Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[Chancellor]

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.

Richard Dawkins is a science writer who claims that science disproves the existence of God.

The origin and nature of the soul and the origin of morality are appropriate topics for theology. Good scientists have every right to speculate on these things when they say it is just speculation.

As Catholics we say that God called the universe into being for His own purposes. There are statements as to what these purposes were, especially regarding human beings, but these statements serve to direct or faith and practice. God is the ultimate Mystery of our faith.

The Catholic Church does not use pseudo-science to attempt to explain the mysteries (thank God!!), but there are some Catholics who are infected with “fundie disease” who act as if the Church and science should be enemies.

I confess to not knowing who on this list is a fundie trouble-maker and who might be a sincere Catholic seeker who does not yet know what our Church believes.

My “strong exception” statements are a result of many negative experiences before coming Home.

Thanks for your question.

 

[edwest2]

Richard Dawkins never claims to speculate. He makes definitive statements which he also believes. Scientist PZ Myers took a eucharistic host, put a nail through it and then tossed it in the trash. His interviews regarding religion and science, plus his blog, are about his atheism and how it is connected to science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Chancellor]

Richard Dawkins never claims to speculate. He makes definitive statements which he also believes. Scientist PZ Myers took a eucharistic host, put a nail through it and then tossed it in the trash. His interviews regarding religion and science, plus his blog, are about his atheism and how it is connected to science.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,

Exactly right. As Catholics it is important that we answer the atheists without falling for the erroneous conclusion that good science somehow leads to atheism.

Your story about PZ Myers bears an eerie resemblance to events on Mt. Calvary almost 2000 years ago. Now, in 2008 the “scandal of the cross” separates the sheep from the goats just as effectively as it did then.

and may Gog bless you,

chancellor

 

[anthony022071]

Properly speaking, he wrote that it is virtually certain.

He was referring to common descent,not to natural selection.
It is not virtually certain from his viewpoint,but from the viewpoint of science. The pope doesn’t even believe in macro-evolution.

Our souls He does by supernatural means. Our bodies by natural means. That’s the way it works.

The natural means are guided by supernatural power.

As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

No,he didn’t say that. He said that the Church does not forbid the *inquiry *into the evolution of the human body,provided that the opposing viewpoints are also weighed.

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

Then why don’t you agree with him when he doubts natural selection and macro-evolution and methodological naturalism?

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

If God is involved in natural processes,they are no longer random,but guided.

Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul.

Then why does it presume to explain the origin of life with abiogenesis theory and the origin of creatures with the theory of evolution? And why do scientists presume to explain the belief in the resurrection in naturalistic terms,and dismiss the possibility of it in naturalistic terms?

It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.

Methodological naturalism posits natural causes as the ultimate truth of everything.

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.

It is virtually certian to scientists,not to the pope.

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

The evidence for evolution is not reliable when it is guided by methodological naturalism.

The Church already has the truth about human origins – we are created by God at conception. Adam was created also,not evolved.

It could have happened otherwise.

It did happen otherwise – humanity has descended from two human parents,not from other species. Polygenism is out of the question.

Yes, the contingency of chance in the matter of evolution can indeed be used by God, as the Pope has written.

Contingency which is guided by God cannot be chance.

Of course, natural selection is not a matter of contingency, but other things in the evolution of populations can be.

If natural selection is not chance,then then what is it? Is it necessity? or determinism?

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

So effective and intelligent that he can create a man immediately from the earth,rather than leave it up to rules of nature to develop human beings from other species.

 

[reggieM]

Richard Dawkins is a science writer who claims that science disproves the existence of God.

He is probably the most popular, well-known writer on the topic of evolution. His latest book was a best-seller – millions sold. He is probably the most prominent voice in Darwinism … you’re stating that he is abusing science, teaching pseudo-science. That is good to know. Some Catholics here deny that any scientists abuse science in this way.

But beyond this, I wouldn’t call it much of a comprehensive list of scientists – it’s not even a small list since you only have one name. But I’ll conclude that many of the thousands who follow and praise Dawkins, as well as the scientists who follow in his footsteps also abuse science, as you stated before.

This is a pretty striking condemnation of the science culture as it stands today.

