Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

[reggieM]

It might be in the nature of a substance itself to “act” in a probabilistic, random way (radioactive decay). That does not exclude God having knowledge of the results, and of certain results being intended oberall even though it is not in the nature of a thing to produce those results specifically.

That seems right to me. God creates things that act as if they are random - they appear that way to human beings because God wants us to know the difference between randomness and design. To know random is to compare it with design. That’s how we see God’s presence and intelligence and love coming into our lives. He is non-random, and in fact, he protects us from what would be randomness. But yes, God creates things like decay or clouds and rainfall that appear random. No debate here from me on this.

However, what is usually said in these cases is that “God does not alter or intervene in any way in nature”. So, a thing that has the nature of random disorder (decay), God will never intervene in that. This, of course, is a denial of the resurrection of Christ where a dead body did not decay. But that’s the problem, as I see it, with the idea that God does not exist and interact in temporal reality. God is not subject to nature and can and does transcend it, even in the present moment. He can do this occasionally (observed miracles), right? Well, if so - how often, precisely can He or does He do these kinds of interventions? Some will say “never”. In fact, a CA apologist once claimed flatly in an official Catholic Answers statement on evolution that “God does not intervene in nature”.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8795

“God does not intervene into nature nor does he adjust or “fix up” natural things.”

He doesn’t create a machine, walk away, then come back and tinker with it. He’s always there sustaining the natural order.

The Holy Scripture speaks of God coming closer to us or moving farther away. God acts in ways more evident to us and less evident. God turns away from some and turns towards others. God does, in fact, tinker by gradually teaching his creatures one thing, then another. He adjusts and changes our own reality quite a lot – especially as we improve and grow closer to him in prayer and ask Him for help.

The Holy Bible teaches that God is our Father and that he knit the universe like a tent and wraps himself in light as with a garment.

These are ways we can form our minds on what God really is and what he does in the universe. This is how the Sacred Word teaches us. God makes himself known to us by evidence of His presence in the world.

Knowing God in this way - especially as the inspired Word teaches us, is the best, most essential knowledge we can have.

Science is important, yes. So is much of pagan philosophy. But none of that can be compared with God’s revelation.

 

[grannymh]

As argued elsewhere on CAF …

It’s either Chance (blind, unguided) or Design (purposeful).

There’s no third option.

Some may say “non-random physical laws” but those are another form of “Non-Design” and are also blind and unguided with regards to purpose (they are non-teleological).

Please. What are the options in the basic evolution theory?

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, when we are talking about the basic evolution theory, there is a difference between humankind and none-human creatures. One is in the spiritual world and the other is in the material world. There are not any doctrines regarding the nature of DNA because the decomposing human anatomy is in the material world.

 

[goout]

In the Catholic Church, when we are talking about the basic evolution theory, there is a difference between humankind and none-human creatures. One is in the spiritual world and the other is in the material world. There are not any doctrines regarding the nature of DNA because the decomposing human anatomy is in the material world.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the whole man, a unity of body and soul.
Non-humans do not possess a rational soul.

There are no doctrines about dna because science is not doctrine, not because humans decompose. We are never merely part of the material world to the exclusion of the spiritual.

 

[buffalo]

It might be in the nature of a substance itself to “act” in a probabilistic, random way (radioactive decay). That does not exclude God having knowledge of the results, and of certain results being intended oberall even though it is not in the nature of a thing to produce those results specifically.

.

The observer is granted the power to change the outcome. God has to deal with the bad effects of the observer and tinker as you say. Or does He just let it all slide? Is that the Noahic covenant and promise? No more intervening? Just let it go?

I wonder about the quantum effects of individual prayer as well as mass prayer. Our Lady exhorts us to continuously pray the rosary. When we do, does God give a certain power over the path of creation?

 

[buffalo]

In the Catholic Church, when we are talking about the basic evolution theory, there is a difference between humankind and none-human creatures. One is in the spiritual world and the other is in the material world. There are not any doctrines regarding the nature of DNA because the decomposing human anatomy is in the material world.

The language of DNA contains information which transcends the material world.

 

[goout]

The language of DNA contains information which transcends the material world.

