Evolution & the catholic church

[Gottle_of_Geer]

## If it helps - I believe that evolution is a fact, because, *if *true, it is in profound agreement with the Biblical picture of God: which is not limited to His acts on earth. God is revealed through nature - and evolution has been very fruitful in filling in the details of how nature reverals Him as Creator. It’s also very important for our understanding of Christ: if one puts together

• the Big Bang
• planetary development
• the developments on earth which made life possible
• and the evolution of living things on earth

one gets a wonderful - even though incomplete - glimpse of the sheer scale of what God has done in order to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. That is what everything in creation is for - Jesus Christ. All these thousands of millions of years of planetary formation, amoeba, trilobites, dinosaurs, and primates are summed up in, fulfilled by, are given meaning by Him. The coming of Christ was the final purpose of the Big Bang. St. Matthew records that he had some sinful people in His pedigree; St. Luke traces Him back to “Adam son of God”. Now it is possible to go back beyond man, and to see Him as related to chimpanzees and voles - which underlines that He is Saviour of the whole of creation, not of that segment of it which consists of man alone.

So we are very well-off, for through no merit of our own, we have the means to understand the Creation in this astonishing depth of detail. So evolution is not something to be afraid of - it is something we can thank God for; something which shows us how detailed His Providential care of His creatures is. This kind of vision takes away fear that science is out of God’s hand’s: there is no way it can be, because it studies the very things which exist for Christ. So evolution & these other processes are of great importance for theology. They serve to remind us that God is so great, that He is responsible both for Alpha Centauri and the Mass. In the Mass, because we are in Christ for Whom all this was done, we can give thanks to God for all His works, not on earth alone, but in all creation. That is how creative God is. ##

 

[The_Barbarian]

Which means you agree with Benedict XIV that it is virtually certain that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor?

That is consistent with scripture and Catholic dogma.

 

[PhilVaz]

Barb << Which means you agree with Benedict XIV >>

Hey I noticed you keep writing Benedict XIV. Don’t forget about Benedict XV and XVI our current pope.

As for the global flood idea this was rejected by Christian creationist geologists over 150 years ago. As for monogenism vs. polygenism an EWTN article on the subject states:

“…according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.” (Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)

Also my article on Adam, Eve, and the Hominids is nice.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Barb << Which means you agree with Benedict XIV >>

Hey I noticed you keep writing Benedict XIV. Don’t forget about Benedict XV and XVI our current pope.

As for the global flood idea this was rejected by Christian creationist geologists over 150 years ago. As for monogenism vs. polygenism an EWTN article on the subject states:

"…according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation.

So much for that essay then. Yet people keep dragging in Tradition for all the world as though we were still equipped only with the means of founding about the world that were available 1500 years ago.​

The question does not stand today where it did 1500 years ago, or 1200, 1000, or whenever; the answers of the 17th century are no good, for the simple reason that we are no longer living in 17th century conditions. So it is useless to quote the Fathers: because they are not dealing with our problems in our society - they were dealing with those of their own time; not with ours. They don’t have the same assumptions about the sciences as we do or about what they can achieve: it would be ridiculous to expect them to. They knew nothing of Australia, any more they knew of gravity, psychiatric medicine, or a hundred other things. So they asked questions about the meaning of the text, and had presuppositions about it, which no longer hold true.

They have their uses, certainly - but answering questions which are based on premises entirely different different from their own, is not one of them. Which is why, if Lactantius were alive today, he would not be opposing belief in the existence of Australia, as the existence of Australia utterly destroys his conviction that there were no Antipodes.

Following the Fathers in the way some do, would mean that we would be obliged to regard the proposition there is an Australia as little short - if short at all - of heresy and blasphemy. It is not difficult to imagine the sermons that might be preached, the indignant denunciations by Councils, the thunderous condemnations by Popes, the lynching of indiscreet geographers, the thousands of pages of theological disproofs, that might be directed against it. St.Boniface denounced St.Fergal of Salzburg to Rome, for saying there were Antipodes.

It can easily be proved to be an error arising from the Enlightenment: that was when it arose. It has no basis in Tradition, no Council gives us the ghost of a reason to believe in it, and it is incompatible with Scripture. No Father ever hints at it - but the Fathers certainly do prove it is a fiction. There is every reason to suppose that it is a long-term effect of the Renaissance.

True Catholics do not believe in Australia - or in the existence of an America. Why did St.Paul mention only going to Spain in Romans 15, if there is an America to go to ? The very idea is ridiculous. It almost certainly to be explained by the myth of Atlantis. ##

[huge snip to let in my rubbish] Also my article on Adam, Eve, and the Hominids is nice.

