Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[reggieM]

The evolutionary mentality of evaluation has led many to lose their faith.

True. Some Catholic defenders of Darwinism claim that if the theory is “interpreted correctly” that there should be no problem with matters of faith. Speaking personally, I rarely, if ever see evolution explained in a way that is not contradictory to the Faith, or at least confusing and filled with all sorts ambiguities and stretches of logic to force-fit an evolutionary mentality into the Catholic system of belief.

The result is that evolutionary-materialism triumphs and is not opposed or criticized by Catholic scientists who should be warning people about the latent (or obvious errors) of that mentality.

Kenneth Miller is a good example. He gives a fervent defense of Darwinism with almost no warning about the dangers of evolutionary materialism.

 

[BRB]

True. Some Catholic defenders of Darwinism claim that if the theory is “interpreted correctly” that there should be no problem with matters of faith. .

That would be “Theistic Evolution” … right ?

There was a thread here on CAF several weeks back on this ‘God directed’ evolution.

Still, I personally don’t wish to see the Church feel a need to develop a Dogma on this … not yet.

Let the scientists hang themselves on their own theories which are devoid of any lifegiving power.

 

[reggieM]

That would be “Theistic Evolution” … right ?

There was a thread here on CAF several weeks back on this ‘God directed’ evolution.

Yes, that’s right. There are different versions of Theistic Evolution, although I’m not sure about what they propose.

An example of this Catholic-Darwinism that I’ve seen and which doesn’t make sense would be Fr. George Coyne’s claim* that “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution”.

He was trying to reconcile accidental, random evolution with God’s guiding hand. If God guided the process, then it’s wrong for Darwinists to claim that it was all natural and materialistic.

Fortunately, Cardinal Schoenborn pointed out that Fr. Coyne’s remarks were “nonsense”.

Still, I personally don’t wish to see the Church feel a need to develop a Dogma on this … not yet.

Agreed. Although I think Church leaders are becoming much more critical of these theories.

They do not have life-giving power – that is true and well-said.

(*Fr. George Coyne’s remarks were published in the German newspaper Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000. You can find this in Cardinal Shoenborn’s book “Chance or Purpose” page 169.)

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

I am aware that some theologians think that God does not know everything in advance. A conservative Catholic theologian once told me that God could not have foreseen the Fall, since He would not have made Adam and Eve for the purpose of them failing.

I remain skeptical of that reasoning.

 

[buffalo]

The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

I.

The issue is the unity of body and soul. Evolution cannot account for the soul. How can evolution bring a body and make it capable of a soul? It cannot. That is the ontological leap the Pope speaks about. That is the same leap evolution has to explain.

The constant Catholic teaching has been the body an soul were created together by God at the same time.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

Evolution cannot account for the soul.

Neither can chemistry or plumbing.

How can evolution bring a body and make it capable of a soul? It cannot.

Very true. It’s not supposed to. That is the province of faith, not science.

The constant Catholic teaching has been the body an soul were created together by God at the same time.

As Pope Pius wrote, it is not contrary to the Church’s teaching that man’s body evolved, so long as it is admitted that the soul is given immediately by God.

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian observes:
The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

Neither can chemistry or plumbing.

Very true. It’s not supposed to. That is the province of faith, not science.

As Pope Pius wrote, it is not contrary to the Church’s teaching that man’s body evolved, so long as it is admitted that the soul is given immediately by God.

Constant Catholic teaching is that the body and soul are created together.

 

[BRB]

The issue is the unity of body and soul. Evolution cannot account for the soul. How can evolution bring a body and make it capable of a soul? It cannot. That is the ontological leap the Pope speaks about. That is the same leap evolution has to explain.

The constant Catholic teaching has been the body an soul were created together by God at the same time.

Re: 1st paragraph … exactly !!

Re: 2nd … the teaching of Genesis yes, but could God of evolved man from the Neanderthals [scientist call him a man already] … and at some point breathed a Soul into him ?
I suppose, but I don't see Adam as being a Neanderthal [or son of Neanderthal] type man.

