Is evolution a fact?

[Sandi]

My husband is a research scientist with a PhD in biology; we’vehad many long conversations about this.

Here’s the short answer to your question: yes.

It would take pages and pages for me to give you all the details, but, yes, human evolution from an ancestor we have in common with primates is a fact.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Sandy, that is awesome to hear that your husband has attained enough education to earn a PHD and yet is still a catholic (no punintended honest). How does he reconcile his faith with evolution? I woould liek to hear this from the mouth of authority and not others speculating. If you could pm me or post it, it would be much appreciated. Evolution has been a hard thing for me to fit into many theological questions.

 

[a_priori]

I agree with this. I do not think we are contradicting each other. The cross of Christ implies man is capable of belief where there was none and contrition and repentence where there was only false pride. Such men are without excuse, but they are still, while they breathe, temporal beings with minds and spirits not wholly closed off to the Holy Spirit. They still have free will.

In another thread, believers are eloquently describing the Eucharist to those who have faith in Christ but not in His testimony that he is the literal Bread of Life. Is their cause hopeless? Couldn’t one seed be planted? Didn’t Scott Hahn at one time not believe and now he does believe in the Eucharist? Think of the wonderful honor a person earns if he cooperates with God’s plan in helping some christian from false symbolism to worship of the Eucharistic Christ and receive such graces from the Bread of Life. Talk about good deeds! As great as that is, it would be maybe even greater to plant a seed in one of these trapped atheists, so that they would in humility one day knock! And Jesus promised the door would be opened!

The point I am making is that though these Atheists speak resoundingly about how evolution makes God superfluous, you and I know that is not the case. We have experiential knowlege of the effect in our lives of following the Master, but that knowlege by its nature does not lend itself to transmission, it is internal, spiritual, and to a closed mind, one who has not even knocked, meaningless.

What kind of knowledge then might make these evolutionary atheists consider knocking on the door to a spiritual life? it would have to be a kind of knowledge they recognize, such as knowledge from debate or knowledge from logic (not always the same thing) Who could reach out to them in a meaningful way? A Catholic who is also fervent about evolution! Like you, like Orogeny.

If (and for me it is a mighty big if ) evolution is true, then truth leads to Jesus; He is the Way and the Truth. It seems to me that if evolution is true, then it is being satanically perverted now. Maybe that means the correct interpretation of evolution, the correct appreciation of evolution brings much glory to God, sheds much light on His nature. It makes sense that Satan attacks most viciously those things that would lead us to Jesus. Maybe if this scientific truth can be properly described and presented, to atheists in its proper Catholic context and in a proper ecumentical tone understandable to them seeds will be planted!

I have to agree with you that we are not far apart. I wouldn’t say that I’m “fervent” about evolution in the same sense as the atheist because I don’t understand exactly where it fits into God’s creative plan. So, like you, I use the knowledge of God and the revelation of His Son as the starting point. After this, it is important to accomodate what appears to be observable evidence that natural selection operates in biological systems today (i.e. drug resistance, etc.) and that it also appears that it had a part in bringing us to where we are today as humans. But evolution doesn’t drive the debate and then God has to be mushed in so we all don’t suffer a shipwreck in out faith, but rather knowledge of God drives the debate and then the evidence for evolution must be interpreted through His revelation. At the end of the day, God is more real than anything in creation so His revelation to man trumps everything.

The odd thing is, since Heisenberg and his sacking of causality and discovery of quantum mechanics, we know that the physical universe is incredilby weird. The safe, predictable world of Newton is a speck in the rearview mirror (although his equations are still smokin’).

The contemporary world of physics with its quantum weirdness and things like M-theory point directly to God.

The atheist starts with stark science and will not accomodate God. This leaves him with a piece of the puzzle missing and therefore he cannot emerge integrated. We Christians start with God but then we CAN accomodate science and give it its proper place thereby allowing us to emerge integrated because we don’t ignore obvious things. Science, and by extension, evolution must be given its proper place (and kept there) as a tool to point back to God.

I agree with you that we are pretty much on the same page. Thank you for taking the time to clarify these things.