The origin and nature of the soul and the origin of morality are appropriate topics for theology. Good scientists have every right to speculate on these things when they say it is just speculation.

They have the right to pursue scientific speculations on non-scientific topics? This seems to be a contradiction to what you stated earlier. You called this an abuse of science.

God is the ultimate Mystery of our faith.

God is the ultimate reality and truth as well.

The Catholic Church does not use pseudo-science to attempt to explain the mysteries (thank God!!),

You’re changing the topic here. You asserted that scientists use pseudo-science and I asked you to give me some examples. You provided mention of Dawkins but not much more than that.

but there are some Catholics who are infected with “fundie disease” who act as if the Church and science should be enemies.

My question was with regards to the scientists who abuse science. For some reason, you turned this around to attack Catholics.

I confess to not knowing who on this list is a fundie trouble-maker and who might be a sincere Catholic seeker who does not yet know what our Church believes.

Not knowing you and just judging on your brief comments, I’ll suggest that you write with a heavy anti-fundamentalist bias. Catholicism is not primarily an anti-Protestant religion. Many who convert tend to direct their focus at Protestants – but our focus should be on the richness of our own faith and tradition. Our Catholic tradition includes a “creationist” component that pre-dates Protestantism by about 1500 years (actually, much longer if you include our Old Testament history).

My “strong exception” statements are a result of many negative experiences before coming Home.

I can understand that, and I extend my sincere welcome and admiration for your journey in faith to the Holy Church of God. But I’ll just offer a caution that you might be suffering from a reaction to pains suffered in the past, and this colors your attitudes and thoughts today.

 

[Chancellor]

So effective and intelligent that he can create a man immediately from the earth,rather than leave it up to rules of nature to develop human beings from other species.

Anthony

Are you a fundamentalist protestant? I think it would help to know where you are coming from. If you are a fundie then God bless you, you are fully entitled to have the theology of your personal faith. If you are a Catholic then I hope it would be helpful for you to know that your personal theology differs from what the Church teaches.

Have you ever wondered why God, Who created the laws of nature, would choose to break those laws just so he could make humans?

the chancellor

 

[reggieM]

Exactly right. As Catholics it is important that we answer the atheists without falling for the erroneous conclusion that good science somehow leads to atheism.

More importantly, we should not fall for the erroneous conclusion that these prominent scientists practice “good science”. Their thousands of followers (the majority of the scientific culture) follow them in teaching pseudo-science and deceiving millions.

This is the danger that we face. I will suggest that we’ve understated how serious and widespread this problem is. The scientific culture is filled with pseudo-science, most in the form of materialist-evolutionism.

 

[anthony022071]

As Catholics we believe that good science is to the glory of God.

How could science be to the glory of God when it doesn’t acknowledge God working in the natural world and supposedly has nothing to say regarding the supernatural?

Evolution is a fact and has been supported by good science for over a hundred years.

Variation within a species is a fact,and it was recognized for thousands of years.

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.

It has something to say about how living species were created – that natural causes are adequate to explain their origins.

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

Science is methodologically naturalist,which mean that it explains natural history as if the natural world were all that exists.
So it does,in fact,teach an atheist world-view.

Science has not, does not and cannot prove or disprove God.

It disallows for divine providence in the natural world,which is just as bad. A disallowal is a denial.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Properly speaking, he wrote that it is virtually certain.

He was referring to common descent,not to natural selection.

Common descent is a much broader claim than mere natural selection, which even most creationists admit. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, admits it is a fact. The Pope acknowledges the evidence for natural selection as part of the evidence for comon descent.

It is not virtually certain from his viewpoint

He says it is. Perhaps you should go and take a look.

The pope doesn’t even believe in macro-evolution.

He says it is virtually certain.

Barbarian observes:
Our souls He does by supernatural means. Our bodies by natural means. That’s the way it works.

The natural means are guided by supernatural power.

It wasn’t that hard to admit, was it?

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

No,he didn’t say that.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

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

Then why don’t you agree with him when he doubts natural selection and macro-evolution and methodological naturalism?

As you learned, he doesn’t. In fact, as you know, he pointed out the key element of methodological naturalism; science must confine itself to nature only.

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

If God is involved in natural processes,they are no longer random,but guided.

You are opposed to the Church’s teaching on this point.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul.