 

[anthony022071]

The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

If God is using contingency of natural causes,then natural selection,which is a naturalistic idea,is out of the question.
The Church teaches that the whole of man,mind and body,is created in God’s image. So man’s physical form could not have evolved from a purely natural contingent process.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
< 28. The view that bodiliness is essential to personal identity is fundamental, even if not explicitly thematized, in the witness of Christian revelation. Biblical anthropology excludes mind-body dualism. It speaks of man as a whole. Among the basic Hebrew terms for man used in the Old Testament, nèfèš means the life of a concrete person who is alive (Gen 9:4; Lev 24:17-18; Proverbs 8:35). But man does not have a nèfèš; he is a nèfèš (Gen 2:7; Lev 17:10). Basar refers to the flesh of animals and of men, and sometimes the body as a whole (Lev 4:11; 26:29). Again, one does not have a basar, but is a basar. The New Testament term sarx (flesh) can denote the material corporality of man (2 Cor 12:7), but on the other hand also the whole person (Rom 8:6). Another Greek term, soma (body) refers to the whole man with emphasis on his outward manifestation. Here too man does not have his body, but is his body. Biblical anthropology clearly presupposes the unity of man, and understands bodiliness to be essential to personal identity.

1. The central dogmas of the Christian faith imply that the body is an intrinsic part of the human person and thus participates in his being created in the image of God. The Christian doctrine of creation utterly excludes a metaphysical or cosmic dualism since it teaches that everything in the universe, spiritual and material, was created by God and thus stems from the perfect Good. Within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation, the body also appears as an intrinsic part of the person. >

I am aware that some theologians think that God does not know everything in advance. A conservative Catholic theologian once told me that God could not have foreseen the Fall, since He would not have made Adam and Eve for the purpose of them failing.

I remain skeptical of that reasoning.

God allowed them free will to choose to obey or disobey. But it was not his purpose for them to sin. God is eternal Being,and the ground of all being,so there is no reason to think that he could not have foreseen the Fall.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Pope has said, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, that God can use contingency as well as anything else to do His work. So it’s not wrong to admit that man’s physical form could have come about by a contingent process.

If God is using contingency of natural causes,then natural selection,which is a naturalistic idea,is out of the question.

Your Pope says otherwise. After all, contingency is part of natural selection. It’s part of God’s plan, too. God is a lot more effective than you imagine Him to be.

The Church teaches that the whole of man,mind and body,is created in God’s image. So man’s physical form could not have evolved from a purely natural contingent process.

The Church teaches what Jesus taught, that God is a spirit and spirits do not have physical bodies. It definitely does not teach that God has a nose, and eyebrows, earlobes, etc.

As Pope Pius wrote, the Church does not object to the idea that man’s physical body could evolve, so long as it is admitted that man’s soul is given immediately by God.

Barbarian observes:
I am aware that some theologians think that God does not know everything in advance. A conservative Catholic theologian once told me that God could not have foreseen the Fall, since He would not have made Adam and Eve for the purpose of them failing.

I remain skeptical of that reasoning.

God allowed them free will to choose to obey or disobey. But it was not his purpose for them to sin. God is eternal Being,and the ground of all being,so there is no reason to think that he could not have foreseen the Fall.

I think so. And that undercuts the idea that God could not forsee the results of a contingent process.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Re: 1st paragraph … exactly !!

Re: 2nd … the teaching of Genesis yes, but could God of evolved man from the Neanderthals [scientist call him a man already] … and at some point breathed a Soul into him ?

I suppose, but I don’t see Adam as being a Neanderthal [or son of Neanderthal] type man.

It seems almost certain that Adam preceded Neandertals, going back to the earliest humans. Neandertals were clearly intelligent people, seem to have had art and music (not as much as our species), and obviously cared for the crippled and weak among them, in a way that indicates a sense of right and wrong.

I think that H. Sapiens and H. neandertalis are both children of Adam and Eve.

