Evolution

[Chancellor]

Hi Cathy,

I am new to CAF but not new to Jesus Christ. I became Catholic 25 years ago after the protestant seminary I was attended lost most of its students and faculty following a fundie takeover.

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is in my opinion fully supported by history and archeology. I don’t need that to have a full, rich relationship with Christ and share family life with the saints and angels. But it doesnt hurt either.

Thank you for your kindness but it really doesn’t answer the question. I think I would be very disappointed if I found that Catholics are falling for the fundie junk. I simply find it to be hateful and anti-Christian.

still perplexed

The Chancellor

 

[reggieM]

Thank you for your kindness but it really doesn’t answer the question. I think I would be very disappointed if I found that Catholics are falling for the fundie junk. I simply find it to be hateful and anti-Christian.

One thought that I would offer is that many criticisms of evolutionary theory lately are not coming from fundamentalist Protestants alone. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Hindus and even some agnostics have questioned Darwinian theory.

I would not call the work done in Intelligent Design theory to be “fundy junk” at all. I can understand that you may still be suffering from the damage done at your protestant school (that can take a long time to fully heal) but it’s important to know that Catholicism cannot have an uncritical acceptance of Darwinian theory. We have to reconcile some difficult matters regarding the nature and origin of man.

Some Catholics assert that they can do this easily. But considering the many warnings given by the Holy See with regards to evolutionary theory, I do not believe that this reconciliation of Darwin with Catholic thought is as easy as some make it appear to be.

It’s important to remember also that the teleological argument, from a Christian perspective, predates Protestantism by about 1500 years. So, it’s not a fundy thing at all, at that level.

Scriptural literalism as a theological mandate is aligned with the errors of Protestantism, but that doesn’t mean that Catholicism is free to dismiss the entire book of Genesis as being a collection of ethical norms packaged in some childish stories and mythology.

We have to take the details in Genesis quite seriously. We can see that the early Fathers of the Church did that, as did saints through the centuries.

So just to offer a thought again – Catholicism is universal and far more wide-reaching than Fundamentalism ever could be. As such, there’s a much wider room for speculation on scientific matters – in this case, both pro and anti Darwin. We shouldn’t make Darwinism an idol any more than we make the Holy Book an idol as many do. Our focus is not anti-fundy, but rather rejoicing in and glorifying the “pearl of great price” that we’ve been handed through the centuries – the great Tradition of the Deposit of Faith and all that is attached to it in Catholic culture, spirutality, moral life, theology and related matters.

 

[Chancellor]

reggieM

Now here is a breath of fresh air!!

There is a world of difference between respectful dialogue and the “my way or hell” approach of the fundamentalists.

The realities of evolution and the reality of the teleological nature of our faith are not irreconcilable.

I love to consider approaches to faith, hear the thoughts and experiences of others on the path to God and put the critical eye to the natural sciences even as I am impressed with the body of knowledge that is emerging.

I DO NOT LIKE the approach of those that see every imperfection in current science as “proof” of (for example) a literal 6 day creation.

Your answer is liberating. Blessings and gratitude.

The Chancellor

 

[anthony022071]

We human beings are often faced with apparent contradictions and paradoxes when we try to understand the sacred. The only way your logic works is by telling God what He is not allowed to do. If your logic and God’s omnipotence are in conflict, I suggest that it is probably your logic that contains the error. JHust a guess.

You evaded the point. I pointed out the contradiction of terms between random mutations and natural selection on the one hand,and God’s guidance of natural processes on the other. If a process is guided by an intelligent being,then it is not random nor determined by necessity.

God’s providence is always a consideration of everything. When we practice the scientific method, however, we try to see what we can find out from the natural world itself. As Catholics we are glad to have scientific knowlege to supplement our theology.

There’s no reason for a Catholic to accept the conclusions of a naturalistic method when it comes to the origination of living creatures. The supernatural and the natural meet at all points of origin and life. But naturalism doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations in the study of nature. It explains natural history in theory as if the natural world is all that exists. That is unacceptable to Catholic theology.

