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

[TMC]

That’s not true. The Church Fathers took most,and perhaps all,of the statements in Genesis as historical facts,and the Pontifical Theological Commision upheld the literal,historical truth of the stories in Genesis. And the 4th Lateran Council affirmed that God created all things at once by his own power.

catholicorigins.com/lateran-iv-–-the-church’s-key-dogmatic-teaching-on-creation/

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

That is a problem with protestants and liberals and modernists,but it is not a problem with Catholics who take the stories in Genesis as historically real.

I disagree. To take on just one of your examples, the 4th Lateran Council (800 yrs ago) was countering both the notion that God did not create the universe, (i.e. that it had always existed), and that God did not create all of the universe. That Council said nothing about modern theories of creation (of which they knew nothing).

But even if you were right about ancient ideas on creation, how do you square your last statement with current Catholic teaching? It is beyond dispute that at least the last seven Popes do not agree that Catholics take the stories in Genesis as historically accurate. (They are real, of course, and true, but not historically accurate as that term is generally used today.)

 

[grannymh]

That depends on the size of the population from which the species originates. It can be very small (a single pregnant female) or it could be a large group geographically separated from others of the original species, which evolve their own way and lose inter-fertility between the two groups.

How about a human pregnant female and a very handsome human spouse?

 

[Kelt]

One should always be wary of the possibility of bad translations. And one suspects negating the term “divine” while affirming the word “Creator” doesn’t work as well in English as perhaps it might in some other language, because English usage generally equates the two.

But I personally have never seen a theological problem with the notion of evolution, though I do think many of its proponents sometimes stretch very limited findings beyond their breaking point. But if we believe God created the universe and ourselves, is there some truly good reason why we would limit Him in the manner of His doing it? If He could raise a man from a lump of clay in the way we (and artists) picture it, why should we preclude the possibility that the creative act could have taken eons? On what basis do we preclude that possibility?

Are we on a firm footing to conclude that, for example, God’s act in creating man and in his making man a rational being with a soul, had to all happen at once? I am aware of those who point to complexity as being evidence of a sudden creation. But are we really justified in thinking God could not create complexity over a huge span of time? Why do we suppose that God might not have enjoyed doing it by means perhaps even more marvelous than a sudden and singular act. After all, what’s a billion years to God?

Many theologians believe it philosophically necessary to believe that all the universe and everything (and being) in it was in the Mind of God from all eternity. Now, we really can’t quite grasp such a thing, but if, indeed, God had the notion of man for all eternity, what is the basis for our declaring that He suddenly had to decide “well, I’ll make him now”.

We’re told by some physicists that, while we might never know what existed prior to the Big Bang (if there was one) something likely did, even if it was simply principles. If, for instance, the Big Bang was truly caused by the intersection of two “membranes”, what is our reason for thinking God did not delight in creating the membranes and plan, from all eternity, for two to intersect and create the universe we know? How do we know He didn’t simply invent the principles that were then capable of moving things themselves, the principles always existing in His Mind, which, in that manner, determined everything?

We don’t.

God might well be a lot bigger and a lot more complicated than we imagine. Personally, I’m thinking He is.

Absolutely! Well said!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not true. The Church Fathers took most,and perhaps all,of the statements in Genesis as historical facts,and the Pontifical Theological Commision upheld the literal,historical truth of the stories in Genesis. And the 4th Lateran Council affirmed that God created all things at once by his own power.

catholicorigins.com/lateran-iv-–-the-church’s-key-dogmatic-teaching-on-creation/

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

Since you seem to think your conclusion so obvious from these references, you should get in touch with Pope Francis right away and let him know about the 4th Laternal Council, which he probably has overlooked, being Pope and all.

But seriously, The first two references you cite are hosted by agenda-driven creationists organizations trying to put their spin on the council proceedings. It is their** interpretations **and explanations you are reading there, more than original source material. It would be much better if you could cite something on www.vatican.va that is neutral and authoritative. The third reference just gives lots of yes/no answer without much explanation, and does not clearly say that the scientific truth of 6 day creation had to be accepted de fide.

 

[Kelt]

I disagree. To take on just one of your examples, the 4th Lateran Council (800 yrs ago) was countering both the notion that God did not create the universe, (i.e. that it had always existed), and that God did not create all of the universe. That Council said nothing about modern theories of creation (of which they knew nothing).

But even if you were right about ancient ideas on creation, how do you square your last statement with current Catholic teaching? It is beyond dispute that at least the last seven Popes do not agree that Catholics take the stories in Genesis as historically accurate. (They are real, of course, and true, but not historically accurate as that term is generally used today.)

