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

[anthony022071]

Edited from my last post.

Cardinal John Henry Newman (recently beatified by the Church), said in 1868 (3 years after Darwin’s publication):

As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. **Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. **Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God.

The problem with evolution theory is not just the idea that species originated through accidents. The theory is a naturalistic,mechanistic explanation of the origins of species and makes illogical causal connections,giving creative powers to natural causes that are impossible. Even if we reconcile the idea of accidental processes with divine providence,we still cannot reconcile naturalism and determinism and false interpretations of natural causation with the doctrine of creation. And it goes against reason to believe that species came into existence gradually because living creatures only come into existence immediately.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve read that document. Paragraph 69 doesn’t show that the theory is consistent with the doctrine of creation. It shows that natural contingency can be guided by divine providence. Paragraph 64 says that theories of evolution which are materialist,reductionist or neo-Darwinian are not compatible with the Catholic faith. That would exclude the scientific theory of evolution as it is commonly known and taught.

Paragraph 64: It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

While there are some evolutionists who mix up their materialist philosophy with their scientific statements, science itself says, and cannot say, nothing about the causal role of divine providence in the development of life. As such, the scientific theory of evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith, which of course makes an exception when it comes to the human soul (which as an immaterial entity lies outside the material process of evolution), as also alluded to in paragraph 64.

 

[anthony022071]

I am aware of the naturalist spin put on the idea that the universe comes from nothing but that does not in any way take from the striking similarities-- in this case it just leaves God out of the reach of present scientific investigation. I am aware of the dangers of attaching any religious spin to scientific theory-- especially doing so publicly because any theory that we attach Christianity to that turns out to be false only further discredits Christianity in the mind of the public. However faith and reason go together and scientific information that is available begs to be considered in the light of our Christian faith and I think that it needs to be done-- very freely in private conversations and in our own minds but without drawing concrete conclusions, and very carefully and conservatively in public.

I actually don’t hang my hat on any scientific theory in any concrete ways in regards to seeing how God is working in creation simply because I think there are going to be discoveries that radically alter the way in which we think understand and view ourselves, and the universe-- whole vistas of insight and discovery that will cast new light on everything. However not drawing concrete conclusions only frees ones imagination to consider all of the wonderful possibilities in relation to our understanding of creation and Gods interaction with it.

The scientific theory about the origin of the universe is not a naturalistic spin on the idea that the universe comes from nothing. Science is naturalistic to begin with,and the theory that the universe was produced from nothing is a result of scientific naturalism and reductionism. Scientists are led by that view of nature to think that nothing has something (energy,natural mechanisms) from which to create physical matter,which is absurd. Father Robert Barron called it philosophically incoherent in one of his videos.

It’s true that faith and reason go together,but the debate is not about faith and reason themselves or science in general,but naturalistic theories of origins and the doctrine of creation. Scientific theories are not reason itself,but naturalistic explanations,and the doctrine of creation is not just personal faith in God and creation,but the truth about God’s relation to the natural world,and its implications descend to the particular workings of nature.

 

[grannymh]

Paragraph 64: It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

While there are some evolutionists who mix up their materialist philosophy with their scientific statements, science itself says, and cannot say, nothing about the causal role of divine providence in the development of life. As such, the scientific theory of evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith, which of course makes an exception when it comes to the human soul (which as an immaterial entity lies outside the material process of evolution), as also alluded to in paragraph 64.

How do you adapt the current science of human evolution which posits that humans evolved as a population of thousands, not as two individuals, following the Homo/Pan Divergence?

Note. Paleoanthropologists consider human evolution as a distinct discipline, that is, different from ants and plants.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How do you adapt the current science of human evolution which posits that humans evolved as a population of thousands, not as two individuals, following the Homo/Pan Divergence?

Note. Paleoanthropologists consider human evolution as a distinct discipline, that is, different from ants and plants.

I have answered this in my recent post to you. You must have overlooked it.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
How do you adapt the current science of human evolution which posits that humans evolved as a population of thousands, not as two individuals, following the Homo/Pan Divergence?

Note. Paleoanthropologists consider human evolution as a distinct discipline, that is, different from ants and plants.

I have answered this in my recent post to you. You must have overlooked it.

I believe you are correct. Please accept my sincere apology.

On the other hand, my current research shows that there are a number of ways of adapting Divine Revelation to the proposals of the current Science of Human Evolution. BioLogos Foundation serves as a good example of this endeavor. Because the wording of these proposals is generally very interesting, perhaps there are other readers of this thread who would be interested in my repetitive question.

 

[NeedsMercy]

That’s the crux of my scepticism re: evolution, ‘humans ARE considered to be apes’, not all of it, i.e. prehistoric man and the human timeline and other species timelines - but the fact humans were thrown in along with other ‘primates’, in the first place.

Initially, because apes and men walked upright, used their hands, etc… followed by the controversial DNA chromosome 2 evidence. As genetics is not a very advanced science ATM and the evolutionists, I assume, would wish the DNA analysis to match their initial clinical observations, it could be seen to fit that purpose. Just my opinion.

