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

[grannymh]

Because of the tremendous advancement in genetics, the cladistics system of classification is currently used. In addition, the “scientific” debate of hominids and hominins has been decided. Our lineage is now referred to as hominins. The human species is the only extant species in the hominin line diverging from the Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) common ancestor.

This is a reputable source for the science of human evolution.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

What Catholics need to know is that the current cladistics system places a large genetic breeding population at the dividing point on a diagram. This works for non-human living organisms. It does not work for true humans.

According to current diagrams, humans eventually developed both their decomposing anatomy and their rational abilities from a common ancestor of mixed genetics referred to as the Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) split. Eventually, this developing human population stabilized by outwitting other kinds of beings.

Catholics have claimed that their material anatomy developed from existing matter with the spiritual soul created by God in the first two genuine humans. What is currently primary for Catholics is that they need to recognize that the science of human evolution prohibits a population of two as the final stage of the hominin lineage. The online book, Science & Human Origins, chapters one and five by Dr. Ann Gauger, directly addresses the current science of human evolution.
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=9031

Another excellent book is Origin of the Human Species, the expanded third edition, by Dr. Dennis Bonnette. There are two major appendices added to this third edition.
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

This article in a major Catholic publication updates human origin information needed by interested persons.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

The “populations evolve, not individuals” theory directly intersects with the Catholic doctrines of human origin and human nature. In addition, we need to be clear that the human species started with two fully-complete genuine humans as described by the Catholic Church.

 

[pepipop]

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.

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?

I studied it myself, genetics, a long while ago and IMO it is a ‘new’ science. Especially, when up to 98% of DNA was referred to as ‘junk’ DNA and worthless, up until several years ago - which does not take away from the fact genetics has moved forward dramatically.

In relation to the article above quoted, I only referred to it in relation to the chromosome 2 theory, i.e. looked at from another perspective. The discovery, of a man in China with only 44 chromosomes, also may put a spanner in the works of the existing chromosome 2 theory.

science.kqed.org/quest/2010/03/01/and-then-there-were-44/

*Missing two chromosomes but doing fine. A partial karyotype of a man with 44 chromosomes.

A doctor from China contacted me through this blog with some exciting news. He had found a patient with 44 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. And the patient was perfectly normal as far as anyone could tell.

The doctor contacted me because the story of how this patient ended up with 44 chromosomes mirrored my story of how humans may have gone from 48 to 46 chromosomes a million or so years ago. The idea that human chromosome reduction could happen this way was theoretical when I wrote about it. Now we have living proof that it can and does happen.
*

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

False.

Just like atheists, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Misconceptions:

1. Methodological naturalism is a godless invention.

False. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of the scientific method, and was invented by the first scientists who were all believers. They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

1. Science would do better if it would abandon methodological naturalism.

False. Science is successful precisely because it adheres to methodological naturalism. What if it would say at every step, “God did it”, instead of investigating natural causes? It would go nowhere.

I practice science every day, and I practice methodological naturalism every day. I do this as a believer, continuing a tradition initiated by the first scientists who were all believers. Without methodological naturalism I could not do my work as a scientist.

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. If atheists want to promote that confusion, then fine, they know nothing about philosophy, and they know nothing about the boundaries between science and philosophy. You should not be so stupid to follow in their footsteps.

---

You are influenced into a silly re-definition of science as promoted by creationist websites. Get over it. They are wrong.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

1. You are confusing an evolutionary origin of the human body with the process of creation of each body. Are you denying the basic biological processes, the secondary causes, that God uses to create each human body, following sexual encounter between man and woman? Basic biological processes that are not related to the direct infusion of the soul to each human being by God, because the soul is immaterial, whereas the biological processes deal with the matter of the human body?
2. You are flat wrong in what the Church says.

Pope Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis, 1950:

“The Church does not forbid that … 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.”

The Pope then goes on to say that whatever the origin of the human body, Catholics are bound to believe in a direct creation of the soul for each human being by God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

By the way, if you are confusing natural causes with ‘godless’ causes that are somehow in competition with God, you are making the same mistake as atheists do. No, natural causes are the the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. If atheists want to promote that confusion, then fine, they know nothing about philosophy, and they know nothing about the boundaries between science and philosophy.

And they know nothing about the history of science.

 

[buffalo]

Well, as the title of this thread indicates, the Pope disagrees with you.

Evangelii gaudium, Pope Francis reminded us that:

Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio), the Church . . . calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence (Evangelii gaudium, 242).

 

[buffalo]

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.

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?

To criticize design one must know the purpose of the design. The designer must be asked.

 

[buffalo]

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.

I suppose scientism is better in our secular culture.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Seems the Pope might agree

In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium, for example, Pope Francis reminded us that: Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio), the Church . . . calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence (Evangelii gaudium, 242).

