Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter JudiTherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not Catholic belief to read the bible as a text concerning genetics, evolution or other modern science. The bible is accepted as authoritative on matters of faith and practice.

This is a VERY important point.

The notion that God practices “genetic engineering” has been used to defend things like genocide and involuntary sterilization.

The attempt to use the bible as a science text has led to some very dangerous pseudo-science. The Catholic Church rejects biblical pseudo-science.
 
With all due respect, ‘I don’t know’ cannot be the answer. The Church teaches evolution and it also teaches God was intimately involved. Random mutation and natural selection are not enough.
The concept of “random” only applies to creation, not to the omniscient Creator. There is no “random” to God. That’s why there is no conflict between “God did it” and “random mutation.”
 
You said it PERFECT!! Creationists are the exact reasons many non-believers look at theists as ignorant illogical fools. And many do abandon their faith when science refutes a 6 day creation. Though there should not be any need to!
I agree. When the Christian faith has to demand “who you gonna believe, us or your lying data?!” then reasonable people are justified in rolling their eyes and walking away.
 
I just dont see how evolution is possible given the fact that various Popes (Leo XII, Pius XII, Benedict XV)say we(Catholics) should take the literal interpretation of scripture unless the text shows us good reason to do otherwise. Just about all the Fathers took Genesis literally. (six days of creation).

The Sixth Lateran council stated God created each species out of nothing, and Pius XII says that polygenism does not seem to be reconcilable to the Catholic faith. The Pope aslo states that Adam was a historical person, and the fall a historical event.
 
I just dont see how evolution is possible given the fact that various Popes (Leo XII, Pius XII, Benedict XV)say we(Catholics) should take the literal interpretation of scripture unless the text shows us good reason to do otherwise. Just about all the Fathers took Genesis literally. (six days of creation).

The Sixth Lateran council stated God created each species out of nothing, and Pius XII says that polygenism does not seem to be reconcilable to the Catholic faith. The Pope aslo states that Adam was a historical person, and the fall a historical event.
Do you also believe the cosmos was created as described in Genesis, and modern cosmology is either a great fraud or a great error?
 
Modern cosmology is just another way of saying, we are right and the Church is wrong. While science has discovered many things, it is wise for Catholics to understand that random mutation and natural selection are not enough; divine providence is required. However, Catholics are not allowed to believe random mutation and natural selection did it alone.

God bless,
Ed
 
With all due respect, ‘I don’t know’ cannot be the answer. The Church teaches evolution and it also teaches God was intimately involved. Random mutation and natural selection are not enough.

God bless,
Ed
The Church doesn’t teach evolution,Catholic schools teach evolution.

Where God is working in nature,random mutation and natural selection are impossible.
 
The Church doesn’t teach evolution,Catholic schools teach evolution.

Where God is working in nature,random mutation and natural selection are impossible.
Anthony

With all due respect I think you have painted yourself into a corner. On a Catholic thread it probably won’t work to announce what God can or can’t do. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent. That means that nothing is impossible for God. Scripture clearly teaches that.

Good science is the human way (I believe sometimes inspired and guided by God) of exploring how God chose to make the universe. This doesn’t scare Catholics because we know that scientists cannot disprove God, even if some of them pretend they have done just that!

As a fundamentalist protestant you believe in a six 24 hour day creation as is your privilege, and you limit yourself to the bible as the only authority. We Catholics believe that everything in the universe teaches us about God. None of us denies that God could choose to make each of us out of a little ball of clay. The evidence of the universe suggests otherwise.

God Bless You

the chancellor
 
Anthony

With all due respect I think you have painted yourself into a corner. On a Catholic thread it probably won’t work to announce what God can or can’t do. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent. That means that nothing is impossible for God. Scripture clearly teaches that.

Good science is the human way (I believe sometimes inspired and guided by God) of exploring how God chose to make the universe. This doesn’t scare Catholics because we know that scientists cannot disprove God, even if some of them pretend they have done just that!

As a fundamentalist protestant you believe in a six 24 hour day creation as is your privilege, and you limit yourself to the bible as the only authority. We Catholics believe that everything in the universe teaches us about God. None of us denies that God could choose to make each of us out of a little ball of clay. The evidence of the universe suggests otherwise.

