Is it possible to think Evolution correct and remain Catholic?

[Pondero]

Mike 182d: My dictionary defines Deism as (1682) a movement or system of thought advocating natural religiion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

**(**Websters 9th new Collegiate dictionary)

. And as I believe in miracles I am not a Deist, according to that 18th century definition.

It would have been difficult to say all that I could about my views on evolution in the first post of a new thread

 

[Texas_Cajun]

When speaking of evolution, three opinions exist. The first is creation, the second is theistic evolution (guided by the Holy Spirit) and the third is atheistic evolution. To my knowledge, the Church states it could be either of the first two theories but not the last theory stated. Also, we must believe that the sould was specially created by God.

On a side note, Dwarian was a theology major.

Peace

 

[Pondero]

buffalo:

Then you have to beleive Catholic dogma:

**The Beginning or Creation of the World **

1. 
   *]All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)
   *]The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.)
   *]God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De fide.)
   *]The world created for the Glorification of God. (De fide.)
   *]The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De fide.)
   *]God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De fide.)
   *]God was free to create this world or any other. (Sent. Certa.)
   
   **The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World **
   
   1. 
      *]God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
      *]God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
      *]God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)
      
      1. 
         *]God has created a good world. (De fide.)
         *]The world had a beginning in time. (De fide.)
         *]God alone created the World. (De fide.)
         *]No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)

1. 1. 1. 
         I have never seen it expressed like that before. I believe in the contents of the Nicene Creed. I have read through it and cannot find any contradiction between it and the theory of evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Pondero:

I have never seen it expressed like that before. I believe in the contents of the Nicene Creed. I have read through it and cannot find any contradiction between it and the theory of evolution.

Why Human Evolution can never become part of the Deposit of Faith

**ABSTRACT
**

					**In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.

more…**

 

[buffalo]

Pondero:

I have never seen it expressed like that before. I believe in the contents of the Nicene Creed. I have read through it and cannot find any contradiction between it and the theory of evolution.

The creeds are defenses against heresies.

Perhaps in the future the creed will include a statement on evolution.

 

[Ham1]

Genetic mutations are certainly a reality along with an innate desire on the part of all species to survive. It is certainly compatible with Christianity do admit these realities some of which overlap with Darwin’s theories. Insofar as Darwin denied the existence of God, he was wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that some of his theories regarding mutation and evolution of species over time are necessarily false.

 

[buffalo]

Ham1:

Genetic mutations are certainly a reality along with an innate desire on the part of all species to survive. It is certainly compatible with Christianity do admit these realities some of which overlap with Darwin’s theories. Insofar as Darwin denied the existence of God, he was wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that some of his theories regarding mutation and evolution of species over time are necessarily false.

You might be referring to adaptation - or micro-evolution. No argument here. Macro-evolution is a different story.

 

[Ham1]

Sorry, I’m not familiar with the terms.

What’s the difference?

 

[buffalo]

Ham1:

Sorry, I’m not familiar with the terms.

What’s the difference?

Micro - basically what you said. Adaptation and change.

Macro - one species evolves into another.

Darwinian evolution - Darwin observed micro evolution and theorized that it would extend to species, and God was not needed.

 

[Pondero]

Why Human Evolution can never become part of the Deposit of Faith

**ABSTRACT **

In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.
more…

Buffalo: I have scanned that website and can find no reference to a book I highly recommend you to read. It is “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller, a biochemist. Probably it wasn’t there because it was published in 1999 after that website was prepared.

 

[buffalo]

Pondero:

Buffalo: I have scanned that website and can find no reference to a book I highly recommend you to read. It is “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller, a biochemist. Probably it wasn’t there because it was published in 1999 after that website was prepared.

Please sit down with it for it will give you the church’s position based on historical pronouncements. It is well worth your time and paper.

 

[mike182d]

buffalo:

Micro - basically what you said. Adaptation and change.

Macro - one species evolves into another.

Darwinian evolution - Darwin observed micro evolution and theorized that it would extend to species, and God was not needed.

With the theory of evolution, this distinction becomes arbitrary, and evolutionists ecounter this problem every time they claim to find a “link.” Each link creates the need for two more to be found, one before and one after. The reason being is that if we hold the theory of evolution to be true, there is no such thing as speciation - it would merely be a man-made convention to organize and categorize everything he sees in the world. Thus, all life is merely variations of the same thing and categorizing things into a specific group or class is arbitrary.

 

[Achatius]

Evolution is a pretty much proven theory, so you can either believe in it with or without God. Some stories in the Bible are not supposed to be comprehended literally, ie. Genesis ch.2. Science and Religion can co-exist!

 

[Della]

I saw a very interesting video called “I Was a Teen-aged Darwinist” in which the speaker, who was a convinced Darwinist at a young man and became a lawyer and a faithful Episcopalian, brings up several interesting points about the holes in Darwin’s theory and the gymnastics that adherents go through to “prove” what there is no evidence for–like one species evolving into another one. It was humorous but not disrespectful of scientists. The speaker just recognized that scientists are human beings who want to believe what they think must be right and so are not above trying to make it seem to be true even if it isn’t.