 

[buffalo]

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”.

The classification could be subject to change then. I believe we will see a new classification system soon based on genetics. It will be quite different then the current one.

 

[buffalo]

False.

Just like atheists, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Misconceptions:

1. Methodological naturalism is a godless invention.

False. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of the scientific method, and was invented by the first scientists who were all believers. They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

1. Science would do better if it would abandon methodological naturalism.

False. Science is successful precisely because it adheres to methodological naturalism. What if it would say at every step, “God did it”, instead of investigating natural causes? It would go nowhere.

I practice science every day, and I practice methodological naturalism every day. I do this as a believer, continuing a tradition initiated by the first scientists who were all believers. Without methodological naturalism I could not do my work as a scientist.

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. If atheists want to promote that confusion, then fine, they know nothing about philosophy, and they know nothing about the boundaries between science and philosophy. You should not be so stupid to follow in their footsteps.

---

You are influenced into a silly re-definition of science as promoted by creationist websites. Get over it. They are wrong.

I do not agree. Science exists because of he Catholic understand the world is intelligible. Why? Because God created it to be so. Science already is based on this. Methodological naturalism has gone way overboard to exclude this. Having said that, I think science should look for natural explanations first. Sure, that leads to the “God of the Gaps”. But, there will always be at least one gap. Science, its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It cannot be turned into a god.

 

[estesbob]

I can give you four reasons from my perspective:

1. It is a new doctrine that had it’s roots in Seventh Day Adventists-- I consider that a cult. Until then, the idea that the earth was very old was accepted by most Protestants. Indeed, most of the mainline Protestant sects still have no problem with evolution.
2. The idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is scientifically incorrect. That means that those who believe it are contradicting truth. Remember the quote from Thomas Aquinas that was given earlier?

I do not want the Catholic Church to be a matter of ridicule.

1. After studying nearly all the Creationist literature, I find their theories and their science to be intellectually bankrupt. I have discussed this via correspondence with both Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. I find the wedge theory to be dishonest and duplicitous.
2. The push to teach Creationism in public schools undermines our young people’s education, critical thinking ability and their knowledge of science.

Having said all of that, I don’t think that anyone in this thread is going to even consider changing their mind, so I will bow out of the conversation. I say this so y’all know that I’m not trying to be rude by not responding.

The Church does not have a stance on whether Evolution is correct or not and Catholics are allowed to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if they want.

The question of whether intelligent design should be taught in schools is a totally separate issue. I personally oppose it but believe when evolution is taught the teacher should respect the fact that some religions reject it and mention this to the class.

 

[buffalo]

The Church does not have a stance on whether Evolution is correct or not and Catholics are allowed to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if they want.

The question of whether intelligent design should be taught in schools is a totally separate issue. I personally oppose it but believe when evolution is taught the teacher should respect the fact that some religions reject it and mention this to the class.

The church rules out the molecules to man materialist version.

What really is God guided evolution, the Catholic version? Is the Catholic version Intelligently Designed Evolution?

 

[estesbob]

The church rules out the molecules to man materialist version.

What really is God guided evolution, the Catholic version? Is the Catholic version Intelligently Designed Evolution?

There is no “Catholic:” version. They are concerned with the “who” not the “how”

 

[slave_of_god]

As long as the Pope didn’t embrace neo-darwinism (microbe-to-man evolution), then it’s ok to believe in evolution, variation, genetics and big bang under the theistic umberella.

 

[RGCheek]

False.

Just like atheists, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Misconceptions:

1. Methodological naturalism is a godless invention.

False. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of the scientific method, and was invented by the first scientists who were all believers. They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

1. Science would do better if it would abandon methodological naturalism.

False. Science is successful precisely because it adheres to methodological naturalism. What if it would say at every step, “God did it”, instead of investigating natural causes? It would go nowhere.

I practice science every day, and I practice methodological naturalism every day. I do this as a believer, continuing a tradition initiated by the first scientists who were all believers. Without methodological naturalism I could not do my work as a scientist.

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. If atheists want to promote that confusion, then fine, they know nothing about philosophy, and they know nothing about the boundaries between science and philosophy. You should not be so stupid to follow in their footsteps.

---

You are influenced into a silly re-definition of science as promoted by creationist websites. Get over it. They are wrong.

 

[RGCheek]

False. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of the scientific method, and was invented by the first scientists who were all believers. They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

By the way, if you are confusing natural causes with ‘godless’ causes that are somehow in competition with God, you are making the same mistake as atheists do. No, natural causes are the the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

Do you normally argue with yourself?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Do you normally argue with yourself?

Hehe.

 

[pepipop]

Do you normally argue with yourself?

hahaha… I was going to ask the same question myself.