Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[Rogerteder]

Roger << But Phil they aren’t Church teaching or of the magisterium. They are books or speeches given by the individuals. >>

Hey nice talking with you on the phone!

Keating (or the author of the Catholic Answers tracts) is not the magisterium either, but individuals. Although their tracts have been given the OK (Nihil Obstat, etc). I was presenting what I think are positions of the other prominent Catholic apologists or writers out there (the orthodox, conservative kind at least). Most of them are not scientists of course, it is kind of split among them, with anti-evolution (and the standard well-answered creationist objections) being dominant.

Science will never be a matter for the magisterium, I think we all agree. Although there is cross-over between science and dogma of course (Adam/Eve and original sin). The ITC statement from 2004 is probably the best we have on the whole creation-evolution issue (endorsed by Ratzinger shortly before he became Pope). There is a lot in there about the accepted science, the image of God, “design” and divine providence.

The “we are not some casual or meaningless product of evolution” etc of Pope Benedict is certainly true, but it does not contradict what he has written on the science of evolution (he accepts the science). His position is that God is behind evolution every step, or at least he sees an over-arching intelligence behind all of life, which is a philosophical-theological take on evolution (e.g. see the end of In the Beginning… and the book Creation and Evolution the 2006 conference with the Pope).

Phil P

Well, if you read the official statments from the magisterium they clearly say that God created EACH organism(evolution says the opposite of that) out of nothing. Pius XII clearly taugh that Adam’s sin was a historical fact. I think the best you can say(about evolution) is just what Pius XII said about polygenism. That we cant see a way it could be compatible with scripture and Church teaching.

 

[rossum]

Well, if you read the official statments from the magisterium they clearly say that God created EACH organism(evolution says the opposite of that) out of nothing.

How do you make that work with the fact that each human organism is created by the joining of a sperm cell and an egg cell - neither of which are nothing? Do you deny the physical reality of conception or are you talking on a philisophical/theological level here?

rossum

 

[Rogerteder]

How do you make that work with the fact that each human organism is created by the joining of a sperm cell and an egg cell - neither of which are nothing? Do you deny the physical reality of conception or are you talking on a philisophical/theological level here?

rossum

The teaching obviously refers to the organism’s initial creation.

 

[FindTruth7]

I think I’ll go with Saint Pope Pius X, scripture, the Church Fathers, Pius XII etc.

I’ll take interest in their theological ideas, not science.

 

[FindTruth7]

I will pray for you. As with me, you clearly need it.

well thanks, but what prayers, according to you do i clearly need?

 

[anthony022071]

(B) the Pope accepts the standard evolutionary view (that changes occur over time, evolution occurs and that includes us homo sapiens, and all living things have common ancestors is “virtually certain”, there is no conflict between this science and Catholic religion)

He apparently does not accept macro-evolution. So the summary of the “scientific account” of origins in paragraph 63 of the ITC Statement cannot be taken as an endorsement. It is just a statement of what scientists believe for the sake of argument,and ii is followed by the Catholic arguments. He does the same thing in his books with philosophers and theologians that he strongly disagrees with. The pope does not say that he accepts the “scienific account”.

(C) he used to have reservations about some aspects of the science, and he has some “intelligent design” ideas (along the lines of Romans 1:19-20; Wisdom 13; and Vatican Council I, see chapter 2, “On Revelation” paragraph 1, and the canons 1-5 on “God the Creator of all things” etc)

He still does have the same reservations – about macro-evolution,natural selection,and methodological naturalism. He knows,from Heisenberg,that the outcome of an experiment is influenced by the perspective of the experimenter. The answers that scientists get from their research depends upon the questions that they ask. And scientists only inquire for naturalistic explanations.

(D) his latest views can be found in Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI (Ignatius, 2008) based on his 2006 meetings with top scientists, theologians, philosophers, etc which I will have to quote shortly

Phil P

“But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” [The pope does not even acknowledge that the theory is scientific.]

“Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!”

 

[SFTor]

Why do you look to the Pope for answers about evolution?

It seems to me that the only result is to ask someone who is clearly unqualified to speak on the matter. The Pope is not a scientist.

There are two consequences: religion is forced out of its field of competence, and hence compromised. And science is impeded by having to address religious arguments.

If you “believe” in the computer you are using to access this forum, then give science its due.

Best,

Tor

 

[rossum]

The teaching obviously refers to the organism’s initial creation.

When was my initial creation? Was it nine months before I was born or was it at another time? If at another time, then when?

You have also not directly answered my question about how creation from nothing squares with the fact of conception from sperm and egg.

rossum

 

[Deconi]

When was my initial creation? Was it nine months before I was born or was it at another time? If at another time, then when?

The instant He thought of ‘Rossum,’ is the instant your ‘lineage’ began. I say it was BEFORE ‘The Fall’…but better theologians than me argue for BEFORE creation! (How stunning is that?)
“Before the world, He knew you!..” etc

Yeah, it probably is easier NOT to believe it.