Time will tell if it is correct.

Well, the taxonomy of the primates pre-dates the theory of evolution by about 100 years: Linnaeus developed his system in 1758; Darwin publishing in 1858. The basis for today’s modern taxonomy of the primates was Linnaeus’ observations, not those of today’s supporters of the evolutionary theory. Some changes were later made to his system to incorporate the research of molecular geneticists.

As far as genetics not being a very advanced science, Brother Mendel and I would respectfully disagree. As a college student who took several courses in genetics in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, I can tell you categorically that the advancements made in the field are astounding! Far from converting me to atheism, this all serves to deepen my respect and awe for the Creator.

Why would God require humans, in his evolutionary design, to be derived from the same common ancestor as apes, which ‘common ancestor’ needless to say has never been discovered. I suppose, it could be said why not, but it does not seem to fit well considering animals were created separately from man, in Genesis.

Could God possibly just have created upright animals that could use their hands.

*The difficulty with this idea is that there is no obvious advantage to having 46 chromosomes instead of 48. What matters is our DNA, not how it happens to be packaged.

It is possible that there was some advantage to fusing the chromosomes together. For example, maybe a new gene was created at the fusion point. Or maybe genes that were shut off before were now turned on in the new fused chromosomes.

There isn’t any evidence of these kinds of things. And even if there were, a designer who can easily put in the 60 million or so differences between humans and chimpanzees should be able to accomplish whatever results a chromosome fusion gives more elegantly than sticking two ape chromosomes together.

Also, when you look at the fusion point, you can see that the DNA isn’t exactly what you would expect if a fusion happened in the last 10,000 or even 100,000 years. The results look more like an event that happened millions of years ago.*

science.kqed.org/quest/2008/05/12/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design/

Ummm, you do know that the article you linked argues **against **intelligent design, and not **for **it, don’t you? Dr. Starr is saying that if God were creating each species separately, why didn’t He make a nice, elegant human chromosome 2 instead of a human chromosome 2 that looks like it were stuck together from two other primate chromosomes? Also, if God had created 5,000 or 10,000 years ago, why did He make the human chromosome 2 such that it looks like it had been created millions of years ago and had undergone a number of changes?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Why is it scary that some Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Is belief in evolution a requirement of being a good Catholic? It is interesting to debate evolution but we should not fall in the trap of believing ones stance on evolution has any significance in our spiritual or physical life.

What’s scary about people–and I said all people, not just Catholics–believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis? It’s scary because people are using it for a scientific explanation of creation. And that is, of course, wrong.

I did not say that belief in evolution is a requirement for being a “good Catholic”. I don’t know how you got that out of my statement. I would be the last person to tell another Catholic how to be “good”.

I fear that the growing number of evolution-deniers is showing future generations that is perfectly acceptable to shun real learning–made capable by our God-given brains; to use the Bible as an alternate to science; and to mock those who genuinely seek God in His creation.

 

[NeedsMercy]

It’s scary because it’s something that flies in the face of reason. Even St. Augustine - way back in the early 5th century - saw a completely literal reading of Genesis as something that could keep people from converting to the Faith, because even the science of that day argued against it. He expressed this using fairly strong language: When a Doctor of the Church calls something idiotic, it ought to make one refrain from proclaiming it as truth. Holy Scripture records the history of Salvation, not the universe.

What a great quote!

 

[Al_Moritz]

As far as genetics not being a very advanced science, Brother Mendel and I would respectfully disagree. As a college student who took several courses in genetics in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, I can tell you categorically that the advancements made in the field are astounding! Far from converting me to atheism, this all serves to deepen my respect and awe for the Creator.

I hadn’t even seen the comments about genetics not being a very advanced science. You are, of course, absolutely right. Today genetics is very advanced. Even though my field is protein chemistry, as a biochemist I deal with genetic data all the time as basis for my analyses, it’s fascinating.

 

[NeedsMercy]

A bunch of people live in a box. They are convinced there is nothing outside the box. There is writing on the wall that claims there is something outside the box. The people deny the writing and continue to live and think inside the box. They conclude that they can given enough time close their gaps of knowledge through inside the box reasoning. They are not dismayed at all that their science is provisional and subject to change tomorrow. The writing on the wall never changes, but they still deny it.

One day some decide to investigate the writing. The others disparage them and mock them. The one’s who investigate the writing see things in a new light and begin to take them more seriously. The others mock them claiming their way is the better way.

One day a hole in the box is cut and everyone is amazed. There are still some though who deny what they see.

Instead of making up an irrelevant analogy, why don’t you “Discuss the points made in the paper”? If you don’t, I will have to assume that you can’t.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I hadn’t even seen the comments about genetics not being a very advanced science. You are, of course, absolutely right. Today genetics is very advanced. Even though my field is protein chemistry, as a biochemist I deal with genetic data all the time as basis for my analyses, it’s fascinating.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Recently it has been brought to light the peer review failures.

Duh…let me guess…you’re talking about the CRU of the UEA?