 

[anthony022071]

Your Pope says otherwise. After all, contingency is part of natural selection.

Natural selection is a naturalistic idea,and the pope doesn’t approve of naturalistic ideas.

It’s part of God’s plan, too.

Contingency is part of God’s plan,but contingency without divine guidance has no plan,and so humans could not have emerged from natural selection.

God is a lot more effective than you imagine Him to be.

So effective that he guides secondary causes when he creates creatures. But methological naturalism won’t accept that,and instead explains the natural world as if it were a closed system wherein nature is all that exists.

The Church teaches what Jesus taught, that God is a spirit and spirits do not have physical bodies. It definitely does not teach that God has a nose, and eyebrows, earlobes, etc.

As Pope Pius wrote, the Church does not object to the idea that man’s physical body could evolve, so long as it is admitted that man’s soul is given immediately by God.

That isn’t quite what he said. He said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry,and that the reasons favorable and unfavorable to evolution must be weighed. And he disapproves of those who act as if the origin of the human body from previous life forms were completely certain and proved by facts. He also rejects poygenism.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
HUMANI GENERIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING
TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
2. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

I think so. And that undercuts the idea that God could not forsee the results of a contingent process.

But we know from revelation and the teaching of the Church that human beings are created by God from his creative reason. If we were the results of a contingent process,we would be accidents,not created by God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Your Pope says otherwise. After all, contingency is part of natural selection.

Natural selection is a naturalistic idea,and the pope doesn’t approve of naturalistic ideas.

He says it happened." Sounds like he at least accepts it as reality.

Contingency is part of God’s plan,but contingency without divine guidance has no plan,and so humans could not have emerged from natural selection.

In other words, God created a universe, in which random mutation and natural selection would bring forth humans. So you’re back in line with the Church’s teaching on this, now.

So effective that he guides secondary causes when he creates creatures. But methological naturalism won’t accept that,and instead explains the natural world as if it were a closed system wherein nature is all that exists.

Methodolical naturalism can’t even bring up the question. It only observes what happens in nature, but makes no conclusions about what causes nature. As the Pope says, that is the proper function of science.

Barbarian observes:
The Church teaches what Jesus taught, that God is a spirit and spirits do not have physical bodies. It definitely does not teach that God has a nose, and eyebrows, earlobes, etc.

As Pope Pius wrote, the Church does not object to the idea that man’s physical body could evolve, so long as it is admitted that man’s soul is given immediately by God.

That isn’t quite what he said. He said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry,and that the reasons favorable and unfavorable to evolution must be weighed.

Yes. That is what scientists think, too. But the Church does not object to the idea. Indeed, your current Pope says that it is virtually certain.

And he disapproves of those who act as if the origin of the human body from previous life forms were completely certain

Well, the current Pope did have the benefit of much more evidence, and of course, Pope John Paul convened the International Theological Commission to take a better look at it. So it’s not surprising that he was better informed then Pius XII. And as you might know, scientists object to the idea that science “proves” things.

He also rejects poygenism.

So do I. Polygenism is not a requirement for evolution.

Barbarian observes:
I think so. And that undercuts the idea that God could not forsee the results of a contingent process.

But we know from revelation and the teaching of the Church that human beings are created by God from his creative reason. If we were the results of a contingent process,we would be accidents,not created by God.

That opinion is at odds with the teaching of the Church.

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. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Report of the International Theological Commission (69)
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

 

[BRB]

cared for the crippled and weak among them, in a way that indicates a sense of right and wrong.

I think that H. Sapiens and H. neandertalis are both children of Adam and Eve.

Well, even our birds, fish, and mammals today can show incredible ‘protective’ and nurturing instincts to their young.

For example … an ape will carry its deceased young around for 2-3 days, before it finally gives up on the unfortunate junior.

Certain birds mate for life … and show extreme loyality. Certain animals will fight to the death to protect their young and clan.

The mating dances/songs of certain birds are as ARTFUL and DRAMATIC as an opera.

 

[anthony022071]

He says it happened." Sounds like he at least accepts it as reality.

