Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[buffalo]

designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php

Link for previous post.

I just published a research paper reviewing the recent scientific literature and also analyzing recent ENCODE data for the alleged human chromosome 2 fusion site - literally wrecking one of the top evolutionary arguments used for human evolution from an ape ancestor. See abstract below from the paper along with a link to the full paper which is open access.

“Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion” - See more at: designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php#sthash.JJf12ZG2.dpuf

 

[estesbob]

But on this subject the Bible is clear. Even to us “uneducated rabble”.

That is not what our Church teaches.

 

[truetofaith]

In my mind, I always couple the creation account, with the St Peter’s assertion that to the Lord, a thousand years is like a day. So I personally am not wedded to the concept of the 24-hr day in acknowledging God’s creation of the earth.

Taking the first chapter of Genesis literally presents (to me at least) mind-bending problems such as: how did the light come if the sun was not yet created? Ditto, morning and evening, or day for that matter.

Maybe God was the Light that separated day from night until He created the sun & moon on the fourth day.

 

[Rin]

Yes, but does evolution fall within the area of a ‘scientific theory’?

Yes, the theory of evolution falls within the “area of a ‘scientific theory’”. As a matter of fact, it probably is the best “proved” (which, again, is shorthand for “demonstrated to be probable”) theory in current science.

Is evolution far beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes, evolution is far beyond reasonable doubt.

It is however not my area of interest - mine would be the relationship between faith and science, scientific method, and philosophy of science. I do, to be honest, find biology quite boring. I am at times fascinated with neurobiology, and everything in the intersection of biology and psychology, but it stops there - perhaps except at times being fascinated by other huminidae, dolphins, dogs and other animals with theory of mind. But then again, that’s because it’s related to the former. And because they’re cute. In either case, taking biology classes would bore me to death.

When it comes to evolution, I simply acknowledge that 99.999% of biologists accept it as probable beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, I have no reason to reject their findings. It is similar to my acceptance that falling to the ground is probably caused by gravity and not teleology, and that Earth revolves around the Sun (or, rather, the equations become so much simpler when we see it that way…), despite Scripture clearly stating otherwise.

I also acknowledge that there is nothing about evolution that contradicts Catholic faith. I have also yet to see a non-American Catholic who would claim otherwise. They may of course exist; as may black swans.

But to conclude, since you’re obviously more interested in the subject than me, pick up a biology textbook.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Really, you guys cite the ICR and a research pulbished in an Answers-in-Genesis ‘Research Journal’ as debunking the chromosome 2 fusion? Really? Come on, you can’t be serious. If the alleged debunking were true, it would already have been published in Nature or Science, or at least in PNAS. Oh no, I forgot, there is a conspiracy amongst scientists…I forgot that little detail

 

[TMC]

…

I also acknowledge that there is nothing about evolution that contradicts Catholic faith. I have also yet to see a non-American Catholic who would claim otherwise. They may of course exist; as may black swans.

…

I have actually only “seen” American Catholics who claim otherwise on-line, all those I know in real life agree with the last seven Popes on this point.

 

[on_the_hill]

The Church has been continually retreating from scientific evidence ever since we figured out what really caused rainbows.

You, sir, are a troll.

 

[Rin]

I have actually only “seen” American Catholics who claim otherwise on-line, all those I know in real life agree with the last seven Popes on this point.

Good to know. My impression of American Catholics is probably somewhat skewed due to CAF and the blogosphere.

 

[on_the_hill]

People, just because the Evangelicals down the street believe it to be true

As a matter of fact, the only people I know (in real life) who are Young Earthers are Evangelicals.

 

[truetofaith]

That’s what I don’t understand-why people of Faith would feel threatened by Evolution. If God chose to use evolution in the creation process why is that a problem?

The problem to me is God says in Genesis that He formed man out of the dust of the earth & breathed life into him. He didn’t let the apes evolve into a human & then give a soul to man.

We either believe the Bible or not!

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem to me is God says in Genesis that He formed man out of the dust of the earth & breathed life into him. He didn’t let the apes evolve into a human & then give a soul to man.

We either believe the Bible or not!

You can’t see the immense figurative language in that passage ??