 

[buffalo]

Please. What are the options in the basic evolution theory?

Options? It is limited to adaptation and survival. It has no creative power. Life is designed to adapt, survive and flourish. The information, (the programming) came from a mind.

 

[buffalo]

I wonder in this scheme of things, where is the room for mystery? If you don’t leave room for mystery in regard to God, you have built yourself an idol. (paraphrasing Augustine, I think).

What might seem to be random might be part of a plan you cannot discern. To remove mystery from man’s perception of the universe is to veer off into idolatry. Oddly enough, it’s the same mindset as scientism.

Since you mentioned St Augustine - here is what he wrote:

Here is St Augustine on prime matter:

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.

 

[goout]

Since you mentioned St Augustine - here is what he wrote:

Here is St Augustine on prime matter:

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.

Before an Intelligent Discussion (pun intended) can be had, will you accept that Augustine spoke and thought without benefit of current scientific discovery?

And can you elaborate on this statement about how DNA is transcendent? Do you mean that it points us to the transcendence of God, as all of creation does? Or do you mean something more?

Originally Posted by buffalo View Post
The language of DNA contains information which transcends the material world.

 

[buffalo]

Before an Intelligent Discussion (pun intended) can be had, will you accept that Augustine spoke and thought without benefit of current scientific discovery?

And can you elaborate on this statement about how DNA is transcendent? Do you mean that it points us to the transcendence of God, as all of creation does? Or do you mean something more?

I made a distinction between the DNA molecule (material) and the DNA Language.
Language and codes always originate from a mind. I submit, the DNA language came from the mind of God as was spoken at the creation event.

 

[reggieM]

I am not talking about God being surprised or blind-sided,

This is good to hear.

Unfortunately, some prominent Catholics who believe in Darwinian evolution don’t agree with your reasonable view here.

For example, former Vatican astronomer George Coyne claims that “not even God could know… with certainty” that “human life would come to be.” “The Dance of the Fertile Universe,” p. 7] And biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that “Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected” and flatly denies that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result–including the development of human beings. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), pp. 244, 272]
Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings. [Quoted in West, Darwin Day in America, p. 226]
Similar claims that God doesn’t know or guide the specific outcomes of evolution can be found in the writings of Georgetown University theologian John Haught.
evolutionnews.org/2009/06/god_and_evolution_a_response_t_1/

Why would they say such a thing - that God didn’t know what evolution would produce?
Well, they have to defend unguided, non-directed evolution. Supposedly, mutations are simply random with no direction from God, so combined with natural selection - nobody, even God Himself supposedly would know if human beings would ultimately result.

This is the kind of insanity people will seriously claim.

 

[buffalo]

This is good to hear.

Unfortunately, some prominent Catholics who believe in Darwinian evolution don’t agree with your reasonable view here.

Why would they say such a thing - that God didn’t know what evolution would produce?
Well, they have to defend unguided, non-directed evolution. Supposedly, mutations are simply random with no direction from God, so combined with natural selection - nobody, even God Himself supposedly would know if human beings would ultimately result.

This is the kind of insanity people will seriously claim.

He was replaced shortly after.

 

[grannymh]

Apparently, there is a difficulty finding the Catholic problem with basic evolution theory. Perhaps not accepting reality in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis is the reason for not getting to the heart of this thread’s question.

Would it be possible for the posters to declare if they believe in a literal Adam?
If that is too personal, I apologize.

Nonetheless, the Catholic teaching that Eve and Adam are not part of normal evolution keeps causing an intersection with the Science of Human Evolution. Therefore, I do wonder what the posters actually accept as truth.

 

[rossum]

Then it cannot be blind, unguided or chance by definition.

Why not? A game designer does not want her game to be exactly the same every play-through. If, in the third scene, the Orc is always behind the second rock, then the game will soon become dull. If there is an element of chance included in the design, then the Orc may be behind any of the four rocks, behind the tree or hiding in the shadows. That makes for a better game, and includes an element of chance in the design. Even something as simple as a kaleidoscope includes an element of chance in the arrangement of the coloured pieces between the mirrors.

