Is it possible to think Evolution correct and remain Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pondero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
buffalo:
So you are proposing that facts do not have to be true?
Click to expand...
All facts are in and of themselves true. A ‘true fact’ is a tautology.

All facts must be true or else they are not facts. So I proposed nothing of the kind.
What I said was science is a subset of truth, it has to be in harmony. Truth is the superset. True scientific facts will be contained in truth. False findings will not.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but it might just be only me, but I cannot make any sense of this at all. I really don’t know what it is you’re trying to say.
  1. What is a “subset of truth”?
  2. What do you mean by “harmony” in the above usage?
  3. If truth is the ‘superset’, what do you mean by superset?
  4. What do you mean by “True scientific facts will be contained in truth”? Since there is no such thing as a false fact, and a true fact is a tautology, neither usage can at all be scientific!
Since facts are true in and of themselves, a true fact is an unnecessary repetition of the same thing (tautology). All facts are true, so there is no such thing as a false fact. And a scientific fact is not the same as an ideological fact. Dinosaurs are extinct is a scientific fact and depressed people act melancholy is an ideological fact.

So I need some clarification as to what you are trying to say.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
All facts are in and of themselves true. A ‘true fact’ is a tautology.

All facts must be true or else they are not facts. So I proposed nothing of the kind.

I am sorry, but it might just be only me, but I cannot make any sense of this at all. I really don’t know what it is you’re trying to say.
  1. What is a “subset of truth”?
  2. What do you mean by “harmony” in the above usage?
  3. If truth is the ‘superset’, what do you mean by superset?
  4. What do you mean by “True scientific facts will be contained in truth”? Since there is no such thing as a false fact, and a true fact is a tautology, neither usage can at all be scientific!
Since facts are true in and of themselves, a true fact is an unnecessary repetition of the same thing (tautology). All facts are true, so there is no such thing as a false fact. And a scientific fact is not the same as an ideological fact. Dinosaurs are extinct is a scientific fact and depressed people act melancholy is an ideological fact.

So I need some clarification as to what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...
Truth is the highest order. Everything is contained (a subset) in truth. ( I only emphasized a true fact to bring out the fact there cannot be a false fact.) Now we can beliive we know a fact which in time turns out to be false. During that time we can draw false conclusions.

Bottom line - A true conclusion will be in harmony with Revelation. If not one of them is not true.
 
I do not see what all the discussion is about.

The short answer is yes, one can be a faithful Catholic and believe in Evolution.
 
I have no problem with it at all. I believe evolution is a fact of science. It is God’s process of creating nw species.

All of the Catholic schools that my kids with teach evolution as it does any other topic in science. The evidence is there.

When you track many like species of horses or mammoths through to modern day elephants, the evidence is undeniable. Evolution does not conflict with out faith in any way. Only when you stretch the Bible to very literal interpretations, do you run into problems.

It was once thought that the earth was the center of the solar system. Science proved it is not. I find that science complements religion. Folks that force a conflict between the two really do not have a good grasp of either, just my opinion.
 
40.png
TOME:
Orogeny about your concerns about dogmas and science I offer you my views:
Click to expand...
Hello, TOME. I’m not sure if I am the person you are addressing this to. I am perfectly comfortable with both Church dogma and science. I am snipping the rest of your post, but I will tell you that you and I are not in disagreement.

I’ve stated this before in other theads regarding this topic. If you want a very concise summary of my beliefs, read the Nicean Creed. I accept everything in that statement of belief with my whole heart and soul. The question comes up occasionally, as it has in this thread, as to whether or not one can be a Catholic and accept evolution. I adamantly believe that you can and I feel that I am backed by numerous church documents. I generally get involved in these threads when I see misinformation being posted. Things like evolution is incompatible with Catholicism, evolution is a scientific fraud, there is no evidence whatsoever of evolution.

I absolutely respect anyone’s right to believe in a literal creation as described in Genesis. That belief, however, does not give one the right to question my faith because I chose to use the intelligence God gave me. And before anyone goes off and claims that I am saying that those who believe in a literal reading of Genesis are not intelligent, I am not saying that at all.

Science is not the enemy.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
mike182d:
If that’s your understanding then you miss the fact of irreducibily comlex structures entirely.
Click to expand...
No, I think I have a pretty good handle on it. The whole thing with the flagella, and also the protein interactions on the membrane of cells and etc. Those are Behe’s favorite explainations.

These are pretty well addressed in… which book was it… oh: “Finding Darwin’s God”

Which I really, truely strongly reccommend.

Pistons, by the way, were first used in the drawing up of water… several thousand years later… tanks! Step by step by step.
 
40.png
Leeta:
You cannot bash those who believe in ex nihilo creation. .
Click to expand...
Ex nihilo creation is a totally different topic.

The term ex nihilo specifically relates to the creation of the universe from nothing.

No one is bashing anyone.

Have I mentioned a book called “Finding Darwin’s God” yet? It’s very very well written, by a faithful person who is, I think, a Catholic.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I do not see what all the discussion is about.

The short answer is yes, one can be a faithful Catholic and believe in Evolution.
Click to expand...
I agree.

The discussion is about defending that position from those who say that the answer is no.
 
40.png
bengeorge:
I agree.

The discussion is about defending that position from those who say that the answer is no.
Click to expand...
There really is no need to if you look at the links I provded earlier, they show what the Church says on the matter.

They say you can believe in Evolution and still be Catholic.

Now I can see a discussion as to what form of Evolution you believe in. If you believe that God has no part in it then I can start to wonder.

