Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please. When you have time, check out the word polygenism with its scientific meaning in Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950. Also, there are some interesting clarifications. One refers to God. In Church speak, this means the same God in the first three amazing chapters of Genesis. The simple sentence, Genesis 1: 18.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
When the Church speaks about polygenism, it refers to true human beings.

A human being is a unity of body and soul, not just a body. Many people do not (refuse to) understand this point.

Natural science informs us of the material world. The soul is not part of that investigation. So it is easily seen that it is permissible to believe that human-like animals existed, with very similar dna, but without souls. These could be parents of Adam.

There is no problem with Church teaching or Scripture in believing this, and the reasonable main stream scientific evidence is tough to refute. (JP2 agrees)
 
The bigger point in this discussion is why this line of investigation is so terrifying to some.
The fear betrays a lack of confidence in the durability of revelation and the full integrity of God’s word.
 
Popularity has nothing to do with it.
Humanii Generiis is not unpopular, it’s misunderstood and taken in isolated context apart from what comes before and after it. It’s cherry picked in fundamentalist manner.

The Church wisely allows science room to breathe and inform us about the world we live in. We should do that also.
In what way is Humani Generis misunderstood? Science tells us nothing about God. It is missing a vital piece of information. The Biology textbook theory leaves no room for any God/gods, and that’s fine, but that still makes it incomplete and incompatible with the Catholic position.

I’d argue that the Church does not allow scientists to do anything. Their “to do” list does not come from the Church 🙂 I mean, knowing what scientists do, it starts with making money first (drug discovery, etc.), the rest gets funding from other sources. People don’t travel to archaeological digs for free and they need food and water, along with other supplies.

Ed
 
Science tells us nothing about God.
It tells us about what God created, and the use of natural reason in what we can learn of creation can itself lead one to knowledge of God.
It is missing a vital piece of information. The Biology textbook theory leaves no room for any God/gods, and that’s fine, but that still makes it incomplete and incompatible with the Catholic position
Scientific inquiry is incompatible with the Catholic position? The study of the quantifiable is not incompatible with God. You go too far.
 
It tells us about what God created, and the use of natural reason in what we can learn of creation can itself lead one to knowledge of God.

Scientific inquiry is incompatible with the Catholic position? The study of the quantifiable is not incompatible with God. You go too far.
👍
If I could paraphrase P Benedict’s Regensburg address:
God has a Logos. Christ is that Logos.
Part of the meaning of Logos is “to be reasonable”. In other words, God has extended himself to us, and by use of our whole selves, we can come to know him. God has an order and a reasonability that is reflected in nature. And, this allows that God is mystery also, and that we will always be in the process of knowing.

The mind uses scientific inquiry to more fully understand and expose the world, and so we surely can more fully experience God’s revealing of himself through science.
God created the world, including us, so…🤷
 
Physically “just like.” They did not have the gift of a rational mind. Perhaps Adam just wasn’t a shallow man and wanted a helpmate with more than a pretty face. 😉

It’s not “unBiblical.”

Anyway, as stated many times, Adam may very well have been separated from others, put in a literal garden, been created out of literal clay, perhaps. The main point is that, after the Fall, the descendants of Adam interbred with the “proto-humans.” Why? To account for the data of genetic diversity we have in our population. Two individuals 6,000 years ago does not explain it.
No proof or explanation of how anyone got the gift, or process, for gaining a rational mind. This concept has been proposed here before and with nothing conclusive.

Why do we have Caucasians, Negros, Orientals, etc, that can all interbreed today? Any confirmed examples of a proto-human?

Ed
 
A human being is a unity of body and soul, not just a body. Many people do not (refuse to) understand this point.

Natural science informs us of the material world. The soul is not part of that investigation. So it is easily seen that it is permissible to believe that human-like animals existed, with very similar dna, but without souls. These could be parents of Adam.
And they could also provide Cain’s wife, Seth’s wife etc. Being biologically compatible, such marriages would be fertile and would avoid incest. Similarly the problem of modern measured genetic diversity – the 10,000 ancestors issue – would be avoided.

rossum
 
And they could also provide Cain’s wife, Seth’s wife etc. Being biologically compatible, such marriages would be fertile and would avoid incest. Similarly the problem of modern measured genetic diversity – the 10,000 ancestors issue – would be avoided.

rossum
Hey, I dunno. There are many scenarios that make sense.
Science is a good thing and it should be embraced along with our faith.
 
👍
If I could paraphrase P Benedict’s Regensburg address:
God has a Logos. Christ is that Logos.
Part of the meaning of Logos is “to be reasonable”. In other words, God has extended himself to us, and by use of our whole selves, we can come to know him.

The mind uses scientific inquiry to more fully understand and expose the world, and so we surely can more fully experience God’s revealing of himself through science.
God created the world, including us, so…🤷
Science does not include the study of God or the supernatural. Catholics are taught that Divine revelation, the Bible, is the way God reveals Himself to us. Science is only a tool primarily designed to make money and solve earthly problems. And I do follow science and what it’s doing on a regular basis.