Some scientists do this and some do not. Remember that the science of genetic was invented by an Augustinian Catholic Priest.

He did not come up with a theory of the origins of species.

Actually, evolution in outline is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theory of evolution isn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Methodological naturalism isn’t reasonable,so it’s conclusions about the origins of species can’t be justified either.

We will find some common ground on the issue of “natural selection” which doesn’t fit the data as well as it should by the theory. But I’m not going to argue from science the glory of God. Science can neither prove or disprove God, Creator of all things, Our Lord, Our Savior, Our Rest.

Science cannot disprove God despite the howling of atheists. And creationists cannot prove God by attacking science.

Catholics have a reason to attack science when it explains natural history as if divine providence did not exist. That is just as bad as atheism,only more insidious.

And people like me cannot get either side to stop their fussing.

That’s because there is a fundamental difference between how the natural world should be viewed – a closed system where divine providence is not involved,or a created world dependent upon divine providence for all life and order. If it is reasonable to say, outside of scientific research,that God creates and sustains living organisms,then it is reasonable to use that assumption as a guiding principle for scientific research as well.

 

[Chancellor]

anthony

I reject the protestant fundie reading of scripture. This is not going to change. But I think that my posts may have been read as a rejection of Catholic faith. This probably my fault, so here are the basics from my point of view.

1. God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Everything will be shown in the end to have served God’s will and purpose.
3. Jesus Christ is Lord
4. I love and serve the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which was created by Christ and is populated like every other tradition with human beings. Sometimes we look like a mess but, hey, that’s family life.
5. The Catholic Church rejects a “proof text” approach to scripture and affirms that scripture is to be interpreted in light of the whole bible and the true wisdom in the traditions of the Church.
6. Science is good, even if there are ongoing attempts to use it to defame God. God created the natural order, ultimately He controls the natural order, and it’s not going to hurt Him.
7. Such natural law as we might discover was created by God.
8. God is smarter than we are. Some things that look like paradoxes to us probably aren’t to God.

OK, enough, If you are a Catholic then you and I are on the same team. I apologise for not having made my faith more central up front.

What I waould like to see on these threads is how to address the critique of “scientism” without looking like science-hating fundies.

May God guide and bless your evolution.

The Chancellor

 

[anthony022071]

anthony

I reject the protestant fundie reading of scripture. This is not going to change.

What does that have to do with anything?

1. The Catholic Church rejects a “proof text” approach to scripture and affirms that scripture is to be interpreted in light of the whole bible and the true wisdom in the traditions of the Church.

The Church Fathers all used proof-texts to refute heresies and to defend Catholic beliefs. The popes and the Catholic Catechism use proof-texts to prove Catholic beliefs.

1. Science is good, even if there are ongoing attempts to use it to defame God. God created the natural order, ultimately He controls the natural order, and it’s not going to hurt Him.

Science is based upon the false principle that all natural phenomena can be explained with natural causes. When it comes to the origin of living creatures and of life itself,naturalism leads to false theories. Life is extrinsic to the natural world,so methodological naturalism can’t discover it,or discover that life is what makes the processes of living creature happen in the first place.

Macro-evolution and common descent are based upon the arbitrary taxonomic system,and similarities of bone structure and genetic information between species. But similar physical characteristics between distinct species say nothing about whether they were reproductively related. So this is a false approach to the history of species

1. Such natural law as we might discover was created by God.

Natural selection as an originator of species is not even a law of nature. It is a matter of the survival of existing species,not the origin of new species.

1. God is smarter than we are. Some things that look like paradoxes to us probably aren’t to God.

The idea that there can be random mutations and natural selection where there is divine providence is not a paradox,it is a contradiction. Randomness has no purpose,and natural selection has no will.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science is based upon the false principle that all natural phenomena can be explained with natural causes.

So far, it’s worked astonishingly well. Very little humans do, works better than science.

When it comes to the origin of living creatures and of life itself,naturalism leads to false theories.

So far, that’s also been very successful. Evolutionary theory, for example, has a record of numerous successful predictions and useful discoveries.

