Is it possible to think Evolution correct and remain Catholic?

[bengeorge]

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.

evolution = process of change in living creatures.

Evolution = shorthand for The Theory of Evolution, that being simply the best explaination currently on offer for evolution.

What is the difference between Darwinianism and Evolution?

There is none, as far as the state-of-the-art is concerned. All differences between the current theory of Evolution and old-school Darwinianism is due to the development of the theory, not to abandonment.

Darwiniansim is to Evolution as Newton is to Einstein. Development, not overruling.

Natural selection (aka Darwinianism) is a powerful idea because it’s true, that IS how nature operates on a day to day basis.

Darwinianism as a scientific theory only states that the fittest survive and pass on their genes.

We as Catholics are against Darwinianism as a philosophy: i.e. that the fittest SHOULD survive, and that we humans should cull the weak to make ourselves stronger, and that people that fail don’t deserve help because that only weakens the gene pool. This philosophy is more properly called “Social Darwinism”.

To say that Darwinianism (as a scientific theory) and Evolution are different isn’t a breakthrough, it’s a confusion of the entire subject.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bengeorge:

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Their works are not peer reviewed, by and large, and though they bring up interesting points, their major contentions have all been dismantled.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

Wow, you sure do like to push that book.

I do not buy into darwinism. Sorry.

As for your arguments against Intelligent Design, you do not refute it, you just attempt to disparage those scientists who are behind it.

Check out this Catholic Encyclopedia entry Catholics and Evolution.

newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

 

[bengeorge]

mike182d:

But these steps were not random. They were guided by intelligent beings.

True.

So in this case the fittness terrain was “Useful for human needs”

A non-human fitness terrain would be simply “Allows specimen X to pass on genes”.

But the same ideas apply. The humans simply speed things up.

 

[bengeorge]

ByzCath:

Wow, you sure do like to push that book.

Yes, because I hear over and over again arguments that are addressed in the book, and I think it would really open alot of your eyes to the sham that Intelligent Design is trying to pass off as science.

I do not buy into darwinism. Sorry.

So you don’t think that fit members survive to pass on their genes?

As for your arguments against Intelligent Design, you do not refute it, you just attempt to disparage those scientists who are behind it.

I don’t attempt to refute it because others have done so far better than I can.

I don’t disparage the authors, I am pointing out what they are doing: Creating a very small group that does not submit their papers to the criticism of the wider scientific community, and then writing pop-science books that have glowing reviews from the each-other on the back.

Has Intelligent Design served a purpose? Yes.
But, in the end, are they right? No.

 

[bengeorge]

Thinking about this whole topic:

The decision that truth is more beautiful than an easy fiction is essential to understanding the world.

It was this idea that lead me to atheism in college, and it was this idea that lead me back to Theism… then Christianity… then Catholicism.

Look at all the facts of anything, don’t be afraid of science, don’t be afraid of history. I think alot of people live have an intellectual fear of certain subjects because they are afraid that it will shake their faith.

It might. But the faith that shakes isn’t the one you want anyway. Shake off the loose bits, get down to foundation:

ALL truth is God’s truth.

When I became fully Catholic I didn’t want to read Church history because I was afraid it would shake my faith… But I read it, and my faith grew stronger.

I didn’t want to read the hard science of Evolution, because the authors were snotty atheists, and I wanted instead to read something that said “Shhh shhh, it’s ok, God’s real, we have proof!”

Intelligent Design comes along and alot of people sigh and say “Ahhh, finally scientists who will prop up my beliefs!”

It does a disservice to God to try to “prop Him up” with flimsy science and conjecture. He doesn’t need that kind of propping up.

 

[buffalo]

bengeorge:

Yes, because I hear over and over again arguments that are addressed in the book, and I think it would really open alot of your eyes to the sham that Intelligent Design is trying to pass off as science.

.

I don’t take ID to be science yet. I take it as additional information as to origins. If they can develop the science then it will be science. Give it some time. If it fails then what’s the big deal?

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

What is the difference between Darwinianism and Evolution?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

"(3) The Theory of Evolution vs. Darwinism"

“Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffrey de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavoring to explain the origin of the species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism - adhering to the narrower, and accurate sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purposes, which must be referred back to the interior original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin’s into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above - under (2) - to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.”

There is none, as far as the state-of-the-art is concerned. All differences between the current theory of Evolution and old-school Darwinianism is due to the development of the theory, not to abandonment.

Actually no, and as you can read from the New Advent, the Catholic Church distinguishes the difference between Darwinism and Evolution.

 

[TOME]

Orogeny, Thanks for your critic of my comments especially about my refrence to genetic mapping. Your comment on that has pointed out a flaw in what I was trying to say. Hopefully, this will make it clearer. With the scientific advances in genetics, even science, with in its own limitation, is moving towards the possibility that there was just one set of parents - genetically a truth the Church has taught all along with the addition that the Church also teachs the ultimate “How” thiss came about and through Faith, which is beyond the relm of science, the actual “Why” this came about.

 

[bengeorge]

Bobby A. Greene:

Actually no, and as you can read from the New Advent, the Catholic Church distinguishes the difference between Darwinism and Evolution.

The NA article says exactly what I said, except that it doesn’t admit that Darwinianism is the basis of the current most widely tested Theory of Evolution.

So, again, as far as the state-of-the-art goes, there is no real difference between modified Darwinianism and Evolution.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bengeorge:

So, again, as far as the state-of-the-art goes, there is no real difference between modified Darwinianism and Evolution.