For myself, I am starting to lean towards Intelligent Design.
 
Orogeny, ooops My mistake, sorry about that. I looked back and my remarks should have been directed to Buffalo, not you. But I would like your comments about the merits of my post, that is whether they make sense or not. Sorry again and I’m looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.

To Buffalo, if you would, please read my previous post to Orogeny.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the evolution of whales from 4-legged mammals to seal-like mammals, to true whales (blowholes and fins) is explained both in the fossil record and scientific research (including DNA comparisons). Pls read Smithsonian and National Geographic for popular scientific sources. Or google “whales” and “evolution.” Just because it ain’t in yr bible doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
 
To TOME.

I don’t mind addressing your points.
I believe God created man, but what makes man different than other animals is God has given us a Human Soul which is immortal and has Free Will and Intellect (the faculity to know the truth immediately and without dependence on the senses. So I do not see a conflict with the belief that God creating Man through an evolution so long as there is the understanding that God at some point infused our bodies with a Human Soul.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. We didn’t become human until God gave us both body and soul. The body evolved and the soul was created. The soul does not evolve.
Concerning science, with in its own limits of being rooted in the physical observation, science seems, through genetic mapping, to be moving to that very understanding.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with this. Science cannot come to understand the soul because the soul is supernatural and outside the realm of science. Science cannot come to the point where it accepts the infusion of a soul into a human body.
Concerning our material bodies, I believe evolution points to the material development from single cells to the complex body we have today. Again laws of evolution, based on physical observation, really cannot explain when and how God infused the human soul into the body creating man.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree 100%, although I wouldn’t use the term “laws of evolution” since there really aren’t any in the sense there are laws of gravity. And I would again stress what I mentioned before - science cannot go to the supernatural for an explaination. That is why ID should never be taught in science classes. Theology or philosophy classes, yes, but not science classes.
Again Science cannot approach the cause of suffering in the metaphysical sense. Science can only deal with the physical reality of suffering and not the “Why” there is suffering.
Concerning the question of the origins of suffering, I think you would benefit from the Eastern Church’s teachings on Original Sin and its effects.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although I am not familiar with the Eastern Chruch’s teachings.
Again, about the knowledge of natural truthes and supernatural truthes, I think you are asking from science something that is just not in science’s relm. Real science can only deal with the physical world because it is based on emperical knowledge.Supernatural knowledge in the end is something, although reasonable, is a metaphysically based reality.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Again, to ask science to make judgement (to prove or disprove) on anything other than what is known emperically is asking science to do that which it is incapable of doing. Science cannot provide the rational for death beyond a physical explanation and it is unreasonable to demand it do other wise.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
ByzCath:
There really is no need to if you look at the links I provded earlier, they show what the Church says on the matter.

They say you can believe in Evolution and still be Catholic.

Now I can see a discussion as to what form of Evolution you believe in. If you believe that God has no part in it then I can start to wonder.

For myself, I am starting to lean towards Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...
As long as all Catholics understand the difference between Darwinism and Evolution, and that the Catholic Church is against Darwinism but tolerates Evolution, then there should be no misunderstanding. Just don’t get the two confused.
 
40.png
bengeorge:
Pistons, by the way, were first used in the drawing up of water… several thousand years later… tanks! Step by step by step.
Click to expand...
But these steps were not random. They were guided by intelligent beings.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
As long as all Catholics understand the difference between Darwinism and Evolution, and that the Catholic Church is against Darwinism but tolerates Evolution, then there should be no misunderstanding. Just don’t get the two confused.
Click to expand...
Breakthrough!!! :clapping: :dancing:
 
40.png
buffalo:
Correct - but can we mistake a fact?
Click to expand...
Yes, ask any wrongfully incarcerated person if ever someone, like a judge, has mistaken a fact. Stupid people, like judges, lawyers, generals, etc. constantly mistake facts with dire results.

Train yourself by studying logic and English not to mistake a fact!

Get a good dictionary and learn the difference between information, fact, supposition, and opinion!

Information can be true or false.

Facts can never be false.

Suppositions are mere opinions.

And opinions are a dime a dozen.

There is life on earth is a fact.

There is life on mars is a supposition.

Ice cream is the greatest stuff in the world is an opinion.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
Yes, ask any wrongfully incarcerated person if ever someone, like a judge, has mistaken a fact. Stupid people, like judges, lawyers, generals, etc. constantly mistake facts with dire results.

Train yourself by studying logic and English not to mistake a fact!

Get a good dictionary and learn the difference between information, fact, supposition, and opinion!

Information can be true or false.

Facts can never be false.

Suppositions are mere opinions.

And opinions are a dime a dozen.

There is life on earth is a fact.

There is life on mars is a supposition.

Ice cream is the greatest stuff in the world is an opinion.
Click to expand...
Ouch!!! (icon for scathing?) Thank you for the English lesson.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
For myself, I am starting to lean towards Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...
That the universe was designed by an Intelligence I do not doubt for a moment…

But the “Intelligent Design” movement is a small echo-chamber of scientists who have found that there is a market in writing for the sorta-know-about-science-but-don’t-like-Darwinianism crowd.

Their works are not peer reviewed, by and large, and though they bring up interesting points, their major contentions have all been dismantled.

There was this great book I read once, and it was called… let me look it up… “Finding Darwin’s God”. It goes through point by point and refutes Intell-Designs ideas. But it doesn’t stop there, it gives what I think is a better scientific basis for the belief in God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top