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

[buffalo]

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

 

[rossum]

Exactly.

1. Catholics - God creates everything out of nothing
2. Non Believers - nothing creates everything out of nothing

Not exactly. You are starting with nothing plus God. To be a fair match, you first have to get from nothing to nothing plus God.

Alternatively, if you start from nothing plus God, then the other side gets to start from nothing plus the multiverse.

That makes if much more of a fair comparison.

ETA: Your point 1) is heresy, since God did not make “everything”, just almost everything. Ask yourself, “Is God created?”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

St Augustine defended the bible against the pagans of his time. In City of God he argues against old ages, for creation of the kinds in the beginning, Adam and Eve were real, argues for ancients living long lives, the ark, as well as Christians who accepted Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus but would not accept Eve coming from Adam.

St Thomas Aquinas - “Again, animals of new kinds arise occasionally from the connection of individuals belonging to different species, as the mule is the offspring of an *** and a mare; but even these existed previously in their causes, in the works of the six days.”

and

“It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man,”

“God alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man.”

and

I answer that, without any doubt God can work in creatures independently of created causes … and by working independently of created causes he can produce the same effects and in the same order as he produces them by their means: or even other effects and in a different order: so that he is able to do something contrary to the common and customary course of nature.

 

[buffalo]

Not exactly. You are starting with nothing plus God. To be a fair match, you first have to get from nothing to nothing plus God.

Alternatively, if you start from nothing plus God, then the other side gets to start from nothing plus the multiverse.

That makes if much more of a fair comparison.

ETA: Your point 1) is heresy, since God did not make “everything”, just almost everything. Ask yourself, “Is God created?”

rossum

God starts first, the uncaused cause, the prime mover. He created time, space and matter, from nothing. God is immaterial.

 

[grannymh]

The Church has not made any such pronouncement against a breeding population of hominids.
That’s not what the Church objects to in polygenism.

Polygenism, by application, is a breeding genetic population. The proposal for polygenism, which requires a large population, was clearly denied by both scripture sources and the Magisterium (teaching authority from major ecumenical councils) in Humani Generis, paragraphs 35,36,37 and footnote 12

Human beings have

1. a body
2. a rational soul

The Church objects to scientists attempting to explain the rational soul through evolutionary science, and the denial that two unique first human parents existed.
The reverse side of the coin is…
The Church simply does not pretend to explain -scientifically- how the body came to exist. The Church proclaims that God created all that exists, including man’s rational soul, which was given to our first truly human parents. The Church does not attempt to explain scientifically how our “stuff” came to be.
(remember, to be truly human, we must have

1. a body
2. a rational soul.)

This is correct provided that science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrine is properly understood.

Suppose for sake of discussion a population of hominids have exactly the same dna. Two of them, Adam and Eve, have a rational soul infused by God, the others do not. The other hominids, even though they possess human “stuff” are not human because every human being is a unity of

1. body
2. soul

My sincere apology. I prefer to be respectful of genetic research which is why I cannot discuss something based on a possibility of a population of hominins having exactly the same DNA.

Here is the link explaining the recent decision to use hominin instead of hominid when referring to the species lineage resulting in the only extant species, us.

australianmuseum.net.au/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference

 

[rossum]

God starts first

Starts? You are assuming the existence of time alongside God. You are also in danger of making God into an infinite regress. If God is infinitely old, and God had a start then you have an infinite regress.

You need to thin more carefully before posting, as with your “God made everything” error.

He created time, space and matter, from nothing. God is immaterial.

No, He created from nothing plus Himself.

rossum

 

[franklinstower]

Reading through all of these posts it seems like some fundamentally minded believers have made the assumption that if a scientist doesn’t believe in God then they cannot investigate material reality effectively and that sounds a lot like militant atheists who think that if you believe in God then you cannot investigate material reality effectively, or govern effectively etc.

If you pan back a bit then these both seem like the same limited perspective (fueled by prejudice and emotion) but just with different outcomes. Luckily there are so many people who feel that there is good and bad coming out of all camps of thought and none of us are perfect or see the whole picture and we need all the help we can get to move forward as a people.

 

[clem456]

Here is the link explaining the recent decision to use hominin instead of hominid when referring to the species lineage resulting in the only extant species, us.

australianmuseum.net.au/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference

Call them whatever you want.

If, for the sake of discussion, a population of human-like organisms have the same dna, two have souls, the others do not…

Can they all be human beings?
No they cannot, only the two have rational souls, the others do not.

Could science explain the **material **origin of the whole population, human and non-human? Yes

Could science explain the **full humanity **of both beings? No because science cannot explain the creation of a soul.

Can faith explain the physical processes and pathways by which the whole population came to be? No, that is not what faith endeavors to do. Faith can accept the possibility of various explanations, but it is not the Church’s task to do definitive scientific research.

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 (notice the difference in language from this to that of modern day Popes who have the distinct advantage of fuller scientific knowledge), and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. 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 in 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]

There is a fundamental mis-understanding of what the Church means by polygenism.

 

[clem456]

Several quotes were cited saying if science proclaims against the Bible, the Bible should retreat. It is the belief of many here.

Honestly, who here has taken this position? Can you cite those posts that believe the bible should “retreat”.
Do you really understand what those who disagree with your agenda are saying?

