Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

I’m not sure how that squares with Pope Benedict’s statement on the fact of evolution.

How do you think it does?

 

[anthony022071]

You didn’t read it, did you? Here’s what I quote just before that section:
"This concept of man’s rule or sovereignty plays an important role in Christian theology. God appoints man as his steward in the manner of the master in the Gospel parables (cf. Luke 19:12). The only creature willed expressly by God for his own sake occupies a unique place at the summit of visible creation (Gen 1:26; 2:20; Ps 8:6-7; Wisdom 9:2-3)"

Those things are true. But what the heck does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

You’re having trouble reconciling these two facts. But the Pope understands it.

The pope doesn’t even make an attempt to “reconcile” the belief in Creation with the theory of evolution – the theory explains the origin of life forms in terms of natural selection.
The whole point of the document is to re-affirm the Catholic view,not to reconcile it with the theory of evolution.

Yes, that’s what he discovered.

That’s not much of a discovery. Jews and Catholics have always known that God creates from his reason. Christ is the Logos,and through him all things were made.

There were many theories of evolution, as scientists began to realize that forms of organisms had changed over time. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection made it clear that it was not by chance.

The natural selection of evolutionary theory boils down to chance,no matter which way you cut it. If there is no reason or will involved in natural processes,then there is only chance and necessity.

He acknowledges the truth of evolution. What more do you want to read into it?

He doesn’t acknowledge the claim of evolutionary theory that life forms are produced through natural selection. He affirms the Catholic view that God is always the Creator and always the cause of life. That fundamentally contradicts evolution theory.

< 68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. >

 

[Memaw]

The Church has had dissenters before. Neither Ed nor Anthony, nor Memaw is likely to overthrow the magisterium.

Hopefully, this won’t estrange them further from the Church.

I’m not trying to, I love the Magisterium. Nor will I ever be estranged from the Church. Don’t sweat it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You should have noticed that the whole point of the document was to re-affirm the Catholic teaching on Creation and the “special creation” of man. How could you have missed that?

Barbarian observes:
You didn’t read it, did you? Here’s what I quote just before that section:
"This concept of man’s rule or sovereignty plays an important role in Christian theology. God appoints man as his steward in the manner of the master in the Gospel parables (cf. Luke 19:12). The only creature willed expressly by God for his own sake occupies a unique place at the summit of visible creation (Gen 1:26; 2:20; Ps 8:6-7; Wisdom 9:2-3)"

Those things are true.

So are these, also from his statement:
"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."

Are you willing to accept all of the teaching, or are you another cafeteria Catholic, taking what you like, and rejecting what you don’t?

But what the heck does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

Perhaps you forgot what you asked me. I restored the context to remind you.

Barbarian observes:
You’re having trouble reconciling these two facts. But the Pope understands it.

The pope doesn’t even make an attempt to “reconcile” the belief in Creation with the theory of evolution

No need, really. It’s rather obvious for Catholics.

the theory explains the origin of life forms in terms of natural selection.

Nope. Maybe you should go and learn what it’s about, first?

The whole point of the document is to re-affirm the Catholic view,not to reconcile it with the theory of evolution.

Turns out to be the same thing, in this case. As he says, common descent, (the most ambition claim of evolutionary theory) is “virtually certain.” He acknoweledges the huge body of evidence showing that it is.

Barbarian observes:
Yes, that’s what he discovered. There were many theories of evolution, as scientists began to realize that forms of organisms had changed over time. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection made it clear that it was not by chance.

That’s not much of a discovery.

It became the foundation of biology. The discovery of the means by which common descent happened was the single greatest discovery in biology.

The natural selection of evolutionary theory boils down to chance,no matter which way you cut it.

Nope. If you don’t understand what the theory says, how can you hope to fight it?

Barbarian observes:
He (the Pope) acknowledges the truth of evolution. What more do you want to read into it?

He doesn’t acknowledge the claim of evolutionary theory that life forms are produced through natural selection.

He merely points out that the claims of the theory of natural selection have been verified. And he also points out that the sort of contingency involved in natural selection is not inconsistent with God’s creation:

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency."

He affirms the Catholic view that God is always the Creator and always the cause of life. That fundamentally contradicts evolution theory.

As I said, if you actually knew what evoutionary theory was, you’d be more effective fighting it. It’s not about the cause of life. The Pope knows this; it’s one of the reasons he accepts evolution as consistent with our faith. You reject his teaching because you don’t know this.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I love the Magisterium.

But not enough to accept all of it. You can’t pick and chose, if you want to be a Catholic.

 

[Memaw]

So even if plumbing doesn’t involve God, it’s still part of God’s creation? Now apply that to science. You’ve opened the door just a crack to the truth. Now let it in.

The crack is for you to see in, Science has its place, I think we all know that, but when it tries to make something out of nothing, (creation without GOD) they are trying to take over Gods job. Can’t be done. EVERYTHING involves God.