 

[Pondero]

The mistake atheists often make is to assume that biblical fundamentalism is real Christianity. That is incompatible with evolution, so Christianity falls, and Catholics, who believe in evolution if they are at all educated, are merely putting some sophisticated gloss on an untenable position.

The mistake Catholics often make is to to say “Sure we believe in evolution. This was the process God chose for Creation. There are no further theological implications”.

However evolution is as much a problem for most atheists as for Christians. Stephen J. Gould was quite happy to believe in the evolution of the body, but when it came to the evolution of the brain, and therefore of human behaviour, suddenly he started advancing all sorts of specious objections in the manner of a creationist.

Most people act in their adaptive interests, most of the time. When people claim to be acting from other motives they are usually deluding themselves. However who popularised the word “hypocrite?”.

I don’t see evolution as a problem for Catholics.Man’s soul it, is Catholic teaching, did not evolve, it is created immediately by God. ( See CCC.366)

Now, that can neither be proved or disproved scientifically.

 

[Vincent_Lewis]

God could use macro evolution or create instantly to begin the world. Did he use macro evolution? No.
See. kolbecenter.org/what_church_teaches.pdf
or go to kolbecenter.org/ and click the link under what the Church teaches about origins.

The Kolbe Center for the study of Creation has a selection of books and other resources in their web store. There is evidence that evolution can not occur. Some of that evidence was already available in Darwins time. Father Mandel in his genetic experiments proved that you can only change so far and no further. A plant seed will only produce plants that are of the same kind as the parent plant. In many generations you may produce a plant that has traits that were not displayed in the previous generations, but you still have the same plant. You can find evidence that man and dinosaurs coexisted in the recent past. For fossils to form the animal must be buried rapidly. If an animal is not buried it will either rot or will be eaten. The existance of a great deal of fossils is evidence that Noah’s flood actually occurred.

If macro evolution is true the bible cannot be true. Therefore, it would follow that not all of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching could be unchangable.

If evolution were described in the bible it would read in a manner similar to the following:

On the first day God created all matter. A great time later stars formed and gave off light. After a great amount of time those stars flew apart in sudden fires. New stars were born and then the earth formed. God saw the earth and that it was a formless waste and said lets seprate the waters above from the waters below, so that, dry land will appear. Now let there be life in the waters. As time passed life in the waters moved out upon the dry land. After a great time many animals appeared. Last of all man appeared and God said at last a Creature that I can communicate with. Let us go and talk to with him. God told the man that he can eat of any of the trees in the garden but from the tree in the middle of the garden he was not to eat. To the dismay of God he found that man had eaten the forbidden fruit. God was very disappointed and put man out of the garden.

Genesis describes a world wide flood. Marco Evolution says that the flood never occurred. Thus, the theory of the macro evolution and the history of Genesis are mutually exclusive.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

so when did we have souls… was it part way through the evolution process that ‘bam’ all of a sudden we had a soul that was sparked into us and not our primate ancestors?

 

[EBSSTF4]

so when did we have souls… was it part way through the evolution process that ‘bam’ all of a sudden we had a soul that was sparked into us and not our primate ancestors?

From Catholic Answers

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

so when did we have souls… was it part way through the evolution process that ‘bam’ all of a sudden we had a soul that was sparked into us and not our primate ancestors?

I talked about this issue in post 73.
If evolution is correct humans were conceived in sub-humans.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

So presto, God zaped us with a soul in our sub-human species? Prior to this their were no souls? We just were soulless one day then a mutation occured and God gave us a soul?

 

[EBSSTF4]

So presto, God zaped us with a soul in our sub-human species? Prior to this their were no souls? We just were soulless one day then a mutation occured and God gave us a soul?

Pius XII, Humani Generis 36

So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I talked about this issue in post 73.
If evolution is correct humans were conceived in sub-humans.

The original Adam and Eve could have been specially created and then Cain went off to where(?) and startred a family with whom(?) perhaps the homo sapiens who were prepared now to give birth to the first inheritors of orifginal sin.

but y’know I wasn’t there.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Malcolm, I am curious as to how you make sense of all the evolution things (not a personal attack, sincerely curious… i often struggle with it and am unsure where i stand/what i think)

It is a very good question.