Phil P

As to the Bible, its meaning is to be decided by looking at its text & meaning and the rest - not by aprioristic arguments from Tradition and ecclesiastical pronouncements: that’s inappropriate as a method, because it does not depend on close study of the text and of those things which illuminate it. It is too liable to “prove” absurdities like that of the erroneousness of believing there is an Australia Which is why each discipline has its own methods - and why those disciplines are autonomous, and not subject to the wishes of the Church; and why it is a usurpation for churchmen to tell academics what to think, or how to work, as academics: the earth is the thing it is, regardless of whether or not this is a difficulty for the theologians. And so with all the disciplines.​

 

[PhilVaz]

Gottle << the thunderous condemnations by Popes, the lynching of indiscreet geographers, the thousands of pages of theological disproofs, that might be directed against it. St.Boniface denounced St.Fergal of Salzburg to Rome, for saying there were Antipodes. >>

Hee hee. Indiscreet geographers?

Gottle << True Catholics do not believe in Australia - or in the existence of an America. Why did St.Paul mention only going to Spain in Romans 15, if there is an America to go to ? The very idea is ridiculous. It almost certainly to be explained by the myth of Atlantis. >>

Australianism. It is a popular heresy these days. I remember you bringing up this important point before. Florida exists but I don’t know about the rest of the country.

Creatures from the lost continent…

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Gottle << the thunderous condemnations by Popes, the lynching of indiscreet geographers, the thousands of pages of theological disproofs, that might be directed against it. St.Boniface denounced St.Fergal of Salzburg to Rome, for saying there were Antipodes. >>

Hee hee. Indiscreet geographers?

Gottle << True Catholics do not believe in Australia - or in the existence of an America. Why did St.Paul mention only going to Spain in Romans 15, if there is an America to go to ? The very idea is ridiculous. It almost certainly to be explained by the myth of Atlantis. >>

Australianism. It is a popular heresy these days. I remember you bringing up this important point before. Florida exists but I don’t know about the rest of the country.

Creatures from the lost continent…

Phil P

Nice​

And to think that just yesterday, there was an episode of “The Simpsons” in which Bart manages to offend the Australians.

It is important to explain in detail exactly why it is wrong to believe there is an Australia or an America - it’s even more important to show where the limitations of theological methods lie; and the unwisdom of insisting that what is “obviously” not the case (because it can be disproved by quoting authoritative sources - Fathers, Councils, Popes, theologians, etc) is not the case.

The usefulness of the twin errors of Australianism and Atlanteanism (so to call it - since “Americanism” is used for something else) is that, because Australia and the Americas do exist, no theological case proving they don’t, & the evil results of believing they do, can show they don’t. And that is a useful test for the making of arguments for a position - they can prove what is demonstrably false when trying to account for entities: so those entities will be perfectly consistent with a position; but, in a way not so far found. The Church ceased to have a dialogue with the world, by clinging to Scholasticismafter it had ceased to be an adequate method for discussing current questions - that mustn’t happen again. But it will, if we cut ourselves off from the world by refusing to accept inconvenient facts.

It’s very important to test conclusions - otherwise one ends up with a blind dogmatism which refuses to consider that one’s conceptual models which have been sufficient so far, may need to be overhauled. That way lies solipsism and Fundamentalism - and not just in matters of religion. IMO, what we call Fundamentalism is a special application - in this case, to religion - of a more widespread infirmity of mind.

I’m thinking especially of the anecdote - which may be quite unfounded - about the astronomer-priest who refused to look through a telescope at the Moon because he did not want to know that it was not perfect. The anecdote may be false; the state of mind is what is arresting: it is a form of the apriorism which refuses to look at facts which don’t fit into a given world-view; & it’s unable to realise that if a paradigm does not account for them, it is, to that extent, defective, and needs overhauling. That’s why tradition, though necessary, is never all-sufficient for the Church - it needs to be supplemented if it is to avoid becoming the dead hand of the past. ##

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Popes have said that there is no conflict between the scriptures and the theory of evolution but what about the theory of intelligent design. At first I think it was just what the Popes were saying about the theory of evolution. However, as I read more, it becomes very “new agey”. It seems to almost be pantheism.

It seems that way, because ID is a rather eclectic religion, including some Christians, a few Jewish people, Moonies, etc.

They can’t be too theologically specific, because they are united only in their fear of science.