Then why does it presume to explain the origin of life

It doesn’t. Even Darwin had no theory for such things, only saying that God did it.

And why do scientists presume to explain the belief in the resurrection in naturalistic terms,and dismiss the possibility of it in naturalistic terms?

Maybe some do somewhere. But major evolutionary scientists like Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins don’t. They believe in a literal Resurrection.

Barbarian observes:
It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.

Methodological naturalism posits natural causes as the ultimate truth of everything.

No. Someone’s had a little fun with your gullibility on that one.

Barbarian observes:
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.

It is virtually certian to scientists,not to the pope.

That’s not what he says. He says it’s virtually certain, and supported by a large body of evidence.

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

The evidence for evolution is not reliable when it is guided by methodological naturalism.

Turns out that it is. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI noted, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been verified.

Adam was created also,not evolved.

No individual evolves. But humans evolved from other animals, and the Church has no obejection to that fact.

It did happen otherwise – humanity has descended from two human parents,not from other species. Polygenism is out of the question.

You’ve confused polygenism with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
Yes, the contingency of chance in the matter of evolution can indeed be used by God, as the Pope has written.

Contingency which is guided by God cannot be chance.

You oppose the teaching of the Church on this issue.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, natural selection is not a matter of contingency, but other things in the evolution of populations can be.

If natural selection is not chance,then then what is it? Is it necessity? or determinism?

It is the process that tends to fit a population to its environment.

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

So effective and intelligent that he can create a man immediately from the earth,rather than leave it up to rules of nature to develop human beings from other species.

You seem to regard Him as some kind of little middle eastern godling, rather than the omnipotent Creator.

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian observes:
Properly speaking, he wrote that it is virtually certain.

Common descent is a much broader claim than mere natural selection, which even most creationists admit. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, admits it is a fact. The Pope acknowledges the evidence for natural selection as part of the evidence for comon descent.

He says it is. Perhaps you should go and take a look.

He says it is virtually certain.

Barbarian observes:
Our souls He does by supernatural means. Our bodies by natural means. That’s the way it works.

It wasn’t that hard to admit, was it?

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

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

As you learned, he doesn’t. In fact, as you know, he pointed out the key element of methodological naturalism; science must confine itself to nature only.

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

You are opposed to the Church’s teaching on this point.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul.

It doesn’t. Even Darwin had no theory for such things, only saying that God did it.

Maybe some do somewhere. But major evolutionary scientists like Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins don’t. They believe in a literal Resurrection.

Barbarian observes:
It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.

No. Someone’s had a little fun with your gullibility on that one.

Barbarian observes:
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.

That’s not what he says. He says it’s virtually certain, and supported by a large body of evidence.

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

Turns out that it is. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI noted, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been verified.

No individual evolves. But humans evolved from other animals, and the Church has no obejection to that fact.

You’ve confused polygenism with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
Yes, the contingency of chance in the matter of evolution can indeed be used by God, as the Pope has written.

You oppose the teaching of the Church on this issue.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, natural selection is not a matter of contingency, but other things in the evolution of populations can be.

It is the process that tends to fit a population to its environment.

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

You seem to regard Him as some kind of little middle eastern godling, rather than the omnipotent Creator.

Hello - what does this mean?

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. **Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]

**
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. * The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence*, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. * Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love.* They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

 

[Chancellor]

More importantly, we should not fall for the erroneous conclusion that these prominent scientists practice “good science”. Their thousands of followers (the majority of the scientific culture) follow them in teaching pseudo-science and deceiving millions.

This is the danger that we face. I will suggest that we’ve understated how serious and widespread this problem is. The scientific culture is filled with pseudo-science, most in the form of materialist-evolutionism.

reggieM

I agree in part with your point.

Science is by nature and necessarily materialist because the discipline is about how the material world works. This does not make it either pseudo-science or deceptive.

Science only becomes deceptive and false when it claims to be able to explain ultimate causes and the world of the Spirit of God. You are right in suggesting that there are many who do this, but don’t blame science, blame the dummies who try to use science to support unscientific conclusions.

God Bless You

the chancellor

 

[buffalo]

reggieM

I agree in part with your point.

Science is by nature and necessarily materialist because the discipline is about how the material world works. This does not make it either pseudo-science or deceptive.