God has not chosen to create a world in which the hand of the creator is seen in everything. For instance, Early peoples believed that God or gods sent rains. Now we know that water that evaporates from the seas falls to Earth, and the amount of rainfall is determined by all sorts of factors to do with winds and temperatures.

So if would be surprising if scientific investigation of human origins led to the “Intelligent Design” hypothesis. We would want to know why the hand of God is observable here but not elsewhere.

The sceptic could say “there is no observable hand of God because there is no God”. That is a sober and fairly strong atheist argument. However it is not the only possible theory. It is a perfectly reasonable design principle that an artefact should run by itself. Some of my computer programs require me to add data to them whilst running, the majority don’t.

That leads us to another question. Most atheist evolutionists actually fudge on the evolution of human behaviour. They are quite happy to use the evolution of the body as ammunition against fundementalists, but they turn into creationists when faced with the overwhelming evidence for the evolution of human actions. Sociobiology is seen as socially divisive and racist, if not actually Nazi. So they bring up all sorts of inventive but specious objections.

For Christians it is not so much of a problem, because we believe in Original Sin. We have no emotional investment in the notion that humanity can redeem itself by its own efforts. A chimpanzee cannot sin, but it can still take actions which, were it human, would be regarded as sinful, because it puts its own genetic interests above everything else. Evolution has primed us to be selfish.

That is not something that was understood before the 20th century, and it does force something of a rethink. The other problem is that, though it is not absolutely proved that the sould didn’t arise “at a stroke”, that very much goes against evolutionary thinking. The first chimpanzee to have a tiny twinge of guilt about killing another chimpanzee in a fight over a female was probably just that, he didn’t have enough control over his behaviour to be held morally responsible.

So I don’t have an easy answer. I think atheism is certainly a strong and intellectually defensible position - my books are written mainly about philosophically shallow atheists - but it still raises many problems. Essentially the atheist says that the most salient feature of the universe, your own consciousness, is something that he has no explanation for but he believes on intution to be fundamentally the same as all other physical properties of matter.

 

[Larry1700]

If I landed on Mars, and found what looked like an alien SUV sitting in the sand, and another alien SUV that was similar to the first one, but not exactly the same, as an engineer I’d conclude that they were both designed, not that one evolved from the other. Would you?

Great statement, ricmat! Do you mind if I use it from time to time?

You know, I sometimes wonder if scientists often get into the “can’t see the forest for the trees” scenario. (Even though they’re scientists, they are human.) They get so wrapped up in the theoretical “proofs” and trying to prove that their “proofs” are more provable than the other guy’s “proofs” that they don’t back up and take an overview and see they’re headed down the wrong path.

Many, many years ago I read somewhere (History of Western Philosophy or Aristotle for Everyone, or maybe elsewhere) about an example of using “facts” to prove that a tennis ball would never cross the net. (Something about it traveling in successive halfway distances or some such.) Anyway, the point was that sometimes ideas that appear on the surface to true, and which are “proven” by theoretical mathematics, may fail to properly explain reality. Yet, some scientists hold on to them because the mathematics led them to that conclusion.

Dawkins and others like him fail to believe the empirical evidence (yes, empirical – even though it was documented many years ago) of the experiences of saints and those who knew them, and of the hundreds who saw the apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes, etc. More recently, look at the life of Padre Pio, who lived during our more “scientific” times. While it’s true that I have not had the same experiences as the saints, that does not allow me to dismiss them as untrue. I am pretty sure that there are footprints on the moon, even though I’ve never actually been there myself, and even though there are some who can “prove” it was a hoax.

 

[EBSSTF4]

What concerns me are the beliefs of many Catholics that evolution is contrary to catholic teachings, when for 50 years it has been researched by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and Pope Pius XII to John Paul II have acknowledged the possibility of evolution as part of Gods plan.

From their writings it would seem both believed evolution was a likely part of Gods plan

St. Augustine believed that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days. This also contradicts the biblical stories of Genesis.

Why take 7 Days if it could be done instantly, or why not take 7 billion years if he always has been, always will be and time is meaningless to him.

1. Catholics are permitted to believe in evolution, as part of Gods master plan.
2. Catholics are permitted to believe in pure creationism.