You have also not directly answered my question about how creation from nothing squares with the fact of conception from sperm and egg.

rossum

Your ‘lineage’ probably goes like, great-great-great Grandfather Rossum X 40000 or so!

Mind you, your current understanding holds that somewhere in there are several variations of ‘species’ into some kind of primate that is related to our zoo variety!

I say, NO! Rossum. Your entire lineage, is and has always, been homosapien!

Ex nihilo? That specific sperm at that specific moment in time took careful, precise, calculation and ‘planning’ to bring forth one of the ‘wonders’ of this existence!

Yeah. It’s probably easier to believe it was purely, ‘chance.’

 

[rossum]

The instant He thought of ‘Rossum,’ is the instant your ‘lineage’ began. I say it was BEFORE ‘The Fall’…but better theologians than me argue for BEFORE creation! (How stunning is that?)
“Before the world, He knew you!..” etc

Then, if the ex nihilo creation was before the Fall/Creation it is obviously not talking about my physical body. Given that this is the case, then why is there a problem with evolution which talks about my physical body and nothing but my physical body?

God did a non-material thing a long time ago; evolution did a different material thing at a different time. Why do some people think that these two are not compatible?

I say, NO! Rossum. Your entire lineage, is and has always, been homosapien!

You are free to say what you wish even if, as in this case, what you say is incorrect. My chromosome two is a fusion of two separate ape chromosomes. My Cytochrome C is identical to chimpanzee Cytochrome C. I have exactly the same error in the GULO pseodogene as the other great apes that prevents us all from making our own vitamin C. I have apes in my lineage. Biologically I am a member of the Hominidae, as are you and all other members of the species Homo sapiens.

rossum

 

[anthony022071]

Why do you look to the Pope for answers about evolution?

The theory of evolution involves the origins of living creatures,and that is theological ground as well as a scientific field of inquiry.
The Church has teachings about Creation,and God’s creative activity is not a one time event but is always happening. God is always creating living creatures,and living creatures are always dependent upon God. So the origin and development of living creatures involves the supernatural,without which natural causes

It seems to me that the only result is to ask someone who is clearly unqualified to speak on the matter. The Pope is not a scientist.

He does not need to be a scientist. He needs only to analyze the scientific evidence that scientists make available to the public and see if the explanations make reasonable sense.
If scientists think that we are intelligent enough to understand the theory of evolution,then they should accept the fact that we are qualified to criticize it and disagree with it.

There are two consequences: religion is forced out of its field of competence, and hence compromised. And science is impeded by having to address religious arguments.

Religion is not out of its field of competence. The theory of evolution trespasses upon theological ground,whether scientists accept that or not. Supernatural causation meets the natural causes at all points of origin and natural life. Science would not be impeded by having to address religious arguments,it would be forced to think outside of its naturalistic box.

If you “believe” in the computer you are using to access this forum, then give science its due.

The scientific knowledge that led to the development of computers does not involve theories on the origins of living creatures,so it does not trespass on theological ground.

 

[BRB]

It is just a statement of what scientists believe for the sake of argument,and ii is followed by the Catholic arguments. He does the same thing in his books with philosophers and theologians that he strongly disagrees with. The pope does not say that he accepts the “scienific account”.

!"

He is allowed to believe whatever he wishes. Its not an issue of Faith & Morals IMO.

Thus, no need for dogmatic, infallible statements from the Church.

In the fullness of time we will know … not before.

 

[Steve40]

He is allowed to believe whatever he wishes. Its not an issue of Faith & Morals IMO.

Thus, no need for dogmatic, infallible statements from the Church.

In the fullness of time we will know … not before.

Actually it is a question of faith. It makes a difference on how you interpret Sacred Scripture. The rule of St. Augustine says that we should not depart from the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture unless by necessity. This wise rule prevents us from being pulled away for the meaning of Scripture and one could surmize away from the faith by believing every scientific theory that comes along instead.

In faith we believe what the Bible says unless proven otherwise. Once your “faith” is shaken by accepting that any theory can displace Sacred Scripture you might as well question all of Sacred Scripture. The evolutionary mentality of evaluation has led many to lose their faith.

 

[buffalo]

We must be wary of scientism.

 

[Steve40]

He is allowed to believe whatever he wishes. Its not an issue of Faith & Morals IMO.

Thus, no need for dogmatic, infallible statements from the Church.

In the fullness of time we will know … not before.

More over evolution is at the heart and soul of the heresey of modernism which is propably the greatest heresey of our time.

 

[buffalo]

More over evolution is at the heart and soul of the heresey of modernism which is propably the greatest heresey of our time.

The Church has been defending herself from evolution since the very beginning.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s something to provide a little perspective:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deconi]

Then, if the ex nihilo creation was before the Fall/Creation it is obviously not talking about my physical body. Given that this is the case, then why is there a problem with evolution which talks about my physical body and nothing but my physical body?