 

[NeedsMercy]

By a human classification system. By God?

We are talking about evolution. Evolution is studied by scientists. Scientists use the taxonomic classification to which I linked earlier, wherein “apes” is a branch of primates. Man is classified as a “great ape”.

 

[NeedsMercy]

When it rises to storytellling it deserves to be mocked.

And no one tells a better story that the writers of Genesis

 

[NeedsMercy]

I think that, because some scientists are openly mocking of anything resembling faith, some believers feel compelled to, in turn, denigrate science. Which gets us back to Aquinas and a number of recent Popes and their assertions that truths of science cannot contradict truths of faith. We need not fear anything that scientists - even those who vigorously deny God - can discover.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head: it’s fear. But, as you say, there is absolutely nothing to fear.

 

[NeedsMercy]

1. The push to teach Creationism in public schools undermines our young people’s education, critical thinking ability and their knowledge of science.

Bingo!

 

[on_the_hill]

Once and for all:

The Pope was not wrong.

Catholics are not in any way, shape, or form required to accept the story of Creation set forth in Genesis (whichever of the two stories you prefer) as being literal. So please, please stop misleading people who don’t know any better.

I’m getting so frustrated with people criticizing Pope Francis when he spoke a long-accepted truth about our Catholic faith.

Shouldn’t we also believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? After all, why would God create a perfect Man and Woman (From the man’s rib) during a six day building spree and put them on a small planet in a forgettable solar system on the far edge of an insignificant galaxy? He wouldn’t. Therefore, the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of all Creation.

 

[franklinstower]

The scientific theory about the origin of the universe is not a naturalistic spin on the idea that the universe comes from nothing. Science is naturalistic to begin with,and the theory that the universe was produced from nothing is a result of scientific naturalism and reductionism. Scientists are led by that view of nature to think that nothing has something (energy,natural mechanisms) from which to create physical matter,which is absurd. Father Robert Barron called it philosophically incoherent in one of his videos.

It’s true that faith and reason go together,but the debate is not about faith and reason themselves or science in general,but naturalistic theories of origins and the doctrine of creation. Scientific theories are not reason itself,but naturalistic explanations,and the doctrine of creation is not just personal faith in God and creation,but the truth about God’s relation to the natural world,and its implications descend to the particular workings of nature.

It sounds like we agree almost 100%. The way I see it is that even if the scientific notion that the universe comes from nothing is naturalistic in origin that does not mean that they aren’t on to some piece of the truth anyway. In fact they have come upon a really big piece of the truth-- they are just missing the most important part which is God. There are still similarities there to appreciate.

 

[anthony022071]

Paragraph 64: It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

While there are some evolutionists who mix up their materialist philosophy with their scientific statements, science itself says, and cannot say, nothing about the causal role of divine providence in the development of life. As such, the scientific theory of evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith, which of course makes an exception when it comes to the human soul (which as an immaterial entity lies outside the material process of evolution), as also alluded to in paragraph 64.

I disagree,because the theory itself is a naturalistic,mechanistic explanation. The way in which things are scientifically explained can itself be incompatible with Church doctrine,because everything is explained as if only natural causes are real. This can be just as bad as teaching naturalist or materialist philosophy,because the error is concealed by the scientific research and evidence,and the false explanation is widely accepted as the best one.

Materialism or naturalism outside the context of science does not always amount to a philosophy. By itself,it is just a simple and false view of reality,and science takes this view as its own. It does not become harmless when it is used in the context of science.

The scientific use of naturalistic view (methodological naturalism) does say something about divine providence - it says that it is out of consideration. And so,natural causes are considered adequate for explaining all phenomena. This is not really a neutral view,but rather a judgement against supernatural causation. And it is false. The ignorance of divine causation leads to false assessments of natural causes. The doctrine of creation has implications for the proper understanding of natural causes,because God is always and everywhere involved with nature. If a theory is mistaken in its assessment of natural causation,attributing them with abilities that they don’t have,then it is not compatible with the doctrine of creation.

Even if we exempt the soul from evolving,that does not make the theory of evolution alright, because the body and soul are created together as one whole being. The soul is the form of the body and the body is the physical manifestation of the soul.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this in his book “Dogma and Preaching”:

“Now some have tried to get around the problem by saying that the human body may be a product of evolution, but the soul is not by any means: God himself created it, since spirit cannot emerge from matter. This answer seems to have in its favor the fact that spirit cannot be examined by the same scientific method with which one studies the history of organisms, but only at first glance is this a satisfactory answer. We have to continue the line of questioning: Can we divide man up in this way between theologians and scientists–the soul for the former, the body for the latter? Is that not intolerable for both? The natural scientist believes that he can see man as a whole gradually taking shape; he also finds an area of psychological transition in which human behavior slowly arises out of animal activity, without being able to draw a clear boundary…Conversely, the theologian is convinced that the soul gives form to the body as well, characterizing it through and through as a human body, so that a human being is spirit only as body and is body only as and in the spirit, then this division of man loses all meaning for him, too”.

Communion and Stewardship says this:

1. 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.