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

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by buffalo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Better translation was recently released.

“God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Can it be assumed that you accept this as a legitimate Catholic point of view?

Nature is normally, in science language, a reference to the material/physical aspects of the universe including decomposing anatomies.

The key is to recognize the necessary presupposition at the start of the evolution model. The evolution model cannot work unless we accept the presupposition that it can work, that is, that there are some material beings that have the power within themselves to change and/or adapt their material aspects. Regardless of any changes or adaptations, the material beings did not create themselves. Thus, the workings of physical and material aspects require a creator outside of themselves. This does not contrast with the principle of a transcendent super-natural pure spirit Creator God. The presumed evolution model can be considered as a legitimate Catholic point of view regarding solely material/physical objects or aspects of the material/physical universe .

When it comes to the science of human evolution, the legitimate Catholic point of view recognizes the presence of the super-natural spiritual intellective soul which cannot evolve because it is not material. Still, there are some material aspects of the current human body which in themselves have the power to adapt or change. An example is found in studies of the lungs of people living in extreme altitudes. This lung adaption would come under the presupposition that the evolution model works because it can work in that singular situation.

Because human nature is an unique unification of both the material and the spiritual, Catholicism can recognize the evolution model as a possibility within the current human material anatomy. It is in the medical arena, that the evolution model can be an effective means for studying bacteria and inherent resistance to different diseases. What needs to be constantly in our minds is the simple fact that the science of human evolution cannot be applied to the spiritual principle (soul) created directly by God.

Personally, I believe that in order to be realistic about the evolution model, one has to separate the science of human evolution from the rest of science which exists in the material/physical realm.

 

[aicirt]

Hasn’t the Catholic Church been talking and saying this for 50 plus years? It’s in the catechism how is it “wading into the controversy”

I was in 8th grade 57 years ago and we were taught that we could believe in evolution as long as one believes God is still the Creator of all.

In the last two years, I recently learned that man is the only being to talk and that ability is in our DNA. No other species has that gene. So where did that come from? Interesting.

 

[slave_of_god]

First, I have to assume that you cannot support your argument against chromosome 2 fusion, which is strange because (1) you brought the topic up in the first place; and (2) you insisted that we discuss the points made by Tomkins.

The case for ch. 2 fusion is not as strong as it may appear initially.
darwinismfact.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/chromosome-2-fusion-model/

 

[rossum]

I was in 8th grade 57 years ago and we were taught that we could believe in evolution as long as one believes God is still the Creator of all.

In the last two years, I recently learned that man is the only being to talk and that ability is in our DNA. No other species has that gene. So where did that come from? Interesting.

Define “talk”. Parrots and Mynah birds can make the appropriate sounds. Chimps have been taught to use simple sign-language. Many other animals, for example birds, use simple vocal signals to warn others in their group of predators.

There are many different variations of simple use of language in animals.

We have it in a far greater degree, but it is not entirely absent in other mammals and birds.

rossum

 

[pepipop]

The case for ch. 2 fusion is not as strong as it may appear initially.
darwinismfact.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/chromosome-2-fusion-model/

In addition to recent observatory evidence, i.e. the Chinese man born with 44 chromosomes who is perfectly normal.

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

 

[grannymh]

Define “talk”. Parrots and Mynah birds can make the appropriate sounds. Chimps have been taught to use simple sign-language. Many other animals, for example birds, use simple vocal signals to warn others in their group of predators.

There are many different variations of simple use of language in animals.

We have it in a far greater degree, but it is not entirely absent in other mammals and birds.

rossum

Correct in the sense that highly sentient animals can communicate information. In addition, highly sentient animals like border collies can learn information from humans and act on that information.

The difference in degrees does exist with one major difference. Humans can rationally build on information in thousands of radical ways. A highly sentient animal with strong survival skills could have invented the wheel. On the other hand, it took a human to design and build a car with four wheels. And it is humans who built a space ship using energy information from the motion of a simple engine turning four wheels. The simple difference between an eagle’s nest and an office building attests to the fact that the human species is peerless.

Human nature being peerless indicates a difference between material evolution and the spiritual principle in humans.

 

[truetofaith]

St Augustine would call God “nothing”?

No…God created everything in the universe out of “nothing.”

 

[clem456]

Human nature being peerless indicates a difference between material evolution and the spiritual principle in humans.

…people on the forum who accept evolutionary science with the mind of the Church have been saying this repeatedly, and still other Catholics find something to argue about.

 

[truetofaith]

Thank you-- but that doesn’t quite fit my question.

I thought you were asking if Catholics have to believe in a literal Adam & Eve. If Jesus is the new Adam, then Adam was areal person …not a tribe of cave men.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Correct in the sense that highly sentient animals can communicate information. In addition, highly sentient animals like border collies can learn information from humans and act on that information.

The difference in degrees does exist with one major difference. Humans can rationally build on information in thousands of radical ways. A highly sentient animal with strong survival skills could have invented the wheel. On the other hand, it took a human to design and build a car with four wheels. And it is humans who built a space ship using energy information from the motion of a simple engine turning four wheels. The simple difference between an eagle’s nest and an office building attests to the fact that the human species is peerless.

Human nature being peerless indicates a difference between material evolution and the spiritual principle in humans.

 

[truetofaith]

I thought you were asking if Catholics have to believe in a literal Adam & Eve. If Jesus is the new Adam, then Adam was areal person …not a tribe of cave men.

@Kephart Read 1 Corinth. 15 : 45 - 49

 

[grannymh]

Human nature being peerless indicates a difference between material evolution and the spiritual principle in humans.