God Bless You

the chancellor
Catholics believe God is almighty. There are some things even He cannot do.
 
Anthony
With all due respect I think you have painted yourself into a corner. On a Catholic thread it probably won’t work to announce what God can or can’t do. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent. That means that nothing is impossible for God. Scripture clearly teaches that.
I didn’t put a limit on what God can do. I just pointed out that where God is working in nature random mutation and natural selection are impossible. Natural processes cannot be guided and also random or driven by necessity at the same time. It is a conceptual contradiction.
Good science is the human way (I believe sometimes inspired and guided by God) of exploring how God chose to make the universe.
Science goes by methodological naturalism,remember?
God’s providence is not supposed to be a consideration of naturalistic science.
This doesn’t scare Catholics because we know that scientists cannot disprove God, even if some of them pretend they have done just that!
The point is that scientists disallow for God to be working in the natural world he created. Supernatural causes are out of the question. That is just as bad as denying that God exists. The theory of evolution is ontologically naturalistic,because it portrays natural history as if nature is all there is.
As a fundamentalist protestant you believe in a six 24 hour day creation as is your privilege, and you limit yourself to the bible as the only authority. We Catholics believe that everything in the universe teaches us about God. None of us denies that God could choose to make each of us out of a little ball of clay. The evidence of the universe suggests otherwise.
God Bless You
the chancellor
I belong to the Catholic Church. The evidence does not suggest the theory of evolution,methodological naturalism and bad logic does.
 
Read what Pope Benedict had to say:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

“respect for other animals”? Human beings are not other animals.

God bless,
Ed

But we are animals, even so 🙂 - animals with intelligent souls that make us the only animals with a capacity for communion with Christ 🙂​

In the Incarnation, God assumed the entire course of human evolution - the Incarnation is what the “Big Bang” is for; the universe was made for Him, & by becoming a man He assumed everything that resulted from the BB. If this does not indicate the universal relevance of Christ, I don’t know what does. So much for the objection that faith in Him is “parochial” 😃

This also indicates that the Incarnation was intended from “before” the earliest instant of creation. To see these things as implied in the evolution of the universe also has implications for Mariology - it justifies her title “Queen of all creation” very fully. ISTM that an evolutionary view of creation is very relevant & very helpful for faith, for sharing faith, & for thinking about faith. To see things in such a perspective also leaves behind an entirely needless argument between faith & the sciences.
 
I didn’t put a limit on what God can do. I just pointed out that where God is working in nature random mutation and natural selection are impossible. Natural processes cannot be guided and also random or driven by necessity at the same time. It is a conceptual contradiction.

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.

Science goes by methodological naturalism,remember?
God’s providence is not supposed to be a consideration of naturalistic science.

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.

The point is that scientists disallow for God to be working in the natural world he created. Supernatural causes are out of the question. That is just as bad as denying that God exists. The theory of evolution is ontologically naturalistic,because it portrays natural history as if nature is all there is.

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

I belong to the Catholic Church. The evidence does not suggest the theory of evolution,methodological naturalism and bad logic does.
Actually, evolution in outline is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. And people like me cannot get either side to stop their fussing.

May our Lord always draw our attention back to God.

the chancellor
 
Hi
This is an excerpt from an article I wrote awhile back. The full article can be found here scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/Evolution-Fact-or-Fiction.144975

Literally hundreds of millions of fossils reside in institutions around the world. There are clear differences found in any particular fossil traced back within its Stratigraphic column (position it is found in within the earth), or tested age. Every species of life found shows a clear advancement of complexity or change in appearance relative to its age.

There have been no fossils found in a mixed state, which means a specimen that has previously been found in the age group of 150 million years with certain characteristics, has not turned up in the age group of 10 million years in the same state of evolution. Sometimes a particular species doesn’t turn up at all meaning it died out. Even if the change was very small - there was a change.

Tracing certain lizards, frogs, and salamanders from purely aquatic creatures, to amphibians, to land animals that can survive purely on land if necessary is a fact supported by evidence found through Stratigraphy (determining the age of a specimen from it’s location, or depth, in the layers of earth) and carbon dating.

