolution is true; and in which version it is true, is another matter. It is question of accepting the best explanation in accordance with reason and empirical evidence.

What I often find lacking in these debates is a good philosophical discussion of the nature of science, including the limits of science. It is legitimate to call into question the positivism and materialism that is often held dogmatically by scientists such as Richard Dawkins. Often, empirical scientists do not make proper distinctions between those things that scientists can say and those things they can’t. My own view is that symbolic logic and at least a course or two in epistemology and philosophy of science should be required in all secondary curricula.

I would also suggest one further thing (I realize that this borders on being an ad hominem). The philosopher, Fichte, once said that one chooses the kind of philosophy that reflects the kind of person one is. A metaphysical world view such as positivism, or materialism, is attractive to one who wants sexual liberty and freedom from guilt. Intelligent Design is obviously attractive to one who is a Theist. One’s moral and religious commitments can influence what scientific theories one accepts. There does not seem to be any real neutrality on these things. One who is a committed nontheist will interpret all evidence in such a way as to support their lack of belief in God.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
Granted, amassing a list of “authorities” never constitutes a valid argument. I don’t think that was the point of the list though. I think the point of the list was to show that there are intelligent academics with credentials who dissent from Darwinian evolution (at least in its orthodox form). Whether evolution is true; and in which version it is true, is another matter. It is question of accepting the best explanation in accordance with reason and empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
I agree. In fact, the point of Project Steve was to refute the idea that a list of scientists that disagree with at least some part of evolutionary theory means anything more than there is a group of people who disagree with at least some part of evolutionary theory.
What I often find lacking in these debates is a good philosophical discussion of the nature of science, including the limits of science. It is legitimate to call into question the positivism and materialism that is often held dogmatically by scientists such as Richard Dawkins. Often, empirical scientists do not make proper distinctions between those things that scientists can say and those things they can’t. My own view is that symbolic logic and at least a course or two in epistemology and philosophy of science should be required in all secondary curricula.
Click to expand...
I think that there has been some pretty good discussions in some of the many threads on evolution-vs-ID regarding the nature and limits of science.

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. I reject Richard Dawkins philosopy, but not his science. I think that many of us on these forums that argue for the side of science take that position.
I would also suggest one further thing (I realize that this borders on being an ad hominem). The philosopher, Fichte, once said that one chooses the kind of philosophy that reflects the kind of person one is. A metaphysical world view such as positivism, or materialism, is attractive to one who wants sexual liberty and freedom from guilt. Intelligent Design is obviously attractive to one who is a Theist. One’s moral and religious commitments can influence what scientific theories one accepts. There does not seem to be any real neutrality on these things. One who is a committed nontheist will interpret all evidence in such a way as to support their lack of belief in God.
Click to expand...
That may be true as a general belief, but I am a Theist and I reject ID as a science.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
The following link is to a list of signers, all scientists, dissenting from the Darwinian theory of the development of life. Interesting, I think.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=302
Click to expand...
It is interesting, though perhaps needs some clarification. The Discovery Institute list consists of around 350 “scientists” (one could question the degree of broad scientific understanding in one who’s occupation is listed as “mechanical engineer,” or “statistician”), who have signed a formal statement which reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

From this statement, it appears that “Darwinian theory” here refers to the material mechanisms by which evolution operates, not the reality of evolution itself. Certainly, from a scientific point of view, one may question natural selection as a sufficient mechanism in the evolutionary process. However, postulating a supernatural cause to fill the gap is in no way a “scientific” solution. Also, given that there are some three million or so professional scientists working today, the vast majority of which fully affirm the evolution of life on earth, the DI’s list diminishes into irrelevancy. The second half of the statement would be seconded by any scientist, evolutionist or not.

As a contrasting position, consider the list called “Project Steve” (in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould), compiled by the National Center for Science Education. This is a list of well over 600 professional scientists named Steve (or some version of the name), all of whom wholeheartedly affirm the theory of evolution. Their statement reads:

“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design’, to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”

Check out the list for yourself:
ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Nearly 700 scientists, both theist and non-theist alike, who embrace evolution as a valid scientific principle—*and these are just the individuals named Steve! *Clearly, the DI’s “list” carries essentially no weight within the mainstream scientific community, and seems much less impressive within the overall context of the sciences as a whole.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
I agree. In fact, the point of Project Steve was to refute the idea that a list of scientists that disagree with at least some part of evolutionary theory means anything more than there is a group of people who disagree with at least some part of evolutionary theory.