 

[Memaw]

But not enough to accept all of it. You can’t pick and chose, if you want to be a Catholic.

Evolution is NOT part of the doctrine of Faith. Read the Credo to The People of God.

 

[Wolseley]

Folks, don’t let Barbarian lead you down the garden path with all his talk of “Church teaching” regarding evolution. In the scale of Catholic teaching, only the Apostolic Deposit and defined Dogma are infallible; Barbarian would have you believe that his version of evolution was put forth in an ex cathedra statement from the Pope (“After all, he said it was ‘virtually certain’, didn’t he!”)

Well, actually, no, he didn’t—the Pope never said that. The actual phrase in question that Barbarian likes to flog so hard is actually found in a document issued in 2004 by the International Theological Commission entitled “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.” The Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was president of the commission) merely approved the document. (You can read the whole thing here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html Check the names at the bottom of the document. Ratzinger’s name does not appear among those who actually wrote the document.)

So, what this boils down to is that this is not an infallible teaching by any means, and in fact, it doesn’t even really approach the level of Doctrine. It’s an opinion put forth by a team of theologians, and it has just about as much weight as any other opinion put forth by a team of theologians, such as limbo----and we all know what happened to that one, don’t we?

If you want further clarification on these topics, here’s a good basic link: ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp This will also give you the names and dates of the various statements about evolution made by Pope John Paul II as well, so you can Google the documents and actually read them in context.

Here’s another good analysis that clarifies what was actually said and what wasn’t: cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Evolution/Evolution.htm

Bottom line: whenever Barbarian starts in talking about “Church teaching” or statements made by the Pope, just remember what Aretha Franklin once so wisely observed: “It ain’t necessarily so”.

 

[Memaw]

Can I stick my oar in and say that since all creatures and presumably all the physics and chemistry to create their environments were created by God through Christ, as it were as a light passing through a lens or a filter, then its hardly news that apparently diverse things are closely related. Evolution is strangely reversed with the Christ figure as the original first organism formed - through which atoms, molecules, physical laws, and creatures descend.

Run that by me one more time, doesn’t make sense to me.

Christ is not a filter, HE is the Word Made Flesh.
In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with GOD and the WORD was GOD, everything that was made was made thru HIM. Without HIM, was made nothing that has been made. And the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.
Lets see if you can explain that one scientifically.

 

[ricmat]

Folks, don’t let Barbarian lead you down the garden path with all his talk of “Church teaching” regarding evolution. In the scale of Catholic teaching, only the Apostolic Deposit and defined Dogma are infallible; Barbarian would have you believe that his version of evolution was put forth in an ex cathedra statement from the Pope (“After all, he said it was ‘virtually certain’, didn’t he!”)

Well, actually, no, he didn’t—the Pope never said that. The actual phrase in question that Barbarian likes to flog so hard is actually found in a document issued in 2004 by the International Theological Commission entitled “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.” The Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was president of the commission) merely approved the document. (You can read the whole thing here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html Check the names at the bottom of the document. Ratzinger’s name does not appear among those who actually wrote the document.)

So, what this boils down to is that this is not an infallible teaching by any means, and in fact, it doesn’t even really approach the level of Doctrine. It’s an opinion put forth by a team of theologians, and it has just about as much weight as any other opinion put forth by a team of theologians, such as limbo----and we all know what happened to that one, don’t we?

If you want further clarification on these topics, here’s a good basic link: ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp This will also give you the names and dates of the various statements about evolution made by Pope John Paul II as well, so you can Google the documents and actually read them in context.

Here’s another good analysis that clarifies what was actually said and what wasn’t: cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Evolution/Evolution.htm

Bottom line: whenever Barbarian starts in talking about “Church teaching” or statements made by the Pope, just remember what Aretha Franklin once so wisely observed: “It ain’t necessarily so”.

Thanks for this information, Wolseley.

 

[Memaw]

Folks, don’t let Barbarian lead you down the garden path with all his talk of “Church teaching” regarding evolution. In the scale of Catholic teaching, only the Apostolic Deposit and defined Dogma are infallible; Barbarian would have you believe that his version of evolution was put forth in an ex cathedra statement from the Pope (“After all, he said it was ‘virtually certain’, didn’t he!”)

Well, actually, no, he didn’t—the Pope never said that. The actual phrase in question that Barbarian likes to flog so hard is actually found in a document issued in 2004 by the International Theological Commission entitled “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.” The Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was president of the commission) merely approved the document. (You can read the whole thing here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html Check the names at the bottom of the document. Ratzinger’s name does not appear among those who actually wrote the document.)

So, what this boils down to is that this is not an infallible teaching by any means, and in fact, it doesn’t even really approach the level of Doctrine. It’s an opinion put forth by a team of theologians, and it has just about as much weight as any other opinion put forth by a team of theologians, such as limbo----and we all know what happened to that one, don’t we?