Science only becomes deceptive and false when it claims to be able to explain ultimate causes and the world of the Spirit of God. You are right in suggesting that there are many who do this, but don’t blame science, blame the dummies who try to use science to support unscientific conclusions.

God Bless You

the chancellor

It also can be deceptive when it attempts to explain raw data in a way that is restrictive. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited to 5 senses and the dimensions.

 

[Chancellor]

Hello - what does this mean?

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. **Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]

I don’t Know from Monod but I find this quote to be a good example of bad reasoning. The scientists and science writers who try to disparage God often refer to creation as a “mistake”.

“Mistake” is a human value judgement. In science, objective data is to be evaluated without imposing values.

I find it curious that the same people who like to describe the universe as random and meaningless simultaneously attribute our genes with “wanting” to reproduce themselves, and making “mistakes” when this is not accomplished in the way the writer thinks it “should” have.

Look! Even the atheist materialists cannot talk about genetic mutation without seeing desire and intention, and thus meaning, in every step.

God is everywhere.

the chancellor**

 

[reggieM]

I agree in part with your point.

What part don’t you agree with? You claimed that Richard Dawkins teaches pseudo-science – that is, he abuses science. I agree and concluded that the thousands who read and follow him do the same. You offered no counterpoint to that except to say that science is not to blame – which is responding to a point I did not raise.

Science only becomes deceptive and false when it claims to be able to explain ultimate causes and the world of the Spirit of God.

I asked you to give me some examples of the scientists who do this. You mentioned Dawkins.

You also claimed:

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

But I don’t see you taking a strong exception, quite honestly. You’re turning the conversation to a defense of science (totally unnecessary since science was not attacked) and an attack on Catholics who supposedly act like fundamentalists. You’ve really offered little more on the question I proposed – which is oriented to the scientists who abuse science, as you explained.

You are right in suggesting that there are many who do this, but don’t blame science, blame the dummies who try to use science to support unscientific conclusions.

I do blame them and I don’t blame “good science”. I merely pointed out that the scientific culture is dominated by Dawkins and his comrades and they practice false-science.

This is a reason for serious concern.

 

[reggieM]

Hello - what does this mean?

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. **Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]

**
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. * The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence*, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. * Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love.* They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

This is a great passage - thank you.

 

[edwest2]

Here the Pope clearly goes to the heart of the matter. Where Father Coyne says that even God did not know man would turn up, this is clearly demonstrated as false.

I urge you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, to reject “opinion culture” which holds every phrase as equally valid as any other and look to and firmly hold onto true Church teaching. In this manner, the falsehoods of today will be seen for what they are.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

Have you ever wondered why God, Who created the laws of nature, would choose to break those laws just so he could make humans?

God has authority over the laws of nature and he can interfere with them. He is not bound to them. They are not sacred laws. Nothing about God is mechanical,and he does not work in nature in a mechanical fashion. He works in nature by his personal involvement. The creation of living creatures is personal creation.
Everything that lives has spirit,which is from God. The very processes of life come into existence and are sustained by spirit.
Laws cannot make creatures come into existence.

See post 68.

 

[Quatsch]

I do not understand why creation/evolution is such a divisive topic among Christians. How does this affect our salvation?

What is wrong with God using evolution as a tool to create life in the universe? If He so desired, He certainly could have done it that way, no?

 

[rossum]

God has authority over the laws of nature and he can interfere with them.

God made the laws of nature exactly the way He wanted them. Why would He need to interfere with His own laws? Imagine two pool players. The first player takes his shot, but miscues slightly and has to nudge the cueball in order to get it to where he wants. The second pool player takes her shot and does not miscue; the cueball goes exactly where she wants it to without any further intervention. Which player is the better pool player? God sets the starting conditions and God sets the rules. God can get exactly the result He wants without any further intervention.

Laws cannot make creatures come into existence.

Why not if it is God who makes the laws? God is said to be omnipotent after all; is He incapable of making such laws?

rossum

 

[Exalt]

A: It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism

Prohibited?

So, it’s prohibited for me to drive faster than the speed limit. If I do it, I could get a warning, a fine, or jail time.

So what’s the deal with prohibition on believing something other than two literal “first parents”?

Is it a sin?