But technically speaking a modified anything is no longer the original, so modified Darwinianism is not Darwinianism.

Darwinianism does not explain complex structures.

Try reading Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J Behe.

 

[jzepi]

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html
cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#IC
btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm
udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evolve_irreducible.html

Peace

Tim

Have you seen this one? Dr. Behe responds to some points made on talkorigins.org
arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm

I would also like to call attention to the third paragraph of post #99, an article by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn:

*Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, **but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, **unplanned process of random variation and natural **selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies **or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for *design in biology is ideology, not science.

We do well always to begin our thinking with what we know to be true, not what we think might be true, or even what we simply wish were true.

The problem of Irreducible Complexity has not been refuted, only disputed. It is not in itself a theory, but a criticism of a theory which we already know for sure to be flawed.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

bengeorge:

The NA article says exactly what I said, except that it doesn’t admit that Darwinianism is the basis of the current most widely tested Theory of Evolution.

Then it’s not exactly what you said.

 

[Orogeny]

jzepi:

Have you seen this one? Dr. Behe responds to some points made on talkorigins.org
arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm

Yes, I have.

I would also like to call attention to the third paragraph of post #99, an article by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn:

*Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, **but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, **unplanned process of random variation and natural **selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies **or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for *design in biology is ideology, not science.

I agree with his statement regarding unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. I believe God guides evolution. However, I disagree with his claim that science, specifically biology, should consider design as a process. He has it backwards. If design were to be considered, biology would become an ideology, not a science.

The problem of Irreducible Complexity has not been refuted, only disputed. It is not in itself a theory, but a criticism of a theory which we already know for sure to be flawed.

Then you didn’t read the links I provided.

Peace

Tim

 

[Austin_CCD]

I think the thread is dicussing two different but always paired issues…creation and Darwinism.

Creation has to do with what started everything while Darwinism has to do with what has happened since. The Origin of Species admits a higher creator then proceeds to explain how life has changed over time but it does not attempt to explain creation itself.

Also, Darwinism in itself is not Catholic in that it removes God from the Earth through his theory of natural selection. The evolution you may be speaking of is more of a general belief that overtime life has changed but this change is not determined by the mere chance of natural selection. God may have taken time (can he take time?) to create a human with a mind that was in his image and give this man a soul. In Genisis it reads that Man is made of the dust and clay, could this not be God molding man overtime from the elements of Earth?

 

[mike182d]

Austin CCD:

I think the thread is dicussing two different but always paired issues…creation and Darwinism.

Creation has to do with what started everything while Darwinism has to do with what has happened since. The Origin of Species admits a higher creator then proceeds to explain how life has changed over time but it does not attempt to explain creation itself.

Also, Darwinism in itself is not Catholic in that it removes God from the Earth through his theory of natural selection. The evolution you may be speaking of is more of a general belief that overtime life has changed but this change is not determined by the mere chance of natural selection. God may have taken time (can he take time?) to create a human with a mind that was in his image and give this man a soul. In Genisis it reads that Man is made of the dust and clay, could this not be God molding man overtime from the elements of Earth?

I think you miss the actual distinction being made.

Is the transformation of a '64 Mustang to an '05 Mustang evolution? Metaphorically, perhaps, but in actuality it is not *true *evolution. Why? Because even though the different versions of the cars demonstrate a clear link and share similar parts, the cause of their “evolution” was the hand of a creator - or creators - that guided and sustained the change throughout every step of the way.

If the “evolution” of a species is like that of the Mustang, in which an intelligent being guided and sustained the change throughout every step of the way, then it is *not *evolution in the scientific sense. The terms “evolution” and “change” are not synonymous - no one in the history of the world every seriously denied the fact that things in the universe change. Rather, evolution posits the *cause *of change in naturalistic processes. Any form of evolution with God in the equation is only “evolution” in the metaphorical sense, similar to that of the Mustang, but not *true *evolution.

God didn’t set the world on auto-pilot and let it go; that’s never been a Catholic belief.

 

[Orogeny]

mike182d:

God didn’t set the world on auto-pilot and let it go; that’s never been a Catholic belief.

Correct. Now, from a scientific perspective, how do you detect God?

Peace

Tim

 

[Austin_CCD]

Do you mean to suggest a '05 Mustang to be better than a '64?

 

[bengeorge]

ByzCath:

But technically speaking a modified anything is no longer the original, so modified Darwinianism is not Darwinianism.

Guh?

Ok… I technically concede this point.

Darwinianism does not explain complex structures.

And Newtonian physics doesn’t explain Planck level events, and even at less exotic magnitudes straight Newtonianism has been superceeded…

But that doesn’t stop Newtonianism from still being an essential component of modern physics, even if it is highly modified.

And the fact that Darwinianism doens’t explain everything at all magnitudes of biological science doesn’t mean that it isn’t still the foundation of the modern scientific theory of evolution.

Try reading Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J Behe.

I have. I have read ALOT of ID stuff. And while it brought up many interesting points, I realized after awhile that I was basically just taking them at their word when they said “this hasn’t been show by the fossil record” or whatnot.

Please give that book a read: Finding Darwin’s God.

My faith was increased as was my wonder at the amazing universe God has built and sustains for us.

 

[bengeorge]

Austin CCD:

Do you mean to suggest a '05 Mustang to be better than a '64?

Ahah… haha… hahahhahaa…

High five AustinCCD!!!

 

[Austin_CCD]

Thank you bengeorge but I have to admit…it was a cheap shot.