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

[LeafByNiggle]

What conclusion can the average public school student make about not just the origin but the development of life? Science should be about factual information and observation, but Biology texts can and do go beyond the well-defined limits. Such textbooks have to be carefully examined by people who are competent to assess the contents prior to publication.

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

This is a very good point. Examples such as these are clearly drawing philosophical conclusions that go beyond what science should be about. The fact that such books exist does not justify teaching Creationism as an alternative in science classrooms. That would be inappropriate in the same way these books are inappropriate in a science classroom.

 

[rossum]

Except a supernatural first beginning would not need to adhere to logic and science whereas a natural first beginning would need to adhere to logic and science…

Two points. First, the laws of logic do not always apply at the quantum scale. A single “particle” can be in two places at the same time. Events, such as beta decay, can be uncaused and are merely subject to statistical rules. The Big Bang, at least before inflation, is best treated as a quantum event.

Second, you are assuming that the laws of the multiverse are the same as the laws of the STEM universe. They almost certainly are not.

rossum

 

[clem456]

It is disheartening that evolution causes such anxiety among Christians. It doesn’t have to be that way. Just follow the Church as our true mother.
Every Pope for the last what, 60 years, has been at ease with this line of science.
Benedict called this debate we are having an absurdity.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_calls_for_protection_of_environment_says_creationevolution_debate_is_absurdity/

 

[clem456]

This is a very good point. Examples such as these are clearly drawing philosophical conclusions that go beyond what science should be about. The fact that such books exist does not justify teaching Creationism as an alternative in science classrooms. That would be inappropriate in the same way these books are inappropriate in a science classroom.

And this is the whole point that apparently cannot seem to be grasped.
Incorrect conclusions don’t invalidate good science…any more than sinners invalidate
the truths of Catholicism (and no, I am not equating the two sets of truths)
Just because Dawkins or whoever take evolutionary principles to the extreme does not mean the science itself is invalid.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There is no need to explain the “birth” of the multiverse because there was never a time when the multiverse did not exist.

You are trying to make special rules for God. I merely apply those same rules to the multiverse. There was never a time when God did not exist. There was never a time when the multiverse did not exist. Same rules.

rossum

Rossum, you can’t actually believe this. -Everything- we know about physics, chemistry, mathematics and science in general tells us that physical things cannot create themselves. Since every universe in the attached multiverse would still be comprised of physical things (according to every theory I’ve read on the multiverse at least), that would mean that they would still -HAVE- to have been created. All the multiverse theory does is push the issue of creation up a level, it doesn’t actually address or circumvent it.

 

[phil19034]

What conclusion can the average public school student make about not just the origin but the development of life? Science should be about factual information and observation, but Biology texts can and do go beyond the well-defined limits. Such textbooks have to be carefully examined by people who are competent to assess the contents prior to publication.

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Peace,
Ed

The problem isn’t science or divine evolution. It’s atheist scientists trying to push their “religion of science” on the theists.

Not all scientists are atheists, after all, the scientist who first purposed the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest.

 

[buffalo]

That is not the job of science. As I stated in an earlier post science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Science does not study the supernatural or paranormal.

The question is: Could science find God?

 

[rossum]

Rossum, you can’t actually believe this. -Everything- we know about physics, chemistry, mathematics and science in general tells us that physical things cannot create themselves.

How much quantum mechanics do you know? Here is Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time
If the total energy of the universe is zero, then we have nothing ‘creating’ nothing. Where is the problem?

Since every universe in the attached multiverse would still be comprised of physical things (according to every theory I’ve read on the multiverse at least), that would mean that they would still -HAVE- to have been created.

Your “created” assumes an answer. Say “caused” and we do not have so much of a problem.

All the multiverse theory does is push the issue of creation up a level, it doesn’t actually address or circumvent it.

There was never a time when the multiverse did not exist. Just like God. You circumvent the question of the origin of God; I circumvent the question of the origin of the multiverse.

As I have said before, I am looking for a level playing field.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

This is a very good point. Examples such as these are clearly drawing philosophical conclusions that go beyond what science should be about. The fact that such books exist does not justify teaching Creationism as an alternative in science classrooms. That would be inappropriate in the same way these books are inappropriate in a science classroom.

I never suggested creationism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Peace,
Ed

The problem isn’t science or divine evolution. It’s atheist scientists trying to push their “religion of science” on the theists.