 

[Mr.Bean]

Evolution and the Bible answer two different questions. Science by its nature answers the HOW and faith answers WHY. Now how did the fall take place exactly according to scientific thought? We don’t know because science (currently) can not answer that question. Evolution is just the current theory. It could be gone in a few hundred years! I don’t think the how questions are as important as the why questions. Searching the answers for why makes us truly human.

Peace

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

Gottle << the thunderous condemnations by Popes, the lynching of indiscreet geographers, the thousands of pages of theological disproofs, that might be directed against it. St.Boniface denounced St.Fergal of Salzburg to Rome, for saying there were Antipodes. >>

Hee hee. Indiscreet geographers?

Gottle << True Catholics do not believe in Australia - or in the existence of an America. Why did St.Paul mention only going to Spain in Romans 15, if there is an America to go to ? The very idea is ridiculous. It almost certainly to be explained by the myth of Atlantis. >>

Australianism. It is a popular heresy these days. I remember you bringing up this important point before. Florida exists but I don’t know about the rest of the country.

Creatures from the lost continent…

Phil P

One must always take into account that there are always points of intersection between theology and science.

Using the above examples as evidence does not account for the fact that through time a greater understanding of mans place in the universe has grown organically.

The theology has grown stronger with more infallible pronouncements as time has gone on. A greater certainty if you wish. It is those intersections that currently contrast that pit science against religion.

The bottom line issue is “who you gonna believe?”

At this point I believe science (limited by its own definition on what it has to say about the universe) has the burden of proof, since it contradicts Tradition, this accumulated wisdom.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

…The bottom line issue is “who you gonna believe?”

I’m still not sure why you think this is a matter of belief

If I push my tea cup off the desk I don’t need to see it fall to know that it did. I don’t need to whip out a prism each morning to check if light still contains the same spectrum. I can buy a chart of the tides and sail my boat with confidence because I know it is correct. If I isolate two populations and give them enough time they will speciate. There is no belief. Gravity and light and tides and evolution are just regular old mechanisms of the world.

buffalo:

At this point I believe science (limited by its own definition on what it has to say about the universe) has the burden of proof, since it contradicts Tradition, this accumulated wisdom.

Well if you are saying that, what then are your criteria for this proof?

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

I’m still not sure why you think this is a matter of belief

If I push my tea cup off the desk I don’t need to see it fall to know that it did. I don’t need to whip out a prism each morning to check if light still contains the same spectrum. I can buy a chart of the tides and sail my boat with confidence because I know it is correct. If I isolate two populations and give them enough time they will speciate. There is no belief. Gravity and light and tides and evolution are just regular old mechanisms of the world.

Well if you are saying that, what then are your criteria for this proof?

When you push this tea cup do you observe every possible universal interaction? No, what you see is what your 5 senses show you. That is a limited observation of all that was happening when you pushed it. You cannot comment on the unobservable. But you have faith that all of the observable and unobservable interplays will always result in the cup moving as you predicted.

Science is only one component of the truth of the universe. Since it is limited, then it must unite with Revelation. Since Revelation is known to be true, if a theory contradicts it scientists must look harder or reinterpret the data until it fits. The burden of proof is on science not on God’s Revelation.

Faith and reason cannot contradict.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

When you push this tea cup do you observe every possible universal interaction? No, what you see is what your 5 senses show you. That is a limited observation of all that was happening when you pushed it. You cannot comment on the unobservable. But you have faith that all of the observable and unobservable interplays will always result in the cup moving as you predicted.

Science is only one component of the truth of the universe. Since it is limited, then it must unite with Revelation. Since Revelation is known to be true, if a theory contradicts it scientists must look harder or reinterpret the data until it fits. The burden of proof is on science not on God’s Revelation.

Faith and reason cannot contradict.

Revelation is true: but - that does not guarantee that the way in which it is true will be properly recognised.​

“Bilbo Baggins is the uncle of Frodo Baggins” is a perfectly true statement. Recognising this is no guarantee that one recognises that this is true only within the conditions of Middle Earth, in the “Secondary World” of which Middle Earth is a part: it is neither true nor false as a statement about life in the “Primary world”. There is no way of disproving the truth of the assertion for us in the “Primary world”, since it is impossible to say that there is absolutely no sense, given the conditions of the “Primary World” in which that statement is untrue as a statement about the “Primary world”: there might be a Primary World state of affairs in which that statement is true of the PW; even if we did not know of it.

I should prefer some analysis of what is meant by saying “Revelation is true”. And of the saying “Faith and reason cannot contradict” - both are too abstract, & too general, to be illuminating, unless they have some content. Otherwise, they are null sets, and mere words. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

See HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM​

BY

ANDREW DICKSON WHITE

CHAPTER 1

FROM CREATION TO EVOLUTION

I. THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE.

for an account of 19th century attacks on Darwin - many of them Catholic. This is some history which it might do us no harm to remember.