If you want further clarification on these topics, here’s a good basic link: ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp This will also give you the names and dates of the various statements about evolution made by Pope John Paul II as well, so you can Google the documents and actually read them in context.

Here’s another good analysis that clarifies what was actually said and what wasn’t: cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Evolution/Evolution.htm

Bottom line: whenever Barbarian starts in talking about “Church teaching” or statements made by the Pope, just remember what Aretha Franklin once so wisely observed: “It ain’t necessarily so”.

Thanks, Wolseley, we knew he was way off base all along, some people just want to try to stir things up with their bag tricks. Seems theres one, (at least), on every thread. If he wants to think he came from a monkey, thats OK with me, I’ll throw him a banana once in awhile.

 

[Memaw]

Barbarian observes:
You didn’t read it, did you? Here’s what I quote just before that section:
"This concept of man’s rule or sovereignty plays an important role in Christian theology. God appoints man as his steward in the manner of the master in the Gospel parables (cf. Luke 19:12). The only creature willed expressly by God for his own sake occupies a unique place at the summit of visible creation (Gen 1:26; 2:20; Ps 8:6-7; Wisdom 9:2-3)"

So are these, also from his statement:
"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."

Are you willing to accept all of the teaching, or are you another cafeteria Catholic, taking what you like, and rejecting what you don’t?

Perhaps you forgot what you asked me. I restored the context to remind you.

Barbarian observes:
You’re having trouble reconciling these two facts. But the Pope understands it.

No need, really. It’s rather obvious for Catholics.

Nope. Maybe you should go and learn what it’s about, first?

Turns out to be the same thing, in this case. As he says, common descent, (the most ambition claim of evolutionary theory) is “virtually certain.” He acknoweledges the huge body of evidence showing that it is.

Barbarian observes:
Yes, that’s what he discovered. There were many theories of evolution, as scientists began to realize that forms of organisms had changed over time. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection made it clear that it was not by chance.

It became the foundation of biology. The discovery of the means by which common descent happened was the single greatest discovery in biology.

Nope. If you don’t understand what the theory says, how can you hope to fight it?

Barbarian observes:
He (the Pope) acknowledges the truth of evolution. What more do you want to read into it?

He merely points out that the claims of the theory of natural selection have been verified. And he also points out that the sort of contingency involved in natural selection is not inconsistent with God’s creation:

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency."

As I said, if you actually knew what evoutionary theory was, you’d be more effective fighting it. It’s not about the cause of life. The Pope knows this; it’s one of the reasons he accepts evolution as consistent with our faith. You reject his teaching because you don’t know this.

Barbarian,

My Mom used to say that some people like to talk just to hear their head rattle.

 

[Al_Masetti]

On BookTV today, Sunday 24 Feb 2008:

John West discussing his book, “Darwin Day in America”

Extremely interesting if you’re interested in the evolution debate.

It can also be viewed for a while on

www.booktv.org

 

[reggieM]

Right – the popes have made it clear both that we are products of evolution, and that we are not meaningless products of evolution. Why is the difference so difficult for you to grasp?

This comment strikes me as contradictory and your question appears defensive and perhaps a bit angry.

In your previous post, you were joking about how evolution is as God-neutral and lacking in philosophical import as auto mechanics (or Barbarian’s pet-idea, as plumbing).

You’re claiming now that evolution is an indication of “meaning”. Again, you haven’t explained how auto mechanics show meaning in this way, but you also think this is so obvious that you’re surprised that I can’t “grasp” the topic.

You’ve gone on to explain …

Look around you at the beauty and intricacy of the world, produced over 3.5 billion years through evolution. I wouldn’t call that meaningless at all!

Again, you offer almost nothing here except a cryptic comment about “the beauty and intricacy of the world”.

Intelligent Design looks at this beauty and intricacy and attempts to evaluate it through scientific analysis. Is this beauty and intricacy something you can explain or prove scientifically? Is it an illusion of some kind? Is it an indication of God’s hand in the creation of the universe? If so, that is the foundation of intelligent design theory – namely, that the “beauty and intricacy” of the world which you’re urging me to look at, is evident to observers and is something that indicates meaning, design and the work of our creator. Again, you offer nothing of explanation but merely state that this “beauty and intricacy” is something I can observe, and as such it indicates “meaning”.

There is no consistency with your argument at this point.

Some Darwinists claim that the beauty and intricacy are an illusion and that we are merely looking at the result of an accidental, purposeless, blind natural process.

Biologist Kenneth Miller has decided that since “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random" that scientists should claim that evolution actually produces “design”.

That design is either an illusion or it is the product of a designer.

 

[reggieM]

“Darwin Day in America”

I read that recently. It’s a great book.
Thanks for the post on the booktv link. I want to watch that also.