The hostility between the two beliefs does not seem to be in line with Catholic teachings.

Mark 10:25

25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Is this to be taken as literally?

 

[Benedictus]

1. Catholics are permitted to believe in evolution, as part of Gods master plan.
2. Catholics are permitted to believe in pure creationism.

The hostility between the two beliefs does not seem to be in line with Catholic teachings.

Since the Church teaches that there can be no conflict between true science and true religion, and science clearly disproves creationism, it seems to me that the Church implicitly rejects creationism.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Since the Church teaches that there can be no conflict between true science and true religion, and science clearly disproves creationism, it seems to me that the Church implicitly rejects creationism.

Science cannot disprove Creationism; God could have created us today, as we are if it was his desire.

You cannot disprove Evolution, to much science.

The Logical compromise is Evolution, guided by God. Or Creation through Evolution.Sometimes we try to limit what God can do to what we can understand.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

ebsstf4 - I’m not sure what the purpose of your post was aside from reiterating a statement made earlier. That response did not address any of my questions. Let’s take what you said, ok yes our bodies could have evolved but we got our Soul from God himself? Right. So we will say we evolved from molecules then. The church does not teach that animals and molecules have souls…. So where in this process did we obtain them? Which is what I was asking when I said, did overnight we just get zapped with souls! I have yet to meet a Christian who will say an ape has a soul, yet if we evolved from them at some point we got souls (i.e. being zapped a soul overnight).

 

[EBSSTF4]

ebsstf4 - I’m not sure what the purpose of your post was aside from reiterating a statement made earlier. That response did not address any of my questions. Let’s take what you said, ok yes our bodies could have evolved but we got our Soul from God himself? Right. So we will say we evolved from molecules then. The church does not teach that animals and molecules have souls…. So where in this process did we obtain them? Which is what I was asking when I said, did overnight we just get zapped with souls! I have yet to meet a Christian who will say an ape has a soul, yet if we evolved from them at some point we got souls (i.e. being zapped a soul overnight).

Yes, at a time God saw fit he gave us the gift of a soul.

The human soal did not evolve.

You seem to doubt God could do that?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you think atheists are irredeemable?

How did you get that from my question? Of course, athiests are redeemable.

Do you not see that confirming the quasi-evolutionary theories by trumpeting how evolution is a fact without carefully describing what you are describing as fact you are confirming atheists in their views that extend far beyond cross species evolution?

No, I don’t. Don’t you see that requiring someone to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution, you are putting up a barrier to the scientifically-minded athiest to turn to God?

Inside every atheist there is a soul with free will to assent to God’s plan a soul that in God’s plan may be waiting for our cooperation with that plan. Confirming atheists in their foundational belief structure is very dangerous.

Evolution is NOT the reason athiests are athiests no more than the big bang or quantum physics are. Insisting that they ignore the evidence is what is very dangerous.

They did not have the benefit for some time of growing in the fellowship of Christ. Today we have the Holy Spirit and whether you believe it or not Christianity is an amazing force for good and love on this planet as surely true as evolution exists. We promote true love when we promote Christ. When you promote evolution, are you so sure you are promoting truth? What do the readers read when you promote so fervently the truth of evolution that dovetails so neatly into a God absent, man as beast metaphysic?

You are factually incorrect in your assertation that evolution is responsible for the current culture of death. You are correct that the romans did not have the Church to lead them down the right path. But they didn’t have evolution to cause them to relish the spectacle of human death, either. Your point here is bogus and disengenuous.

I reject any and all arguments that blame evolution for the ills of the world.

Peace

Tim

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I am glad you reject those assertions; many atheists do not. I’m sorry that my point was lost on you. I am glad though that you are comfortable with your faith and evolution. Many atheists are comfortable with their atheism and evolution, too and they state evolution as a reason for being atheist, not me.

I thought there might be a way here to reach out to those atheists who found their atheism on the belief that evolution and abiogensis seem to make God superfluous.

peace
mike

PS I do not know how you get that I am asking people to ignore evolution. The thrust of my argument is that Catholics who are fervent about evolution could share with atheists who are fervent about evolution and thereby be a lamp on a hill to some very entrenched atheists. I advocate a persuit of truth to lead to the Truth.