Ed
 
The Biology textbook theory leaves no room for any God/gods, and that’s fine, but that still makes it incomplete and incompatible with the Catholic position.
Any biology textbook is studying the world that God made. That is just as much a study of God as is the study of the word that God inspired. God’s word agrees with God’s work when both are correctly interpreted. Unless you believe that one of the other was created by Loki/Trickster. If that is the case then all bets are off. 😃

rossum
 
Anyway, the point isn’t to prove it. The point is only to point out how being an orthodox Catholic does not require rejecting modern theory of the evolution of man.
Then why are the following statements in science textbooks about Biology?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Ed
 
No proof or explanation of how anyone got the gift, or process, for gaining a rational mind. This concept has been proposed here before and with nothing conclusive.

Why do we have Caucasians, Negros, Orientals, etc, that can all interbreed today? Any confirmed examples of a proto-human?
God is the explanation for the immortal soul, rational mind, and preternatural gifts. The soul is created by God individually for each person. I brought that up in the other recent topic on this board. The rational mind isn’t an emergent quality of a more powerful brain, at least to my thinking as a Thomist.

I’m confused by the second question. They’re all descended from Adam and Eve. If there were proto-humans, they were entirely supplanted by true humans long ago under this proposal.

And you keep missing the point. The point is not proof that Kemp’s proposal is THE explanation. Nor can it be conclusively tested for. The only point is that if AT LEAST ONE possibility conforms to both Catholic orthodoxy and evolutionary theory, there’s no reason to reject either in favor of the other. There may be other proposals that I haven’t heard of that work just as well. I don’t argue one over the other, merely present that there is no necessary contradiction between orthodoxy and the current scientific consensus.

You’re mistaking narrative for science. Some scientists might put forth an anti-theist narrative for their findings. That doesn’t prove the science wrong. The science can jist as well fit a theist or Catholic narrative.
 
Science does not include the study of God or the supernatural. Catholics are taught that Divine revelation, the Bible, is the way God reveals Himself to us. Science is only a tool primarily designed to make money and solve earthly problems. And I do follow science and what it’s doing on a regular basis.

Ed
This is not Catholic thought.
The bible is one way God reveals himself. Nature is another.
All that exists reveals the creator.

And the fullness of revelation is Christ, not the bible.
 
Then why are the following statements in science textbooks about Biology?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
Ed

Some people take evolution too far and make it their god. But not all that believe the evidence favors God creating life via evolution go too far. Saying these statements show evolution to be 100% incompatible with Catholic faith is kind of like a Protestant taking quotes on Mary from the Collyridians and saying those show how honoring Mary is 100% incompatible with Christian faith. The key is realizing that non-Catholic texts are not going to 100% compatible with Catholic doctrine, but still realizing they may have some truth to them. Kind of like how a Protestant book would be compatible with Catholic doctrine on some issues, but need to be taken with a grain of salt on other issues.
 
Then why are the following statements in science textbooks about Biology?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
In addition to what I said about narrative, I suppose this is a bit of a problem for the believer in Intelligent Design. Granted, as a Thomist, I don’t take much issue with the idea of blind chance and randomness from a quantifiable standpoint. It’s the conclusions one draws from that data that are potentially at issue.

If we have free will and God knows exactly what we’re going to do in His eternity, I’ve no qualms with accepting that God made a quantifiably random, undirected (by all measurements) process in which He knew the intended results. It’s the difference between (a) seeing God as something separate and outside existence reaching in and tinkering and nudging and designing in time, and (b) accepting Him as creating in one act from all eternity and His act of creation being the composition of existence and essence, and matter and form, and act and potentiality, and ultimately holding natural processes as operating according to their ends.
 
Catholics are taught that Divine revelation, the Bible, is the way God reveals Himself to us.
One way, not the only way. Adding in an only is actually heresy, to my knowledge.
Science is only a tool primarily designed to make money and solve earthly problems. And I do follow science and what it’s doing on a regular basis.
There needs to be a washing of hands emoji.
 
This is not Catholic thought.
The bible is one way God reveals himself. Nature is another.
All that exists reveals the creator.

And the fullness of revelation is Christ, not the bible.
The Bible is called the Word of God. How do we know about Christ and why He was born, lived and died? Yes, God is revealed to many by what He has created but that’s nonsense to a lot of people. Nature only “looks” like it was designed. It wasn’t. Richard Dawkins, a Biologist, will tell you that.

Ed
 
Yes there is a problem. A scientific one, The Darwinian model has fallen. They are struggling to explain and come to grips with the deep programming of the cell.
 
And you keep missing the point. The point is not proof that Kemp’s proposal is THE explanation. Nor can it be conclusively tested for. The only point is that if AT LEAST ONE possibility conforms to both Catholic orthodoxy and evolutionary theory, there’s no reason to reject either in favor of the other. There may be other proposals that I haven’t heard of that work just as well. I don’t argue one over the other, merely present that there is no necessary contradiction between orthodoxy and the current scientific consensus.
As an alternative, God creates Adam’s body directly from clay/dust/earth and supplies it with a soul. Eve is created from Adam’s rib and also supplied with a soul. God creates his new pair of true humans with DNA that is compatible with previously existing unsouled proto-humans. Adam and Eve’s children can marry the local proto-humans and have fertile offspring because their DNA is compatible. God supplies those offspring – Adam and Eve’s grandchildren – with human souls. All persons with human souls are descended from both Adam and Eve because they are their grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc.

That scenario is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence and appears to me not to contradict reasonable interpretations of Genesis.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top