…people on the forum who accept evolutionary science with the mind of the Church have been saying this repeatedly, and still other Catholics find something to argue about.

The current problem of the distinctive science of human evolution is that evolution is now based on genetic diagrams in the cladistics system of classification. This means that every point on a genetic diagram is a very large population going thousands of years backwards. This includes the line or lineage leading to the true human species which is also a large population because its genetic source is a large population.

Obviously, an evolutionary population in the thousands is extremely different from a founding population of two.

It is the evolutionary population concept that directly challenges the Catholic Church doctrine that all humankind descended from two sole real genuine human parents.

Here are two links to the current Catholic approach to Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell.

1.The new Appendix One in this expanded 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

1. This article in a major Catholic publication.
   hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[grannymh]

The current problem of the distinctive science of human evolution is that evolution is now based on genetic diagrams in the cladistics system of classification. This means that every point on a genetic diagram is a very large population going thousands of years backwards. This includes the line or lineage leading to the true human species which is also a large population because its genetic source is a large population.

Obviously, an evolutionary population in the thousands is extremely different from a founding population of two.

It is the evolutionary population concept that directly challenges the Catholic Church doctrine that all humankind descended from two sole real genuine human parents.

Here are two links to the current Catholic approach to Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell.
The new Appendix One in this expanded 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

And this link to an article in a major Catholic publication
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[clem456]

The current problem of the distinctive science of human evolution is that evolution is now based on genetic diagrams in the cladistics system of classification. This means that every point on a genetic diagram is a very large population going thousands of years backwards. This includes the line or lineage leading to the true human species which is also a large population because its genetic source is a large population.

Obviously, an evolutionary population in the thousands is extremely different from a founding population of two.

It is the evolutionary population concept that directly challenges the Catholic Church doctrine that all humankind descended from two sole real genuine human parents.

Here are two links to the current Catholic approach to Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell.

1.The new Appendix One in this expanded 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

1. This article in a major Catholic publication.
   hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

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

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.)

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

It’s interesting that fundamentalist readings of scripture have so much in common with over-reaching scientism. They both attempt to explain things they have no competence for.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe anyone on this thread was arguing in favor of scientism.

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

 

[rossum]

No…God created everything in the universe out of “nothing.”

No. God didn’t start with nothing. He started with Himself and nothing. Since God is not nothing, then He didn’t start with pure nothing.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I was merely highlighting the point of the QUEST article.

But to address your comment. So, what you’re saying is that, since God cannot be asked the purpose for creation, we are not allowed to criticize the use of intelligent design to explain it? Even when we have reason which is beginning to explain it differently?

Criticize away. God did tell us the purpose of creation. When one criticizes the design of the eye for example, as being less than optimal, we do it from our own perspective not the designers. So for years science did criticize the backwards wiring design of the eye as evidence for evo then we learn this -

Retinal glial cells acting as optical fibers shuttle longer wavelengths of light to individual cones.

 

[buffalo]

Nature is normally, in science language, a reference to the material/physical aspects of the universe including decomposing anatomies.

The key is to recognize the necessary presupposition at the start of the evolution model. The evolution model cannot work unless we accept the presupposition that it can work, that is, that there are some material beings that have the power within themselves to change and/or adapt their material aspects. Regardless of any changes or adaptations, the material beings did not create themselves. Thus, the workings of physical and material aspects require a creator outside of themselves. This does not contrast with the principle of a transcendent super-natural pure spirit Creator God. The presumed evolution model can be considered as a legitimate Catholic point of view regarding solely material/physical objects or aspects of the material/physical universe .

When it comes to the science of human evolution, the legitimate Catholic point of view recognizes the presence of the super-natural spiritual intellective soul which cannot evolve because it is not material. Still, there are some material aspects of the current human body which in themselves have the power to adapt or change. An example is found in studies of the lungs of people living in extreme altitudes. This lung adaption would come under the presupposition that the evolution model works because it can work in that singular situation.

Because human nature is an unique unification of both the material and the spiritual, Catholicism can recognize the evolution model as a possibility within the current human material anatomy. It is in the medical arena, that the evolution model can be an effective means for studying bacteria and inherent resistance to different diseases. What needs to be constantly in our minds is the simple fact that the science of human evolution cannot be applied to the spiritual principle (soul) created directly by God.

Personally, I believe that in order to be realistic about the evolution model, one has to separate the science of human evolution from the rest of science which exists in the material/physical realm.

Studying nature from the “it is designed” perspective is yielding greater results - biomimicry.

 

[buffalo]

No…God created everything in the universe out of “nothing.”

Exactly.

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

2 is not intellectually satisfying at all.

 

[buffalo]

** Programming of Life video **

Recommended! More good material. Denying design is most difficult nowadays.

Thanks to the Programming of Life folks the full video is available online. Teachers, look it over and ask the tough questions.​

Programming of Life is a 45 minute documentary created to engage our scientific community in order to encourage forward thinking. It looks into scientific theories “scientifically”. It examines the heavy weight theory of origins, the chemical and biological theory of evolution, and asks the extremely difficult questions in order to reveal undirected natural process for what it is – a hindrance to true science.
This video and the book it was inspired by Joe Miano (Programming of Life) is about science and it is our hope that it will be evaluated based on scientific principals and not philosophical beliefs." (courtesy of PofL website)

• the genetic system is a pre-existing operating system;
• the specific genetic program (genome) is an application;
• the native language has a codon-based encryption system;
• the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system;
• each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome;
• codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers;
• each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and
• in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized (name removed by moderator)ut/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life.