Macro-evolution and common descent are based upon the arbitrary taxonomic system

,

The first is to the extent that speciation tends to be a gradual thing. But speciation is really all that happens in the evolution of new taxa. Speciation has a testable existence, while the higher taxa are a matter of judgement. Common descent would be true even if we never named any taxa. Common descent, as your Pope says, is virtually certain, because of a very large and varied body of evidence supporting it.

and similarities of bone structure and genetic information between species. But similar physical characteristics between distinct species say nothing about whether they were reproductively related.

Scientists can check the difference between homologous and analogous structures, which not surprisingly, confirm genetic evidence of relatedness. The same evidence we use to confirm human relationships.

So this is a false approach to the history of species

As Pope John Paul II said, this evidence is powerful confirmation of the theory.

Natural selection as an originator of species is not even a law of nature.

Of course it isn’t. A law merely predicts things, but does not explain them. Natural selection predicts the way organisms change and also explains why.

It is a matter of the survival of existing species,not the origin of new species.

It has been directly observed to be both.

The idea that there can be random mutations and natural selection where there is divine providence is not a paradox,it is a contradiction.

The Church teaches otherwise. According to Pope Benedict XVI, (citing St. Thomas Aquinas) God can use necessity or contingency to do His will.

Randomness has no purpose,and natural selection has no will.

A hammer has no will or purpose, other than that to which a carpenter gives it. Neither does nature and randomness. But a Carpenter did give it a purpose.

 

[edwest2]

Your point 5 reference to “proof text.” What does that mean?

“science-hating fundies”? Do you really think “fundies” hate science? I think even the fundamentalists who are portrayed as brainwashed or lied to, are defending an important point: science is not everything. Scientism denies that anything like God was needed to make evolution work. So if someone here makes a statement that evolution works without God just as well as with God, what does that tell you? God is the useless appendage, tacked on to make evolution more appealing to those religious types. And if God isn’t needed, then why should anyone need God? He’s useless. God the kick starter.

But Church history shows a God who was active and interactive with man since the beginning. He brought the Israelites out of slavery, provided food and water in the desert. He told Moses to strike a rock and water poured out. These are things that God can do. He has been sending the Blessed Mother in recent history to minister to the people; to warn the people.

Yet what are we, as Catholics, to think of statements that say, Genesis is just a story, it’s not how it really happened or it needs to conform with the science? If truth is going to flow both ways, I don’t think science, because it is self-limited, has anything to say about the Genesis. Genesis records things God actually did. It is when those who promote science move into this area that raises the legitimate question - Why do you care? Because it’s not true? It can’t be proved by science? What’s next? Christ performed no miracles because it’s impossible? There’s no evidence? This is a legitimate concern.

And what should we, as Catholics, say when "science’ tells us, Oh religion, yes, well, it was created by your genes back in the ancient days to give man a survival advantage, it’s all man made. So the real, historical Christ is what? A fiction?

That is where the interface of science and a real historical reality come into conflict.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So far, it’s worked astonishingly well. Very little humans do, works better than science.

So far, that’s also been very successful. Evolutionary theory, for example, has a record of numerous successful predictions and useful discoveries.

,

The first is to the extent that speciation tends to be a gradual thing. But speciation is really all that happens in the evolution of new taxa. Speciation has a testable existence, while the higher taxa are a matter of judgement. Common descent would be true even if we never named any taxa. Common descent, as your Pope says, is virtually certain, because of a very large and varied body of evidence supporting it.

Scientists can check the difference between homologous and analogous structures, which not surprisingly, confirm genetic evidence of relatedness. The same evidence we use to confirm human relationships.

As Pope John Paul II said, this evidence is powerful confirmation of the theory.

Of course it isn’t. A law merely predicts things, but does not explain them. Natural selection predicts the way organisms change and also explains why.

It has been directly observed to be both.

The Church teaches otherwise. According to Pope Benedict XVI, (citing St. Thomas Aquinas) God can use necessity or contingency to do His will.

A hammer has no will or purpose, other than that to which a carpenter gives it. Neither does nature and randomness. But a Carpenter did give it a purpose.