Could that not be describing man coming from the protozoas in the earth billions of years before? Could that not be how he formed man from the earth then once we reached a state of his choosing he breathed our souls into us giving us our humanness??

 

[Havard]

The problem to me is God says in Genesis that He formed man out of the dust of the earth & breathed life into him. He didn’t let the apes evolve into a human & then give a soul to man.

We either believe the Bible or not!

From the Catechism:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

 

[truetofaith]

You can’t see the immense figurative language in that passage ??

Could that not be describing man coming from the protozoas in the earth billions of years before? Could that not be how he formed man from the earth then once we reached a state of his choosing he breathed our souls into us giving us our humanness??

OK, I grant you that it took billions of years for man to reach that point…but it was separate from the apes development!!

 

[Seamus_L]

But the big question is. Has the Catholic Church always taught this or is it a very recent interpretation ?

 

[Havard]

But the big question is. Has the Catholic Church always taught this or is it a very recent interpretation ?

There have only been theories, the Church has never mandated an official interpretation. Even in the early Church, many Fathers took an allegorical view (Ambrose, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, etc.)

 

[boar2roar]

I don’t understand why many people of Faith feel so threatened by the theory of evolution. I also don’t understand why so many people criticize those who have doubts about the theory of evolution. How we got here is irrelevant . How we act now that we are here is what is important.

Because belief in evolution means you believe in at best a blind, goal-less or ambivalent creator, and certainly wouldn’t make sense for an omniscient one. Evolution isn’t goal driven so humans are kind of a coincidence based on external factors that could have easily been completely different. I don’t see how you can be a traditional catholic (who emphasize gods relationship with man) and reconcile that. Only certain types of deists could make that case and you often see catholics like Kenneth R miller really have to take deist positions to reconcile the two.

 

[on_the_hill]

Basically, I see the Creation story as an allegory for the human soul: There was darkness and chaos, then God said let there be light. Without God, we are in darkness. With God, we are in the Light.

I don’t think the Creation story in Genesis has anything at all to do with the tangibles of how we got here.

And furthermore, what has the Pope done but re-package what has been standard Catholic belief for many, many years? It’s not the first time Pope Francis has done that, by the way.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Because belief in evolution means you believe in at best a blind, goal-less or ambivalent creator, and certainly wouldn’t make sense for an omniscient one. Evolution isn’t goal driven so humans are kind of a coincidence based on external factors that could have easily been completely different. I don’t see how you can be a traditional catholic (who emphasize gods relationship with man) and reconcile that. Only certain types of deists could make that case and you often see catholics like Kenneth R miller really have to take deist positions to reconcile the two.

This just isn’t true. Perhaps you enjoy boxing God in and limiting his abilities, but I do not.

We aren’t talking about Godless evolution, we are talking about God setting a course of events. God treating biology like physics with laws and cause and effect.

Why God can’t be intimately involved in that is beyond me. He of course can. It displays his majesty.

I would argue that to have such detailed and complex life as we have is proof of Gods intimate involvement with the evolutionary process

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK, I grant you that it took billions of years for man to reach that point…but it was separate from the apes development!!

How could it be separate?

There was a time when there was nothing but single cell creatures.

Many millions of years later mammals emerged in the form of small creatures.

Many millions of years later mammals were diversified into the species we now see

Somewhere in that process millions of years ago, modern apes did not exist nor humans, but perhaps some other creatures that led to the species we see today.

Perhaps such an idea explains Neanderthals. Perhaps they were “soulless” hominids. That God gave us our soul transforming us into a new creation which emerged as humans leaving others like Neanderthals behind.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Because belief in evolution means you believe in at best a blind, goal-less or ambivalent creator, and certainly wouldn’t make sense for an omniscient one. Evolution isn’t goal driven so humans are kind of a coincidence based on external factors that could have easily been completely different. I don’t see how you can be a traditional catholic (who emphasize gods relationship with man) and reconcile that. Only certain types of deists could make that case and you often see catholics like Kenneth R miller really have to take deist positions to reconcile the two.

From the Church document Communion and Stewardship (emphases added):

1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. 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). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. ***Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist ***because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).