 

[reggieM]

This is an excellent article by Fr. Hilbert of the Toronto Oratory.

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-05-028-f

Evolution, on the other hand, says something about the origin of man, and in this way can, at least in theory, conflict with religious dogma. And so, although the Catholic Church seldom speaks about scientific theories, from time to time it breaks the silence to address the question of biological evolution. It does so when it perceives that some Catholics accept as true a scientific theory that denies some important Christian teaching about man and his origins.

In other words, evolution says something about the origin of man and therefore any comparisons with things like plumbing or automechanics are completely mistaken.

The church does not pretend to give scientific answers to biological questions. But it does point out that some Darwinist claims are mere materialist metaphysics pretending to be science, because it knows that were it to remain silent on a truth—the nature of man—that has been entrusted to it by God, that truth would soon disappear, only to be replaced by the ever-changing dogmas of a materialist science.

Recently the topic of evolution and the church became newsworthy again. First, Benedict XVI chose to mention evolution in the homily of his inaugural Mass as pope: “Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

It was as though he were directly responding to a Darwinist dogma put most clearly in the widely read Meaning of Evolution : “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” That the new pope should mention the theory in such an important context shows that he thinks that it can be taken to have a tremendous (and pernicious) influence on man’s understanding of himself and his relation to God.

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.

This was a shot across the bow of the Darwinists and was treated as such, with much huffing and puffing, and hurry, scurry, and worry about a supposed new divide between faith and science. (In the context, the opinionators made it obvious that faith is permitted to exist as a pleasant illusion in a universe that looks for all the world like a meaningless, material entity. Any bold move to reaffirm traditional Christian teaching about the universe in a serious way is treated as an assault on science.)

 

[The_Barbarian]

My Mom used to say that some people like to talk just to hear their head rattle.

My Mom used to say that people who didn’t know what they’re talking about, are pretty much limited to spite.

Wise lady, my Mom.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Folks, don’t let Barbarian lead you down the garden path with all his talk of “Church teaching” regarding evolution. In the scale of Catholic teaching, only the Apostolic Deposit and defined Dogma are infallible; Barbarian would have you believe that his version of evolution was put forth in an ex cathedra statement from the Pope (“After all, he said it was ‘virtually certain’, didn’t he!”)

No, you made that up Wolseley. No one here said that. All that you have to accept from the Church is that evolution is consistent with our faith. You can still reject it, so long as you don’t pretend that it is contradictory to Christian belief or that it is denied by the magisterium.

Well, actually, no, he didn’t—the Pope never said that.

And the Barbarian never said that he did. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

The actual phrase in question that Barbarian likes to flog so hard is actually found in a document issued in 2004 by the International Theological Commission entitled “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.” The Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was president of the commission) merely approved the document. (You can read the whole thing here: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…rdship_en.html Check the names at the bottom of the document. Ratzinger’s name does not appear among those who actually wrote the document.)

Ratzinger was the chairman of the commission, and approved its contents before allowing it to be published. Another Wolseley moment, um?

Are you going again to tell us to go buy a book by the people who are promoting “Krishna Consciousness?” How exactly does Hare Krishna fit into Roman Catholicism?

Bottom line: whenever Barbarian starts in talking about “Church teaching” or statements made by the Pope, just remember what Aretha Franklin once so wisely observed: “It ain’t necessarily so”.

I know it infuriates you when people show you what Cardinal Ratzinger said about evolution. And probably you aren’t too happy with John Paul II, who also asserted that it is “more than just a theory.” He wasn’t the first Pope to acknowledge evolution as being consistent with Catholicism.

Given these facts, it’s understandable that you’re trying to make the best of it. And you seem to be still a bit angry that I pointed out you were peddling a Hindu doctrine here, at the same time you were denying the statements of the Popes on evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In other words, evolution says something about the origin of man and therefore any comparisons with things like plumbing or automechanics are completely mistaken.

Sorry, you’ve been misled again. Like plumbing, evolution is methodologicaly naturalistic. Which means it can’t say anything at all about God.

The only difference is that it doesn’t personally threaten you that hydraulics doesn’t need God but it does bother you that evolution can explain the diversity of living things entirely in naturalistic terms.

And it seems to positively infuriate you that evolutionary theory can say nothing at all about the spiritual side of humans, neither to deny nor to support it.

But as the Pope says, if science tries to do this, it has left its proper area of competence. This is another way you reject the teaching of the Church.

 

[elt1956]

Hello all. Just got this email from a friend and JUST HAD to share. Enjoy!

A little girl asked her mother, “How did the human race come about?”
The mother answered: “God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made.”
Two days later she asks her father the same question. The father answered: “Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them.”

The confused girl returns to her mother and says:“Mom, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God and Papa says we developed from monkeys?”

The mother answers: “Well dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your father told you about his.”