These statements are misleading. Pope John Paul II did not give a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution. Any theory that assigns only random selection and natural selection as being the origin of life is rejected. It’s atheistic. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

These statements are misleading.

They are true. I think you’ve confused “misleading” with “truths Ed doesn’t like.”

Pope John Paul II did not give a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution.

Yes. He only approved the one used by scientists.

Any theory that assigns only random selection and natural selection as being the origin of life is rejected.

That is quite misleading. In fact, the Pope attributes the origin of life in naturalistic terms, being careful to note that God is the creator of nature.

It’s atheistic.

No, the Pope is not an atheist, Ed. He’s a theistic evolutionist. You have considerable trouble telling the difference. I think it’s because to you, evolution/creationism is a bigger deal than faith/atheism.

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.

They aren’t allowed to believe in atheistic plumbing, either. For the same reason.

 

[edwest2]

See the second paragraph for a definition of Atheistic Evolution:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

See the second paragraph for a definition of Atheistic Evolution:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

I really don’t understand your deal. What is it that causes you to hate evolution so much? I think it is that you yourself truly can’t reconcile it with God. But it’s no big deal bro, it’s simply the way God created us, and in a much more detailed perspective of awe, wonder, mystery, and even His might.

We can see many sides to God in nature, the beauty and love, and even His might and power, especially regarding the “red tooth in claw in face” of nature. It wondrously causes one to fear and respect God, besides just love.

 

[edwest2]

“hate”? I only pointed out that the Church teaches that random mutation and natural selection alone is an atheistic view.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Chancellor]

Ed,

You asked for my definition of “proof-texting”. Luckily we have a prime example right before our eyes.

“Proof-texting” is using a few words or scripture verses to make a tedious point while ignoring the context, intent, style and history of the document as a whole.

In your post #87 in this thread you “proof-texted” my post #84. You picked out a few words here and there that you could rant about while ignoring 95% of everything that was said.

When someone chooses to ignore or dismiss what I have said in order to belabor a point the louder I begin to wonder if there is really a dialogue possible.

Please re-read post #84. I wrote that post to Anthony to talk about Jesus. If you wish to attack, please feel free to attack my Catholic faith directly. I choose to believe that such natural laws as we can discern in the universe were created by God according to His purposes. You are of course free to disagree on that point.

I would like to know what bothers you so much about the Roman Catholic Church? Dominus tecum.

The Chancellor

 

[Chancellor]

“hate”? I only pointed out that the Church teaches that random mutation and natural selection alone is an atheistic view.

Hi Ed, I’m back.

I may not be paying attention here but I think I’ve read most of the posts in this thread, and I don’t recall anyone arguing for, “mutation and natural selection alone”.

Most of us who see some truth in evolutionary theory don’t necessarily buy the whole enchilada, and I know that many of us see evidence of the glorious hand of God in the natural order.

Dominus tecum

The Chancellor

 

[edwest2]

I don’t see God be glorified here. Mostly the mind of man and new, new knowledge that will explain everything through science. It has been consistent and ongoing. Evolution, to some, works just as well without God as with God.

“Do you not know that from the beginning he made them male and female?”

Peace,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

So far, it’s worked astonishingly well. Very little humans do, works better than science.

It works well with technological and mechanical sciences,not with the origins of species,which involves the supernatural.

So far, that’s also been very successful. Evolutionary theory, for example, has a record of numerous successful predictions and useful discoveries.

The predictions and discoveries are not to the point of what the theory purports to explain. They are tangentical to the theory. Even medieval alchemy lead to useful discoveries,but they did not justify the claims of alchemy.

The first is to the extent that speciation tends to be a gradual thing.

It’s also limited to whatever variation that the genetic content of alleles will allow for.

But speciation is really all that happens in the evolution of new taxa. Speciation has a testable existence, while the higher taxa are a matter of judgement. Common descent would be true even if we never named any taxa.

The taxonomic system and common descent are a matter of scientific phenomenalism. “They have similar features,therefore, they must be related.”