Crocodiles are traced back to an animal named “Flesh Crocodile Emperor” an animal that grew to a length of 40 feet and weighed eight tons, which is twice as much as an elephant. These animals were capable of capturing and eating virtually anything on the planet. Modern crocodiles rarely exceed 14 feet and weigh no more than half a ton, although in look they have changed very little.

Science has stated with some degree of confidence that life on earth began with amino acids, mutating and merging to form ever more complex organisms. In lab experiments Amino Acids have been proven to merge with certain molecules found in water around volcanic vents, coupled with mineral contents present either in the water or surrounding rocks, and general levels of salinity; the acids changed through an application of electricity. These amino acids are generally the same, although can be mutated by sunlight and form separate solutions which interact and form new solutions. The same results are completely possible in nature with a shallow sea area, minerals, and a bolt of lightening effecting the change.

It would take hundreds of millions of years to produce complex life but this is not by any means impossible. Acids, bacteria, and viruses mutate and grow more complex everyday in our world now. Exposed to our immune system viruses and bacteria mutate and become more complex, as does our immune system in order to more effectively combat the strain of virus or bacteria that attacked it. In fact, one of the reasons there are so many different strains of Flu virus is because different people have different chemical make-ups. The same is true for the common cold; therefore, whether or not you wish to take into account a pre-determined outcome that God programmed into the universe, evolution is a fact.

However, man seems to have suddenly appeared on the scene from out of the blue. There is no physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution for man from animal. Although man does appear to have evolved into a more complex being, that is called “static” evolution and is separate from the general theory. This fits with Genesis 2:7, just as the description of the rest of the earth in vs. 2-6 fits the primordial vision of the earth in keeping with the evolutionary development of early life forms from amino acids. Mans creation is special; man was created with a soul, separate from the rest of creation, meaning man was created in the Image of God.

For creationists, the “big bang” fits very well with Genesis 1:1-5: “The earth was without form and void, darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, and God said let there be light” (Paraphrased). “The deep” here probably refers to empty space, and “the face of the waters” is probably an extremely dense form of matter of which everything that came to be was compressed into; whenever “waters” are referred to in Scripture, and it is obvious that actual water is not meant, the meaning is usually masses of people. Since it is through the Holy Spirit that everything is accomplished this then would be a logical assertion, so then what it means in this context would have to be everything and everyone that would ever be (Ephesians 1:3-5). “Let there be light” would then be the “bang” portion.

Taken in this view then, there would be no problems so far. What people get hung up on is the assertion that there must be six literal days of creation, as stated in scripture. Which is true, there would have to be in order for Scripture to be true. I still see no problem, because there could have been six days of preparation by God before the release of the universe. Whether that was six literal twenty-four hour periods of our day (which would be minute in Gods time), or six thousand years of our time as stated by II Peter 3:8 doesn’t matter. What that statement means to convey to all who read it is that our God is capable of doing what we see around us in a very short period

continued
 
So then, what is the problem in stating that the actual creation of the universe was in the preparation of everything and everyone within a dense mass in the middle of nothing, containing within it the ingredients and movements for the entire universe from it’s beginning to eternity? Isn’t that a more miraculous statement to make; that the statement from God of “Let there be light” then set in motion everything from the “bang” through our present day and beyond, in even the most minuscule detail? If you take into account that the universe is still taking shape: stars are still forming and collapsing, planets are forming, gases and particles are coalescing, you could say that the universe itself is still evolving.

Just because science doesn’t take God into consideration, doesn’t mean that scientists don’t recognize God for what He is and for what he has done. There are many good solid Christians within the scientific community. God is not an observable, measurable or testable force within our frame of reference. Therefore, science cannot include Him in the explanations of observable actions and reactions. Can He be included within the framework of what remains and has come into view of earth’s ancient history? No, and this is not a bad thing.

Ending the search for answers with “God must have performed a miracle” would have severely impaired or virtually brought to a standstill our understanding of the earth. We would have no true appreciation for the beauty in the minuscule complexity of the cell, or in the mystery and impossible beauty of the universe. No appreciation of the simple, but complex mirrored relationships between the microcosm and macrocosm of our ecosystems; or the limited but lifesaving understanding of our own bodies. In other words, a true appreciation of the wonder, beauty, and perfection present in our universe from the molecular level to the Galaxies and Nebulas.

