Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

[grannymh]

?
What? Do you have a rebuttal?

 

[goout]

The Science of Human Evolution does not omit the sequence of large populations evolving from previous large polygenesis populations.

My apology. I cannot find my favorite Google chart. However, I am sure that Google can locate another line of ancestry for modern Homo sapiens.

What you fail to see is that when the Church speaks about polygenism we do not simply refer to the material processes in regard to human existence. By polygenism is meant true humans. This is the langauge used by Pius.
A true human is a unity of body and soul. This point has been made ad nauseum and yet…

A human being is not reducible to his DNA, and his DNA does not speak some sort of transcendent language as has been asserted, any more than any part of created nature speaks the transcendent.

Human being is body and soul
If:

1. Body existing without a soul = not human
   no matter how much it “looks like” a human through dna or appearance.
   2)Soul without a body = no such thing.
   Catholic doctrine.

Note that nowhere does the Church claim that bodies did not exist before true human beings.

 

[reggieM]

And a Catholic needs to be able to do this, using empirical evidence, observation, science, reason.
“Look at your body, look at how we are made, look at the reality of your being and how you got here.” You can’t make this case to a non-believer merely with the assertions of scripture, because people don’t understand it. You are going to have to engage the whole person, and that includes reason (of which science is part).

This is the whole point of the Gospel, to communicate the good news. Communication has to have “logos”, or reason-ability if it is going to flow out to others and not remain a comfortable sanctuary.

I think we would all fully agree here with these good thoughts. But I think the problem very often is scientism - the exaggerated belief that reason-alone is sufficient for an understanding of the origin of human beings, of the universe, of moral norms, of purpose of life. That’s the standard view.

To point to the Holy Scripture as an authoritative source is not fundamentalism.

Yes, as you said " the culture does not accept our assertions of faith" - but this does not mean we must be silent about the demands of faith and the presence of God. We have to talk about that which transcends mere human reason. We have to go beyond science. Yes, reason is necessary and science is a good tool. But those don’t take us far enough.

Evolutionary theory, in the consensus view, is given as an alternative to a divine order. It’s a creation-myth of it’s own, presented as if it is the voice or reason and intelligence. But that’s an illusion and exaggeration.

The evolutionary story is that mankind evolved, via undirected, blind mutations and natural selection beginning from bacteria. In fact, the entire biosphere in earth supposedly evolved from bacteria. All trees, animals, insects, flowers, fish and human beings came - by accidental chance mutations, from the same bacteria. In this scenario, there was no creation by God.

That’s the false notion that has to be refuted - and we can use reason to refute that, but the Holy Scripture should also be used especially when talking with fellow-believers who may have been mistaken about the evolutionary story.

 

[reggieM]

DNA does not speak some sort of transcendent language

DNA is a language. True or False?

Languages cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent, undirected processes. True or False?

That which does not emerge from a natural, undirected process is transcendent to material nature. True or False?

 

[grannymh]

My sincere apology to our Gentle Readers

Apparently, I have the wrong title for the topic I would like to discuss.

The response to this thread is very interesting. So I hope it continues. However, I am leaving the thread. Maybe in the future there will be CAF participants who will understand and will reply accordingly in a better titled thread. I can wait.

Blessings,
granny

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[goout]

DNA is a language. True or False?

Languages cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent, undirected processes. True or False?

DNA is not a language as is human speech.
And DNA is not a special language of God any more than the totality of creation, which all points us to the creator. DNA is part of creation, not some sort of magic.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

To point to the Holy Scripture as an authoritative source is not fundamentalism.

“Authoritative source” of what? If you’re looking to scripture for a scientific explanation, you won’t find it. If you do think scripture gives a ‘scientific’ explanation, then, yes, that’s fundamentalism.

Evolutionary theory, in the consensus view, is given as an alternative to a divine order. It’s a creation-myth of it’s own, presented as if it is the voice or reason and intelligence. But that’s an illusion and exaggeration.

Where do you get that? Again, if you’re taking a literalist, fundamentalist point of view, then yes, the theory of evolution would oppose that. But although you’re free as a Catholic to hold that point of view if you want to, that’s not Catholic doctrine. And yes, there are some atheists who believe that evolution can operate without God, but that doesn’t mean that the theory itself is necessarily atheistic.

The evolutionary story is that mankind evolved, via undirected, blind mutations and natural selection beginning from bacteria. In fact, the entire biosphere in earth supposedly evolved from bacteria. All trees, animals, insects, flowers, fish and human beings came - by accidental chance mutations, from the same bacteria. In this scenario, there was no creation by God.

Who created the blind mutations, the bacteria, the mechanism of natural selection, etc.? God. And as several people have pointed out here, what may appear to be chance mutations to us may well be something else entirely to God. We have no way of knowing. You can interpret the theory of evolution in an atheistic way if you want, but you can also interpret it in a religious way. There’s nothing in the theory itself that either denies or confirms God.

Once again: By insisting that intermediate, indirect steps are “not God” you are limiting God. You are telling God how He needs to operate. In the attempt to ‘prove’ God, you are really disproving God (by limiting him).

 

[Erikaspirit16]

DNA is a language. True or False?

It depends on how you define ‘language’. But if you see it as a set of symbols that conveys meaning, then yes.

Languages cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent, undirected processes. True or False?

False. Again, it depends on your definition of ‘language’, but if you take, for example, a complex mating dance of a bird, that could certainly be considered ‘language’ in the sense that it communicates meaning to another bird. And yes, it evolved randomly, from a “blind, unintelligent, undirected process.”

That which does not emerge from a natural, undirected process is transcendent to material nature. True or False?

True. But since the universe has emerged from a “natural, undirected process” there is nothing in creation outside it.

 

[goout]

It depends on how you define ‘language’. But if you see it as a set of symbols that conveys meaning, then yes.

False. Again, it depends on your definition of ‘language’, but if you take, for example, a complex mating dance of a bird, that could certainly be considered ‘language’ in the sense that it communicates meaning to another bird. And yes, it evolved randomly, from a “blind, unintelligent, undirected process.”

True. But since the universe has emerged from a “natural, undirected process” there is nothing in creation outside it.

I would disagree that anything that exists is undirected by God.