Scientists can check the difference between homologous and analogous structures, which not surprisingly, confirm genetic evidence of relatedness. The same evidence we use to confirm human relationships.

The bone structures of different species don’t confirm reproductive relativeness. Bones can’t be used to test for reproductive events.

Of course it isn’t. A law merely predicts things, but does not explain them. Natural selection predicts the way organisms change and also explains why.

Laws don’t predict,humans do. Natural selection cannot be used to predict any outcome other than what a species is currently tending toward.

It has been directly observed to be both.

You just denied that natural selection as an originator of species is a law of nature,but now you claim that it is a matter of the origin of new species. That doesn’t seem to make sense.

Natural selection has no substance of its own,so it cannot originate anything.

The Church teaches otherwise. According to Pope Benedict XVI, (citing St. Thomas Aquinas) God can use necessity or contingency to do His will.

That’s true,but random mutation and natural selection don’t allow for being used by God.

A hammer has no will or purpose, other than that to which a carpenter gives it. Neither does nature and randomness. But a Carpenter did give it a purpose.

Randomness cannot exist with a purpose. The definition of “random” disallows for that.

 

[reggieM]

edwest2;4143079:

I may not be paying attention here but I think I’ve read most of the posts in this thread, and I don’t recall anyone arguing for, “mutation and natural selection alone”.

The majority of the most vocal defenders of evolution here (I’m guessing, but it’s a number of them) do argue that it is random mutation and natural selection alone. It is argued that Darwin’s theory proposes precisely that. Of course, given that 70-80% of the scientific community does not recognize anything beyond material or natural causes - that is the default evolutionary position.

Most of us who see some truth in evolutionary theory don’t necessarily buy the whole enchilada, and I know that many of us see evidence of the glorious hand of God in the natural order.

I will say that you’re in small minority within the scientific culture. But beyond that, I wouldn’t say that those who proclaim Darwinian theory and simultaneously see the hand of God in the natural order have done a very good job of explaining how both of those things could be reconciled.

Darwin was trying to show that God was not involved – because Darwin believed that nature was not very flattering to God and therefore, he was trying to absolve God from any responsiblity for having created it.

This is the opposite of the Catholic view which sees the glory of God in the works of nature which He created.

p.s. Thanks for your kind words on your reply to my previous post. I really appreciated that.

 

[Chancellor]

reggieM,

Thanks.

IF:

We can agree about where creation came from: God .

And:

We can agree about where creation is going: God.

Then, maybe:

We can share some curiosity about how He is doing it. For a Catholic that curiosity can express itself as science. Science as a way of looking at God’s creation.

There are a few very simple ways to separate the “sheep from the goats” among scientists. Interested?

The Chancellor

 

[reggieM]

IF:

We can agree about where creation came from: God .

And:

We can agree about where creation is going: God.

Agreed on both points.

Then, maybe:

We can share some curiosity about how He is doing it. For a Catholic that curiosity can express itself as science. Science as a way of looking at God’s creation.

Science is one, limited way of looking at God’s work – only from the most superficial aspect (matter and molecules, etc), but yes it’s one way that we have.

There are a few very simple ways to separate the “sheep from the goats” among scientists. Interested?

I’m interested in pursuing this, but I see a problem right here with this point first. How could we separate sheep from goats within the scientific communty since this community iself insists that it does it’s own “separation”? The so-called rules of the scientific culture are that if a scientist is peer-reviewed, or gets the support of other scientists – then that’s a “sheep”.

If we come along later and divide the scientists into our own categories, we’d be in direct conflict with the scientific community itself. So, the question of why there are “goats” in science today, who are either undetected by science – or more likely, supported by the scientific community is a major problem.

These “goats” could be the ones insisting that Intelligent Design, for example “is not science”.

So, I just wanted to offer that before you pursue the path of separating good scientists from bad. I do not feel comfortable making those kinds of distinctions myself – unless we’re willing to come up with our own independent version of science and especially of the consensus on evolutionary theory.

I would be glad to do that since this opens the doors for finding intelligent causes in nature also (which supposedly science cannot do).