 

[ManOnFire]

Alternatively, if you start from nothing plus God, then the other side gets to start from nothing plus the multiverse.

rossum

“Nothing plus the multiverse” = "something,’’ namely, a multiverse which has always existed with no first mover and no beginning, which fails to go back to the beginning, because a godless multiverse can’t logically and scientifically involve a beginning.

I’ve resigned myself to accept the fact that humanity is permanently forbidden to ever find the final answer due to the paradoxical belief that a godless multiverse could magically pop itself into existence from absolutely nothing, and I’m actually much happier now.

 

[franklinstower]

“Nothing plus the multiverse” = "something,’’ namely, a multiverse which has always existed with no first mover and no beginning, which fails to go back to the beginning, because a godless multiverse can’t logically and scientifically involve a beginning.

I’ve resigned myself to accept the fact that humanity is permanently forbidden to ever find the final answer due to the paradoxical belief that a godless multiverse could magically pop itself into existence from absolutely nothing, and I’m actually much happier now.

Even if this really becomes the prevailing view of the scientific community I leave room at least for progressive or accidental discoveries to be had that eventually lead to the discovery of more tangible footprints of a creator. I really think this is only inevitable over time-- no idea how soon but it just seem like God isn’t really hiding itself in creation we are just not advanced enough in our scientific inquiry to see it yet-- we are as yet just that primitive in our methodologies and knowledge.

 

[clem456]

Starts? You are assuming the existence of time alongside God. You are also in danger of making God into an infinite regress. If God is infinitely old, and God had a start then you have an infinite regress.

You need to thin more carefully before posting, as with your “God made everything” error.

No, He created from nothing plus Himself.

rossum

I think the idea of an infinite regress would be that God has no start/finish?

The word “old” has no meaning for an infinite being.
God is outside of time, he is not a prisoner of it. He sees all time but is not -subject to- a sequence of events or a passing. He reveals himself in a coherent and timely fashion for us, but is not bound by our intellect.

So, to say that God created “from” something does not make sense, as God simply “is” and does not need to use something else to create anything from. In fact that is how he self identifies himself: “I am, who am”.

So if God wishes to infuse two beings of his choice with a soul (which Catholics believe is the case according to scripture), it is his prerogative to do so in the way he wills. It’s up to us to discover what is discoverable and not attempt to limit God to our own ways of understanding.

 

[clem456]

Even if this really becomes the prevailing view of the scientific community I leave room at least for progressive or accidental discoveries to be had that eventually lead to the discovery of more tangible footprints of a creator. I really think this is only inevitable over time-- no idea how soon but it just seem like God isn’t really hiding itself in creation we are just not advanced enough in our scientific inquiry to see it yet-- we are as yet just that primitive in our methodologies and knowledge.

I disagree that science will ever come close to the footprints of God. We will learn what there is to know about the world around us but God will essentially always be the ultimate “other” who is unknowable in his fullness.

Knowing, in the sense of faith, is about entering a relationship not just discovering facts.

 

[franklinstower]

I disagree that science will ever come close to the footprints of God. We will learn what there is to know about the world around us but God will essentially always be the ultimate “other” who is unknowable in his fullness.

Knowing, in the sense of faith, is about entering a relationship not just discovering facts.

I 100% agree with the apophatic attitude you just expressed and I also do not think that science will discover God any more clearly than mystics do, in their own subjective experiences, no matter how sublime or holly.

At the same time it seems clear to me that we will begin to discover energies that relate with the world that fit neither wholly into a secular worldview or a religious one-- “metaphysical energies” that will open the door for whole new vistas of discussion.

I was just cleaning the house and waiting for your response and I imagined Sam Harris and what his response might be to the scientific discovery of energies that we were able to verify that certain mystics interact with during prayer, or at church, and how he would just use that to argue that God was never real and the experience of God is really an interaction with before unknown natural energies.

My point is – you may be right… possibly at any point in the discussion and our knowledge of creation you can either see God is there or not.

Edit-- I am optimistic though that at some point our scientific understanding of things possibly with the help of entirely new and unknown areas of investigation will make it more and more likely and probable that God exists.

 

[rossum]

“Nothing plus the multiverse” = "something,’’

Correct, just as “Nothing plus God” = “something”. That was my point. Both sides start from more than pure “nothing”.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Starts? You are assuming the existence of time alongside God. You are also in danger of making God into an infinite regress. If God is infinitely old, and God had a start then you have an infinite regress.

You need to thin more carefully before posting, as with your “God made everything” error.

No, He created from nothing plus Himself.

rossum

God is outside of time. He is the uncreated creator. Is your claim He created Himself?

 

[buffalo]

Correct, just as “Nothing plus God” = “something”. That was my point. Both sides start from more than pure “nothing”.

rossum

Are you admitting to avoid an infinite regress both sides have to admit God?

 

[edwest2]

When properly presented and understood, evolution does not replace the idea of a grand designer. Instead it enhances the idea of a grand designer by displaying the equally magnificent mechanism that He used to accomplish his design.

What mechanism? The human genome is turning out to be far more complex than originally thought. There’s nothing magnificent about the alleged process since Biology textbooks will tell you no plan or purpose was involved. Chemicals to man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Pope Pius XII:

"35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

"36. 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.

“37. 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 in 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]”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

What mechanism? The human genome is turning out to be far more complex than originally thought. There’s nothing magnificent about the alleged process since Biology textbooks will tell you no plan or purpose was involved. Chemicals to man.

Peace,
Ed

Indeed, that is why the modern synthesis is being abandoned in favor of self organization.