The pope never said natural selection happened.

In other words, God created a universe, in which random mutation and natural selection would bring forth humans. So you’re back in line with the Church’s teaching on this, now.

The Church teaches not only that God created the universe,but that God creates human persons at conception. So there is no room for random mutaton and natural selection to be evolving humans. If God is working through natural causes,then genetic mutations are not really random and selection is super-natural.

Methodolical naturalism can’t even bring up the question. It only observes what happens in nature, but makes no conclusions about what causes nature. As the Pope says, that is the proper function of science.

Methodological naturalism is a priori naturalistic. Science does address the supernatural,even though scientists claim it can’t.
Science addresses the supernatural by stating that it not permitted in the study of nature.
The conclusions that it draws about what causes natural phenomena are always natural causes.

Yes. That is what scientists think, too. But the Church does not object to the idea. Indeed, your current Pope says that it is virtually certain.

A person’s soul is created with his body,not apart from it.
The body is intrinsic to the person,and therefore the soul. So the human body could not have evolved from another kind of body,because God creates the body and soul as one living being.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
28. The view that bodiliness is essential to personal identity is fundamental, even if not explicitly thematized, in the witness of Christian revelation. Biblical anthropology excludes mind-body dualism. It speaks of man as a whole. Among the basic Hebrew terms for man used in the Old Testament, nèfèš means the life of a concrete person who is alive (Gen 9:4; Lev 24:17-18; Proverbs 8:35). But man does not have a nèfèš; he is a nèfèš (Gen 2:7; Lev 17:10). Basar refers to the flesh of animals and of men, and sometimes the body as a whole (Lev 4:11; 26:29). Again, one does not have a basar, but is a basar. The New Testament term sarx (flesh) can denote the material corporality of man (2 Cor 12:7), but on the other hand also the whole person (Rom 8:6). Another Greek term, soma (body) refers to the whole man with emphasis on his outward manifestation. Here too man does not have his body, but is his body. Biblical anthropology clearly presupposes the unity of man, and understands bodiliness to be essential to personal identity.

1. The central dogmas of the Christian faith imply that the body is an intrinsic part of the human person and thus participates in his being created in the image of God. The Christian doctrine of creation utterly excludes a metaphysical or cosmic dualism since it teaches that everything in the universe, spiritual and material, was created by God and thus stems from the perfect Good. Within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation, the body also appears as an intrinsic part of the person.

And as you might know, scientists object to the idea that science “proves” things.

If scientists cannot prove the theory of evolution,if only by reason,
then there’s no obligation to believe that it is true.

So do I. Polygenism is not a requirement for evolution.

Then the theory of evolution does not require human beings to have a common ancestry with other species. One genetic origin is
sufficient to account for the human race.

That opinion is at odds with the teaching of the Church.

The contingency that the Vatican document mentions is
guided by purposeful divine providence. That is not randomness or natural selection.

 

[Chancellor]

Roger,

I appreciate you quoting Robert S. of the Kolbe Center but probably for a different reason than some. I think it is important for Catholics that are challenged by protestant fundamentalist hatred of science to take a deeper look an see what is actually being said.

As Catholics we believe that good science is to the glory of God. Evolution is a fact and has been supported by good science for over a hundred years. The battle is long over. As a recovering protestant I know that most protestants find the fundie version of biblical inerrancy to be embarrassing.

With all of this said, it is of crucial importance to recognize that Benedict XVI and all thinking Catholics will take issue with those who try to use evolution as support for atheism.

Evolution doesn’t have anything to say about how the universe was created, or the nature of the soul, or God’s purposes for humanity. Evolution cannot instruct us on faith, morals or practice.

We will take strong exception to those who abuse science by trying to impose an atheist agenda (or a fundamentalist agenda for that matter).

TRUST GOD!! Science has not, does not and cannot prove or disprove God. For me the fundamentalist position is an attempt to keep God in a box. The fundamentalist agenda is fearful response to the Holy, an attempt to shrink the Almighty Creator of all things down to a size that we little humans can comprehend.