The scientific community cannot, nor strictly speaking should they, answer questions by saying “God did it” and leave it at that without further study and research. The Christian population cannot throw out scientific explanations for the events recorded on or in the earth, any more than they should the breakthroughs of science or the more general explanations offered for natural events such as gravity. Picking and choosing what theories to believe in is comparable to picking and choosing what Bible verses to believe in. Both lead to stunted knowledge and foolish ideas such as a flat earth or suicide cults.

Science and religion are not entirely separate studies; they are permanently joined even if some scientists would not have it that way. One person or group of people do not make God go away through their unbelief, any more than that person, or group of people’s minds are changed by the assertion that God is. In fact, one could say that continued badgering by the Christian people upon unbelievers has the opposite effect.

Just my thoughts

Peace
 
None of us denies that God could choose to make each of us out of a little ball of clay. The evidence of the universe suggests otherwise.

God Bless You

the chancellor
Hi Chancellor,
Isn’t the earth essentially a little ball of clay?
Cathy
 
There’s nothing to fear in evolution, it enables us, in a way, to be free creatures, brings respect for other animals (in times past some of the religious thought of animals as emotionless entities, therefore resulting in cruelty) and gives greater wonder to the universe.
Here’s Chesterton’s take in Orthodoxy, chapter 7:
“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis, you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.”
 
Here’s Chesterton’s take in Orthodoxy, chapter 7:
“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis, you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.”
i’m a little slow so forgive me, but what is your point here?

many “religious” people are cruel to animals because they “belong” to us humans, have not a spirit, and have no emotion or feeling. such talk is pure evil.
 
i’m a little slow so forgive me, but what is your point here?

many “religious” people are cruel to animals because they “belong” to us humans, have not a spirit, and have no emotion or feeling. such talk is pure evil.
Hi Catholic,
I’m guessing that Chesterton’s point (which I would agree with), is that our view of animals needs to be informed not only by natural reason, which is insufficient to protect animals from cruelty, but by opening our hearts to the supernatural love of God, which gives us the ability to appreciate animals and respect them as fellow creatures of a loving God.

I heard Fr. Brian Mullady teach (but I don’t know his source) that animals do have souls and emotions, but not immortal souls, nor the ability to reason that humans have. They cannot sin, while humans with the ability to reason can. I’m sure the Church must teach that cruelty to animals is evil, though I am no expert and I can’t cite any reference on that.
Best regards,
Cathy
 
Not taking the Bible story literally in every respect but just noting events we see it stated that the people after Adam lived very long lives.
It is also noted that Kane took a wife from the land of Nod. This wife would not have been of the likeness of God. In the years that followed many men intermixed with people not of the line of Adam. Over the years, the life span of Man of Adam went from about 700 years to less then 40 years.

In the Bible, it says that death was a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Considering that God would have given Adam and Eve perfect genes that could have allowed them to live forever. It would answer the story in the Old Testament.

If man of God started with perfect genes there would also be no concern of intermarriage. All through to Old Testament God is trying to keep the Jews from marrying out side of their people. This may have not only been for religious reason but for the genetic reasons.

Is this story correct? It has as much rational argument as any in evolution.
Fools rush in, and I’m afraid I fall in that category, especially since I’m no expert in evolution or in Church teachings. But I have read that geneticists claim all human beings descended from one couple. If that is true, it conforms to the Church’s teaching. Here is a summary of another theory I have heard, but can’t cite the source: If God created the first couple to have perfect bodies, their genetic codes would be without flaw. After the Fall, however, the code may have begun slowly to deteriorate. Their first children, however, would have had sufficient integrity of genes that they could safely intermarry. With the succeeding generations, however, after the Fall, and the subsequent diminution of genetic integrity, it would have been progressively both more necessary, and more possible, for them to marry more distant cousins. With the breakdown in genetic integrity, their life spans may also have progressiviely shortened.

Regards to all,
Cathy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top