His story about a meeting in Beijing of American and European paleontologists with atheistic Chinese paleontologists was quite enlightening. All on their own, the Chinese came up with 4 explanations as to why Darwinism doesn’t quite fit the facts. One of their ideas was Intelligent Design. The Americans and Europeans howled at that–they wouldn’t even entertain the thought. With such closed-mindedness as the norm among scientists with regard to ID, it’s no wonder there is an ongoing rift between people of faith and most of the scientific community.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Please sit down with it for it will give you the church’s position based on historical pronouncements. It is well worth your time and paper.

A couple of things. First from the paper:

In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.

The evolutionary creation of our first parents are discussed here:vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Specifically, the paper states “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

Please visit that link. The entire document is awesome, but the discussion at hand is specifically addressed in sections 62-70. Also, please note the authorship at the end of the document and pay close attention to the name of the person authorizing the publication.

Second thing, from the Theotokos document:

It is indeed unfortunate for both the faith and the moral well-being of Western society as a whole that the theological and scientific research and discussion, permitted by Pope Pius XII in 1950, concerning the possibility of human evolution, was not brought to fruition within a few years after that permission was given.

Given the advances in the biological sciences since the early 1950’s, any official pronouncement by the Church would have been demonstrated to have been in error had the pronouncement condemned evolution. I say it is a good thing that the Church made no such pronouncement.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

By the way, Pondero, the answer to your original question is yes, it is possible to accept evolution and remain a Catholic.

Peace

Tim

 

[HitF12]

I was always taught that science explains HOW the universe and its contents (including us) was formed.

The Bible explains WHY the universe and its contents (including us) was formed.

The Universe, and the origins of life, is too complex to be explained away by scientific theory. However, geological and palentological evidence would seem to suggest (although not entirely conclusive) that there was a natural, progressive order to creation.

The only answer is that God created us, but uses a natural process to do so. He created an orderly universe with rules that can be observed (even Chaos theory has its rules). When he does things are outside of that order, we perceived them as miracles, and rightly so (such as bring the dead back to life, turning water into wine, among others).

God is still active today in natural processes all around us, childbirth being the best example of them all (the child is a genetic combination of its parents, that grows using natural processes set in motion over eons… but where does one’s soul come from?).

Another interesting thing I would like to point out about the creation mythos set out in the book of Genesis… if the Hebrew creation mythos is compared to it’s contemporaries (such as the Caanites and the Egyptians), you can see that there appears to be much “borrowing” of materials between the stories. What is also interesting is that almost all creation mythos from that era explain the origin of the world not from a scientific standpoint, but from what an observer on earth may see (day and night, then water and land, then vegetation, etc). What is also interesting is that the Hebrew mythos differs from other cultures in that the creator-God creates the earth for the sake of creation, and for our benefit. Usually in these mythos, the earth’s and human’s creations are a by-product of an act of an creator-god and not the purpose of the action.

Interesting topic.

 

[Orionthehunter]

HitF12:

I was always taught that science explains HOW the universe and its contents (including us) was formed.

The Bible explains WHY the universe and its contents (including us) was formed.

The Universe, and the origins of life, is too complex to be explained away by scientific theory. However, geological and palentological evidence would seem to suggest (although not entirely conclusive) that there was a natural, progressive order to creation.

QUOTE]

I agree with the first two sentences. However, I do not agree the geological and palentoligical evidence suggests evolution. There are almost no fossil evidence (the only evidence applicable in this debate) of transitional animals. However, evolution or being deposited on earth by extra-terrestial beings are the only explanation for our existence unless one were to believe in God the Creator. For many in the scientific community, belief in God is an anethema and deposited by “people” from another planet is too “Steven Spielberg” leaving them only to rationalize evolution.

I don’t know if God used evolution or not but because of the lack of fossil evidence, I find it more “scientific” that He used something akin to “creation in stages” where he made a little, waited millions of years as He walked in His creation, remodeled and created a little more, waited a few million more years, remodeled and created some more, and so on until He was done. Kinda sounds like the Genesis version doesn’t it?

 

[Orogeny]

Orionthehunter:

I agree with the first two sentences. However, I do not agree the geological and palentoligical evidence suggests evolution. There are almost no fossil evidence (the only evidence applicable in this debate) of transitional animals.

That is not correct.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

However, evolution or being deposited on earth by extra-terrestial beings are the only explanation for our existence unless one were to believe in God the Creator.

I believe in God the Creator and I accept evolution as the means He used for life on earth.

I don’t believe that life was deposited by “people” from another planet.

Peace

Tim

 

[mjdonnelly]

Regarding the main topic, I say yes.

God created the universe and everything, then nudged it where He wanted it to go.

Kind of like playing that game Sim-earth, but already know all the outcomes of all your actions throughout the entire game before you do them.

Sorry, my brain starts to hurt trying to really comprehend that last part.