I’m not disagreeing with you…I just would like you to clarify what you mean by ’ real’ and ‘true’?

 

[grannymh]

A genetic bottleneck happens when a population is reduced in size,not when a species has just come into existence.

And why would a genetic bottleneck be problematic anyway? It just means that genetic variation is very limited,not that a population can’t grow.

When I landed on CAF, your first sentence was one of my first ideas. You are the only person I have met who said the same thing.

The problem of a human bottleneck is the assumption that it could not account for the genetic diversity centuries later. Lately, I have been thinking that just because certain genes have a long lineage starting before the Homo/Pan Split, there is no reason that similar mutations cannot occur after the split.

Thank you.

You may find the “evolution” science part of this article rather interesting.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”
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

 

[Kelt]

Even 2000 years ago Christians did not treat Scripture with the kind of fundamentalist literalism that some do today. Fundamentalism is a modern problem related to (some in) the modern world’s lack of appreciation for different types and layers of truth. It was not such a problem in antiquity.

Very true. We have lost much of the understanding of how it was meant to be read. We tend to read for ‘facts’ these days, whereas the scriptures were meant to be discussed and interpreted for the times.

 

[buffalo]

Since you seem to think your conclusion so obvious from these references, you should get in touch with Pope Francis right away and let him know about the 4th Laternal Council, which he probably has overlooked, being Pope and all.

But seriously, The first two references you cite are hosted by agenda-driven creationists organizations trying to put their spin on the council proceedings. It is their** interpretations **and explanations you are reading there, more than original source material. It would be much better if you could cite something on www.vatican.va that is neutral and authoritative. The third reference just gives lots of yes/no answer without much explanation, and does not clearly say that the scientific truth of 6 day creation had to be accepted de fide.

Why is everything anit-evolution AGENDA driver?

 

[TMC]

I’m not disagreeing with you…I just would like you to clarify what you mean by ’ real’ and ‘true’?

Very true. We have lost much of the understanding of how it was meant to be read. We tend to read for ‘facts’ these days, whereas the scriptures were meant to be discussed and interpreted for the times.

Your second quote gets to much of what I mean. Real - meaning authentic, not fake. True - meaning that the stories contain important and eternal truths.

Ironically, we often hear that modern scientific and rational thought has lead people to reject literalism, so that we are losing the truth of scripture. The opposite is true. The modern fallacy is the need to treat everything as literally true or simply false. It is this modern misunderstanding that lead to the rise of fundamentalism, not vice versa.

 

[Rin]

Your second quote gets to much of what I mean. Real - meaning authentic, not fake. True - meaning that the stories contain important and eternal truths.

Ironically, we often hear that modern scientific and rational thought has lead people to reject literalism, so that we are losing the truth of scripture. The opposite is true. The modern fallacy is the need to treat everything as literally true or simply false. It is this modern misunderstanding that lead to the rise of fundamentalism, not vice versa.

The Fathers would shake their heads at the debates we’re having today and have been having the last two centuries. Biblical literalism is absurd, and an innovation.

I often find that religious fundamentalists and atheistic fundamentalists are both to some extent steeped in Logical Positivism (though with different outcomes). This puzzles me, since it has long since been proved how flawed such thinking is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is everything anti-evolution AGENDA driver?

When the entire website is dedicated to Creationism as opposed to Evolution, that is agenda-driven. There is nothing wrong with being agenda-driven, as long as you are up-front about it. I mentioned it because anthony022071 in post 685 was offering these links as evidence that the Church Fathers have always accepted Genesis as historically accurate in every respect. If that were really the case, the most natural reference to cite would have been something from the vatican website. The fact that it was necessary to turn to an all-Creationist all the time website for this evidence instead of something more authoritative is worth pointing out.

 

[Kelt]

Your second quote gets to much of what I mean. Real - meaning authentic, not fake. True - meaning that the stories contain important and eternal truths.

Ironically, we often hear that modern scientific and rational thought has lead people to reject literalism, so that we are losing the truth of scripture. The opposite is true. The modern fallacy is the need to treat everything as literally true or simply false. It is this modern misunderstanding that lead to the rise of fundamentalism, not vice versa.

Absolutely!
For example, the Adam and Eve story sums up well the human condition ( if a little misogynistic, but that’s to be expected I suppose) but it is absurd, simplistic and doesn’t do its writers justice to take it literally!