There is no problem with any theory that proposes HOW God’s ‘thought’ became manifest. Problems only arise when the PROPONENTS hold their interpretation of the evidence, SUPERIOR to revelation.

You cannot follow BOTH.

It is revelation that revealed this God to us! If you wish to follow this God, then you must accept the rest of the revelations He gives! That revelation also GIVES the evidence to look for and what it looks like……and Lo and Behold, the stuff is all around us!

If you wish to follow the evidence alone, you will find it attests to revelation, UNLESS you interpret it differently!
(It is no different to Scriptural interpretation)

God did a non-material thing a long time ago; evolution did a different material thing at a different time. Why do some people think that these two are not compatible?

Because, people cannot but hear what is being said the most and the loudest!

“Evolution does not need a Creator.”……especially one who interacts all the time!

Personally, I hold that they CANNOT be incompatible, but the INTERPRETATION of evidence is the problem. I am not an evolutionist, but if it were true, all the evidence should corroborate and verify creation; not DETRACT from it……that is, if you choose to follow this God and His revelations.

You are free to say what you wish even if, as in this case, what you say is incorrect. My chromosome two is a fusion of two separate ape chromosomes. My Cytochrome C is identical to chimpanzee Cytochrome C. I have exactly the same error in the GULO pseodogene as the other great apes that prevents us all from making our own vitamin C. I have apes in my lineage. Biologically I am a member of the Hominidae, as are you and all other members of the species Homo sapiens.

rossum

Here’s a good example of the problem, to me.
Having created matter and the earth ex nihilo, He then set about making things out of that material! He formed man from the ‘clay’ and breathed life into him. The same material he brought forth the fauna out of. The same material everything is made out of.

So it should be no surprise to find that we share similarities with most, if not all things, not only on this planet, but in the universe. Nor should it be a surprise to find ‘material’ out there, similar or identical to materials here. Is that a falsifiable prediction?

You do not have identical ‘innards’ to a chimpanzee; it has some similarities to your ‘innards’ just as rats, bananas…etc. do, because we are made from the same materials. But they LIVE and must adjust and adapt, accordingly, each to their own kind! (Because that is what has been revealed)

 

[rossum]

There is no problem with any theory that proposes HOW God’s ‘thought’ became manifest. Problems only arise when the PROPONENTS hold their interpretation of the evidence, SUPERIOR to revelation.

I do not hold science superior to revelation, I do hold science superior to some interpretations of revelation. Humans can make mistakes, so some interpretations of revelation are mistaken as is shown by the number of different groups claiming to follow the same revelation. No merely human interpretation of revelation can claim to be infallible.

It is revelation that revealed this God to us! If you wish to follow this God, then you must accept the rest of the revelations He gives! That revelation also GIVES the evidence to look for and what it looks like……and Lo and Behold, the stuff is all around us!

God created the world, so science is the study of God’s creation. The correct interpretation of revelation cannot conflict with the correct interpretation of the world. The problem is finding which, if any, of the myriad different interpretations of revelation is the correct one. In the case of evolution the Catholic Church has not yet made its position clear (with the exception of monogenism) so for the Church there is at this moment no conflict between evolution and revelation.

“Evolution does not need a Creator.”……especially one who interacts all the time!

Evolution starts with the origin of life. It is cosmology which does ont “need” a creator. If you creator is continually interacting with the physical universe then there should be physical evidence of that. Please show your evidence and science can have a look at it.

Personally, I hold that they CANNOT be incompatible, but the INTERPRETATION of evidence is the problem.

That is only half the problem. The other half is the interpretation of revalation. Both interpretations are done by humans and so both subject to error.

Here’s a good example of the problem, to me.
Having created matter and the earth ex nihilo, He then set about making things out of that material! He formed man from the ‘clay’ and breathed life into him. The same material he brought forth the fauna out of. The same material everything is made out of.

Evolution also says that all living organisms are made out of the same materials - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. How is this a problem for you?

You do not have identical ‘innards’ to a chimpanzee; it has some similarities to your ‘innards’ just as rats, bananas…etc. do, because we are made from the same materials. But they LIVE and must adjust and adapt, accordingly, each to their own kind!

Every organ we have is present in a chimpanzee, and vice versa. The similarities can extend down to the molecular lever - our cytochrome Cs are identical, molecule for molecule.

Because that is what has been revealed

That is one particular interpretation of what has been revealed. Not every interpretation of revalation is correct.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

I am not an evolutionist, but if it were true, all the evidence should corroborate and verify creation; not DETRACT from it……that is, if you choose to follow this God and His revelations.

Excellent point.

The “evidence” is an interpretation of human observations. Darwin wanted his theory to explain all of nature without having reference to God. That was his intention.

So the filter he and other evolutionists use to interpret the data does not cooroborate and verify creation. They attempt to do the opposite.

Evolutionary theory teaches that a reference to God is unnecessary in the explanation of all of nature. It’s a denial of the philosophical origins of science - or rather, an embrace of a philosophical foundation that is perfectly compatible with atheism.