I think that there has been some pretty good discussions in some of the many threads on evolution-vs-ID regarding the nature and limits of science.

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. I reject Richard Dawkins philosopy, but not his science. I think that many of us on these forums that argue for the side of science take that position.

That may be true as a general belief, but I am a Theist and I reject ID as a science.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Hey Tim,

and I wasn’t suggesting that theists can’t be evolutionists. My own personal view is that Intelligent Design is, properly speaking, a metaphysical theory and not an empirically scientific theory.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
…My own personal view is that Intelligent Design is, properly speaking, a metaphysical theory and not an empirically scientific theory.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. ID is a modern re-packaging of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God—a theistic argument. It is principally made by those who already hold to a belief in supernatural causality, and is, in that sense, an argument designed (no pun) to corroborate religious ideas. It may function as a valid philosophical viewpoint, but fails to qualify as “science.”
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
Well, I must say that I’ve read through every post on this thread and I read through a number of the articles. To this day, I have not been given a single satisfactory explanation for how the death and chaos in the universe could pre-exist the Fall. I read the article that attempted to show that the fall only affected the spiritual condition of man and I thought some of the readings of Scripture were forced. Here is something else to consider.

The eschatological passages of the old testament, which suggest the lion lying down with the lamb, seem to suggest a kind of restoration. If Christ came to restore the cosmos, then wouldn’t it be the case that the cosmos was in a state of innocence to begin with? Genesis 2 has Adam naming all of the animals who come to him peacefully. The sacred author is clearly suggesting that there was complete harmony between man and nature. The difficulty of work, the thorns on the vine, physical suffering and pain, are all attributed to the Fall.

Here is my problem: I find it hard to believe that the Church fathers, or anyone prior to 1900, would have thought that there were generations of animals living and dying prior to the creation of man. Even if man is taken out of the picture, the natural world is subject to brutal strife and a struggle for existence. Why would God create animals in a state where they hunted down one another and inflicted pain? To my mind, theistic evolution destroys the traditional answer to the problem of evil; namely, that the Fall is the cause of all pain, suffering, and death in creation. I suppose one could argue that animal pain is no big deal, but its hard to imagine an all powerful, all loving being, creating a world where, even without a fall, animals will hunt one another and kill one another. I seriously doubt the biblical authors would buy into this.
Click to expand...

So where does that leave spiders ?​

Or does one conclude that spiders are a result of the Fall ?

Or even, were made by the devil ? Tolkien struggled with this problem for years, in the form of the question, “Can orcs be redeemed ?” I don’t think he ever found a solution. Part of the answer, and of the problem, as is explained in both the Silmarillion & The Lord of the Rings, is that evil cannot create - it can only pervert.

Since Tolkien deals with many of the problems raised in this thread, I thought that a source which none of us would quite treat as infallible, inerrant etc., etc., might be worth mentioning - the Bible is a rather tender topic, in a way that Tolkien is not (though some of us have firm convictions as to whether or not Balrogs were winged. Quite clearly, they were not). ##
 
My problem is that I can never get over no death before the Fall.
If there was no death before the Fall, how could evolution take place?
Click to expand...
Hi All
How can the Pope say that it’s ok to believe in something that is opposite of what the scriptures teach. Scripture clearly says that God created man. The Pope’s you are talking about are wrong, and this should not be taught.
Thanks
Click to expand...
First of all, as to the first of two above-quoted statements, I agree that this eliminates the possibility of mutations before the fall. However, as to the other comment, no Pope ever said man ever could have evolved, nor that it is possible that any more than slight variations in mutations might have occurred within the species of mere animals, within their kinds - admitting that even this need not be presumed to have occurred. Any way, if this were to be proven so, it would only touch on mutations within a creation affected by the curse on Adam, who was lord (under GOD, that is) over the earth and animals when he sinned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top