Not all scientists are atheists, after all, the scientist who first purposed the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest.

---

It’s atheists in general who are also doing this. I offer the following from a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

If the total energy of the universe is zero, then we have nothing ‘creating’ nothing. Where is the problem?

The problem is that it’s not nothing. As I wrote elsewhere:

This article,

A universe from nothing

makes highly questionable claims.Not only are there no observational and experimental links, whatsoever, between quantum fluctuations and the birth of our macroscopic universe, even if it started at the sub-microscopic level, the authors also make an incredible blunder in defining nothing:

" In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts."

Yet it is quite a strange ‘nothing’ when both ‘the positive and negative parts’ that constitute it are most definitely something. Let me illustrate the problem with an example from numbers: while the sum of +5 and -5 is 0, nobody in their right mind would ever argue that 0 can produce +5 and -5 (or make that +1 million and -1 million, or any other number, if you will). This shows just how utterly absurd the naturalistic claim of a universe from nothing as being ‘zero energy’ really is (Stenger uses the ‘zero energy’ argument too).

The Big Bang was certainly an extreme-energy event. Only now, with the Large Hadron Collider, will we be able to recreate, on a small scale, enormous energies as they existed miniscule fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

And again, the ‘physical nothing’ of empty space, the quantum vacuum, is not really nothing at all, see: “Of Nothing”. The follow-up article, “More Sweet Nothings…” deals with precisely the issue of zero energy and, apart from further highlighting the philosophical absurdity, argues, with citations from the cosmological literature, that a calculation of the total mass-energy of the universe is not even possible on a technical level.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I never suggested creationism.

No, you didn’t. And I apologize if I made it look like you did. But others have made that assertion, using as evidence the very set of bad science textbooks you cited. Since this thread is about whether or not evolution as a theory is consistent with the Catholic notion of creation, presenting evidence of these bad science books seems to be addressing a different question - that of how science is being abused by atheists. The two questions do not depend on one another. But some people, in an effort to undermine atheism and remove a tool from the atheists’ hands, are tempted to disavow evolution entirely. But if we are to seek truth, we cannot let the potential for abuse of the truth affect our judgement of what is and what is not true. The best defense in this case is to point out the errors in the atheists’ abuse of science without disavowing the science itself.

 

[clem456]

The problem isn’t science or divine evolution. It’s atheist scientists trying to push their “religion of science” on the theists.

Not all scientists are atheists, after all, the scientist who first purposed the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest.

---

It’s atheists in general who are also doing this. I offer the following from a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

Agreed, that atheists can and do use science to make assumptions about God, which we would agree are an overreach.
But it does seem to me that you are discrediting the valid science based on the faults of some of those who misuse it. Maybe I am misreading you.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed, that atheists can and do use science to make assumptions about God, which we would agree are an overreach.
But it does seem to me that you are discrediting the valid science based on the faults of some of those who misuse it. Maybe I am misreading you.

The article I provided a link to does not discredit but points outs out that evolutionary theory has no practical use in doing scientific research. Which makes me question the purpose of a great number of threads promoting it. In the past, I’ve gotten replies that at least imply that I’m ignoring practical science as a whole, like this computer, to being anti-science. Based on many previous threads, it appears there is evidence that the goal is universal acceptance, regardless.

Allow me one more example. I was watching a science program where it was stated that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids) then life would appear there. Not until coming to this forum and reading various posts, did I realize: They don’t know that.

Best,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

How much quantum mechanics do you know? Here is Stephen Hawking:
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of TimeIf the total energy of the universe is zero, then we have nothing ‘creating’ nothing. Where is the problem?

Your “created” assumes an answer. Say “caused” and we do not have so much of a problem.

There was never a time when the multiverse did not exist. Just like God. You circumvent the question of the origin of God; I circumvent the question of the origin of the multiverse.

As I have said before, I am looking for a level playing field.

rossum

What is the information level of the universe?

 

[twoshoes]

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis, anyway. So I don’t know how you think you can square those. Is one of them lying? Are both? Or maybe they’re just a different style of text than you think they are.

But I’m trying to grasp why anyone would reject evolutionary theory when both 1) mainstream science supports it, and scientific developments have resulted from it and 2) the Church does not detect any problems with it.