You are unnecessarily limiting your designer. Chance is a perfectly valid element of some designs.

rossum

 

[goout]

Apparently, there is a difficulty finding the Catholic problem with basic evolution theory. Perhaps not accepting reality in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis is the reason for not getting to the heart of this thread’s question.

Would it be possible for the posters to declare if they believe in a literal Adam?
If that is too personal, I apologize.

Nonetheless, the Catholic teaching that Eve and Adam are not part of normal evolution keeps causing an intersection with the Science of Human Evolution. Therefore, I do wonder what the posters actually accept as truth.

Are you able to accept the commonly held view of many Scripture scholars that Genesis is Inspired poetry rather than scientific documentation?

Are you able to accept that God breathed a soul into the first human beings, and at the same time Genesis is not a history book?
Or is God not able to do that?

What is “normal evolution”? I think you are using that as a catch phrase to cast all of science into a tiny box, making it easy to refute. That’s also called “straw man”.

 

[grannymh]

In the blur of this great thread, has anyone considered Genesis 1: 28?

At some future point, I do hope that it is recognized that the “Catholic problem” refers to the beginning of humankind instead of “atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.” Catholic Answers Daily, May 31, 2017, Stacy Trasancos, article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

Obviously, one of the major Catholic Problems is the Designer or Creator etc. issues. I have no problem with those posts or any posts describing our gift of natural science. Eventually, I hope, people will get around to the Catholic doctrine issues which are missing in the Catholic Answers Daily article mentioned above.

It is very important to pay attention to the Catholic doctrines that are naturally included in these words of Pope Pius XII.
Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Paragraph 37
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

 

[Aloysium]

Are you able to accept the commonly held view of many Scripture scholars that Genesis is Inspired poetry rather than scientific documentation?

Are you able to accept that God breathed a soul into the first human beings, and at the same time Genesis is not a history book?
Or is God not able to do that?

What is “normal evolution”? I think you are using that as a catch phrase to cast all of science into a tiny box, making it easy to refute. That’s also called “straw man”.

I’m not sure what you are getting at. Of science one could ask, “Are you able to accept that much of science is empirically inspired mathematics?” The mathematics seeks to describe the underlying structure of appearances. Genesis is poetic, but it also tells us of the how the ontological structure of the universe came to be in time. I believe it is historically valid. It is the truth, but requires the grace of the Holy Spirit to discern its meaning. The use of the term “normal evolution” I understood to mean as referring to what is touted in the media and often simplistically taught in schools. The problem that arises is not between religion and science, but between superficial, closed-minded and materialistic secular dogma passed off as science to justify it, and the revealed truth of the Triune Godhead’s relationship with His creation.

 

[reggieM]

Why not? A game designer does not want her game to be exactly the same every play-through. If, in the third scene, the Orc is always behind the second rock, then the game will soon become dull. If there is an element of chance included in the design, then the Orc may be behind any of the four rocks, behind the tree or hiding in the shadows. That makes for a better game, and includes an element of chance in the design. Even something as simple as a kaleidoscope includes an element of chance in the arrangement of the coloured pieces between the mirrors.

You are unnecessarily limiting your designer. Chance is a perfectly valid element of some designs.

rossum

God created the universe with what appears to us as random elements. But to Him, there can be no chance in the design. Chance means unpredictable. God cannot be surprised - because to be surprised by a result means to be ignorant about what will happen.
To us, there is mystery and chance - God made it that way. But we are ignorant of the future and we don’t know how all the aspects of the universe work. So, things appear random.
God created the game of life so human beings would discover Him and learn to love Him above anything else. Because God is All Good. There is nothing that has any good in it at all that did not come from Him - and which is not supremely more perfect and complete in Him.
So, it’s best for all people to find God, draw near to Him and seek Him.
Chance and accident and randomness are all built into the universe to help us recognize His guidance (His order and design) in contrast to what would be disorder and chance.
If everything was random, we wouldn’t know it.
We know what design is because we can compare it with randomness. God made it that way. We know what good is because we can contrast with evil - it’s the same kind of thing.

 

[reggieM]

He was replaced shortly after.

Yes, that was a good indication that he was teaching falsely. The Church cannot accept that notion of the blind watchmaker, even though that is the consensus view in academia today.