And search with the keyword “Pius IX” - he crops up a few times. ##

 

[Jasny]

hgracet:

There is no threat to God through evolution, unless God is excluded from the creation.

I’ve read through a lot of he threads but i think man are assuming that evolution is just a scientific theory. Unfortunatly it isn’t. It has very little scientific credence and has had painful social consequenses. The Nazi movement was based on Eugenics which was based on Darwinism…

“A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." (Brookes, Martin.,“Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

“Social Darwinism is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start – ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian, Science historian, University College, London, & Moore, James, Science historian, The Open University, UK, “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

We should also discuss the baggage that Darwinism has gathered as an assalt on belief in general. Not only the scritural aspects

 

[Orogeny]

Jasny:

hgracet:

I’ve read through a lot of he threads but i think man are assuming that evolution is just a scientific theory. Unfortunatly it isn’t. It has very little scientific credence

I’m sorry, but who ever told you that lied to you.

and has had painful social consequenses. The Nazi movement was based on Eugenics which was based on Darwinism…

“A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." (Brookes, Martin.,“Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

“Social Darwinism is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start – ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, Adrian, Science historian, University College, London, & Moore, James, Science historian, The Open University, UK, “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

We should also discuss the baggage that Darwinism has gathered as an assalt on belief in general. Not only the scritural aspects

You do realize that the KKK claims to be a “Christian” organization, don’t you? Does that in any way tarnish Chrisianity? I don’t know it your claims are true or not regarding Nazism and evolution, but if it is true, that says nothing about evolution, only that there are evil people in the world that will use any justification to be evil. Evolution is no more evil than the theory of gravity.

Peace

Tim

 

[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

 

[buffalo]

## Revelation is true: but - that does not guarantee that the way in which it is true will be properly recognised.

“Bilbo Baggins is the uncle of Frodo Baggins” is a perfectly true statement. Recognising this is no guarantee that one recognises that this is true only within the conditions of Middle Earth, in the “Secondary World” of which Middle Earth is a part: it is neither true nor false as a statement about life in the “Primary world”. There is no way of disproving the truth of the assertion for us in the “Primary world”, since it is impossible to say that there is absolutely no sense, given the conditions of the “Primary World” in which that statement is untrue as a statement about the “Primary world”: there might be a Primary World state of affairs in which that statement is true of the PW; even if we did not know of it.

I should prefer some analysis of what is meant by saying “Revelation is true”. And of the saying “Faith and reason cannot contradict” - both are too abstract, & too general, to be illuminating, unless they have some content. Otherwise, they are null sets, and mere words. ##

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

 

[Jasny]

Tim

You do realize that the KKK claims to be a “Christian” organization, don’t you? Does that in any way tarnish Chrisianity? I don’t know it your claims are true or not regarding Nazism and evolution, but if it is true, that says nothing about evolution, only that there are evil people in the world that will use any justification to be evil. Evolution is no more evil than the theory of gravity.

I dont know too much about the KKK but its claims could be compared with Jesus’ teachings and their history. If they don’t match then they are making a false claims.

My point is not just to examine the theory of Darwinism but also its history.

If Eugenics and Nazism were based on the theory gravity we should investigate why the theory gave birth to such things.

I think it is a justified inquiry.

 

[steveandersen]

Jasny:

Tim

I dont know too much about the KKK but its claims could be compared with Jesus’ teachings and their history. If they don’t match then they are making a false claims.

My point is not just to examine the theory of Darwinism but also its history.

If Eugenics and Nazism were based on the theory gravity we should investigate why the theory gave birth to such things.

I think it is a justified inquiry.

so…since the Nazis used guns we should examine and question Chemistry?

Come on. How the world works and what people choose to do with that knowledge are two different things.

there were evil racist ideas long before someone thought of perverting Darwin

often these ideas arose from a perversion such things as the mark of Cain from the Bible

 

[Jasny]

steveandersen:

so…since the Nazis used guns we should examine and question Chemistry?

Come on. How the world works and what people choose to do with that knowledge are two different things.

there were evil racist ideas long before someone thought of perverting Darwin

often these ideas arose from a perversion such things as the mark of Cain from the Bible

The facts speak for themselves look at who supported Eugenics and “scientific racism”. Look to the Founder:

" 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)

That is not objective science that is the foundation of Eugenics which was the necessary cause (not sufficiant) of Nazism