Man, I love the U.S., but there’s something seriously wrong with our education system if there’s such widespread disbelief in basic science. It’s not like we’re talking about wild, highly speculative multi-universe stuff here. This came up a few months ago in another thread and I actually had to convince people that no scientist actually believes that man “came from monkeys.” I mean, wow… come on.

For me a far greater subject than evolution is the creation of the Soul, all else is silly and just cyber arguing.

 

[ManOnFire]

As I have said before, I am looking for a level playing field.

rossum

But your ego’s desire for a level playing field is fueled by your passion even though it lacks support from science and logic.

 

[anthony022071]

Let’s look at that in a different key:

I am saddened by the constant promotion of something that is not connected to God at all by chemistry texts. Science cannot give God any credit. So, the obvious conclusion is that “natural” Non-God forces created chemistry. No scientist is going to going to go to a Catholic school and argue God from the Chemistry textbook. He’s not there.

and again

I am saddened by the constant promotion of something that is not connected to God at all by mathematics texts. Science cannot give God any credit. So, the obvious conclusion is that “natural” Non-God forces created mathematics. No scientist is going to going to go to a Catholic school and argue God from the Mathematics textbook. He’s not there.

Your point applies to all the sciences. Lets try something else:

I am saddened by the constant promotion of something that is not connected to God at all by French texts. Language cannot give God any credit. So, the obvious conclusion is that “natural” Non-God forces created language. No linguist is going to going to go to a Catholic school and argue God from the French textbook. He’s not there.

Yup. Looks like your point applies to a great many subjects. School textbooks are deliberately limited to cover the subject at hand. You will find God in religion textbooks and in theology textbooks. You will not find Him in woodworking or cookery textbooks. The problem is not with the textbooks, but that you are looking in the wrong place.

rossum

The subject is the origination of living species. That has to do with God’s acts of creation by his own power,and with life,which is spirit. The subject is not equivalent to the study of chemistry or mathematics or other disciplines which do not investigate the coming into existence of things or life. That science cannot test the supernatural just means that it cannot have a proper understanding of the origination of species and life. Its naturalistic and mechanistic and reductionist perspective leads to false attributions of creative power to natural causes.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How much quantum mechanics do you know? Here is Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time
If the total energy of the universe is zero, then we have nothing ‘creating’ nothing. Where is the problem?

#1: He is speaking about theories with very little physical evidence supporting them (as opposed to evolution, which is a theory with a significant amount of evidence to back it up).

#2: The energy he speaks of creating things is itself a physical entity, and therefore had to come into existence at some point, which means that it had to have something beyond the physical reality to create it.

#3: “Answering Atheism” actually delves into Quantum Mechanics, along with a couple other of Hawkings’ pet theories, and gives very detailed explanations about why, while the math is sound, it does not mean much when put into practical application regarding the creation of the universe. The most important thing to consider when looking at Hawkins’ work is that much of it utilizes i to draw conclusions, meaning that it is using number that don’t actually exist as an attempt to justify his personal view of reality.

Your “created” assumes an answer. Say “caused” and we do not have so much of a problem.

My used of the word created does not assume a cause, it demands one. You have failed to address the fact that Physical things -cannot- create themselves. Quantum mechanics presupposes the existence of some amount of energy and space in order to work. Space and energy are physical things, however, and therefore require a progenitor. No matter how many levels up the multiverse you take it, you cannot escape the fact that energy and space had to have been created at some point in time by a force outside of the physical reality.

There was never a time when the multiverse did not exist. Just like God. You circumvent the question of the origin of God; I circumvent the question of the origin of the multiverse.

I do not circumvent the question of the origin of God. God is not physical, and is therefore not limited by the same laws as physical existence (namely, that He had to be created). Any multiverse, no matter how distant or far up the line it may be, is still subject to the laws of physical existence, and therefore retains the requirement of having to have been created by a non-physical force. You cannot apply the laws of the physical universe to something that is not a part of the physical universe.

 

[rossum]

What is the information level of the universe?

What measure of information are you using? Shannon, Kolmogorov, Fisher, some other measure?

You will get a different result if you use a different measure.

From a very simple point of view, where there is a single photon, there is enough information to place that photon in space-time, i.e. four coordinates. If that photon generates an electron and a positron, then there are two particles in the universe and eight coordinates. That would be an increase in information in all measures that I am aware of.

rossum