Benedict XVIs words were an attack on atheism, not science.

The Chancellor

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
He says it happened." Sounds like he at least accepts it as reality.

The pope never said natural selection happened.

Properly speaking, he wrote that it is virtually certain.

Barbarian writes, approvingly:
In other words, God created a universe, in which random mutation and natural selection would bring forth humans. So you’re back in line with the Church’s teaching on this, now.

The Church teaches not only that God created the universe,but that God creates human persons at conception.

Our souls He does by supernatural means. Our bodies by natural means. That’s the way it works. As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

So there is no room for random mutaton and natural selection to be evolving humans.

Your Pope says there is. He’s more credible with me, than you are.

If God is working through natural causes,then genetic mutations are not really random and selection is super-natural.

Turns out, as the Pope says, even random processes can be used to His purposes.

Barbarian observes:
Methodolical naturalism can’t even bring up the question. It only observes what happens in nature, but makes no conclusions about what causes nature. As the Pope says, that is the proper function of science.

Methodological naturalism is a priori naturalistic. Science does address the supernatural,even though scientists claim it can’t.
Science addresses the supernatural by stating that it not permitted in the study of nature.
The conclusions that it draws about what causes natural phenomena are always natural causes.

Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul. It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.

A person’s soul is created with his body,not apart from it.
The body is intrinsic to the person,and therefore the soul. So the human body could not have evolved from another kind of body,because God creates the body and soul as one living being.

You disagree with the Church on this point.

In the Report of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, says that the common descent of all living things is virtually certain, and is supported by a huge body of evidence.

Barbarian observes:
And as you might know, scientists object to the idea that science “proves” things.

If scientists cannot prove the theory of evolution,if only by reason, then there’s no obligation to believe that it is true.

Turns out that evidence can be a reliable guide to the truth, as your Pope has written.

Barbarian observes:
So do I. Polygenism is not a requirement for evolution.

Then the theory of evolution does not require human beings to have a common ancestry with other species.

It could have happened otherwise. But as you know, the Church’s statement on this is that it is virtually certain. You are free, for the time being to reject it, of course.

The contingency that the Vatican document mentions is
guided by purposeful divine providence.

Yes, the contingency of chance in the matter of evolution can indeed be used by God, as the Pope has written. Of course, natural selection is not a matter of contingency, but other things in the evolution of populations can be.

But God can use those things also. He’s a lot more effective and intelligent than creationists are willing to admit.

 

[Chancellor]

Bravo Barbarian!!

Catholics are very blessed to have a Pope at this who knows that thie history of the Catholic Church and the history of science are not only not at odds, but often the same thing.

The first cousin if not fraternal twin of evolution is the science of genetics. Genetic science is possibly the most compelling demonstration of evolution in action.

And the “Father of Genetics”??..

Father Gregor Mendel, an Augistinian priest in the nineteenth century, one of many priests, religious and Catholic laypersons to exert a profound effect on the sciences.

Creationism is a fundamentalist protestent disease that has infected some gullible Catholics. Happily there are still barbarians and others around to say, “Hey, Catholics, why not check out your own beliefs instead of lapping up someone elses ignorance”.

We Catholics are having to deal with those who somehow think that bad science is good theology. Thank God our Pope is not one of them.

 

[reggieM]

We will take strong exception to those who abuse science by trying to impose an atheist agenda (or a fundamentalist agenda for that matter).

Could you provide some examples of scientists who abuse science by trying to impose an atheistic agenda or who use pseudo-science to attempt to explain the origin of the soul, how the universe was created, the nature of the soul, or the origin of morality?

There are some Catholics here who think that science does not dabble in such things. Given that, it’s impossible for them to “take strong exception against those who abuse science” in this way.

 

[edwest2]

The Templeton Foundation does dabble in such things. Here is an article written by Cardinal Schoenborn in answer to the question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

templeton.org/belief/essays/cardinal.pdf

God bless,
Ed