 

[clem456]

That’s not true. The Church Fathers took most,and perhaps all,of the statements in Genesis as historical facts,and the Pontifical Theological Commision upheld the literal,historical truth of the stories in Genesis. And the 4th Lateran Council affirmed that God created all things at once by his own power.

catholicorigins.com/lateran-iv-–-the-church’s-key-dogmatic-teaching-on-creation/

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

That is a problem with protestants and liberals and modernists,but it is not a problem with Catholics who take the stories in Genesis as historically real.

Anthony, I am not talking about any specific Church Fathers. And I am not debating that “God created all things at once by his own power”.
Please reread what I said.

And no, the Catholic Church does not uphold the “literal, historical truth of the stories in Genesis.” Please read back through the thread, especially the words of our Popes.

 

[Kelt]

When I landed on CAF, your first sentence was one of my first ideas. You are the only person I have met who said the same thing.

The problem of a human bottleneck is the assumption that it could not account for the genetic diversity centuries later. Lately, I have been thinking that just because certain genes have a long lineage starting before the Homo/Pan Split, there is no reason that similar mutations cannot occur after the split.

Thank you.

You may find the “evolution” science part of this article rather interesting.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”
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

An example of a bottleneck:
Northern elephant seals have reduced genetic variation probably because of a population bottleneck humans inflicted on them in the 1890s. Hunting reduced their population size to as few as 20 individuals at the end of the 19th century. Their population has since rebounded to over 30,000—but their genes still carry the marks of this bottleneck: they have much less genetic variation than a population of southern elephant seals that was not so intensely hunted.

Founder effects
A founder effect occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have:

reduced genetic variation from the original population.
a non-random sample of the genes in the original population.
For example, the Afrikaner population of Dutch settlers in South Africa is descended mainly from a few colonists. Today, the Afrikaner population has an unusually high frequency of the gene that causes Huntington’s disease, because those original Dutch colonists just happened to carry that gene with unusually high frequency. This effect is easy to recognize in genetic diseases, but of course, the frequencies of all sorts of genes are affected by founder events.
From: evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml

 

[TMC]

Absolutely!
For example, the Adam and Eve story sums up well the human condition ( if a little misogynistic, but that’s to be expected I suppose) but it is absurd, simplistic and doesn’t do its writers justice to take it literally!

There are also deeper meanings that are sometimes lost of today’s readers of scripture. For example, at the time that Genesis was written, the Jewish people were encountering a very different view of creation in the dualistic religions of the east. Those religions believed that good and evil were both intended to be part of the world, and carried equal weight. Many of them also believed that the world was created out of the eternal struggle between good and evil (as opposed to being purposely created by a monotheistic deity). So it was important to the authors of the first chapters of Genesis to emphasis that God created the world to be good, created it Himself, and so forth. Many of those teachings (which we generally take for granted today) were very important back then as they refuted competing views from other cultures and religions. The purpose of Genesis was to convey those (and other) truths, not to give a historical blow by blow of the creation.

 

[grannymh]

An example of a bottleneck:
Northern elephant seals have reduced genetic variation probably because of a population bottleneck humans inflicted on them in the 1890s. Hunting reduced their population size to as few as 20 individuals at the end of the 19th century. Their population has since rebounded to over 30,000—but their genes still carry the marks of this bottleneck: they have much less genetic variation than a population of southern elephant seals that was not so intensely hunted.

Correct. It is basically a different sized population descending from an existing population. Adam and Eve did not descend from an existing human population.

Founder effects
A founder effect occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have:

reduced genetic variation from the original population.
a non-random sample of the genes in the original population.
For example, the Afrikaner population of Dutch settlers in South Africa is descended mainly from a few colonists. Today, the Afrikaner population has an unusually high frequency of the gene that causes Huntington’s disease, because those original Dutch colonists just happened to carry that gene with unusually high frequency. This effect is easy to recognize in genetic diseases, but of course, the frequencies of all sorts of genes are affected by founder events.

Correct. The founder effect comes from an original population. Adam and Eve were the original population. There can be a comparison to the concept that large populations can arise from a small population if one accepts a population of two rational intelligent beings.

From: evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml

This is my favorite site. I find the bottom of this page fascinating even though it is simplistic. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Have you tried Tree of Life? tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

An interesting proposal to ponder. Considering that Adam and Eve are vertebrates, their anatomy would be similar to upright walking hominins. Obviously, there would be some DNA similarities with their chimp cousins after the Homo/Pan divergence. Genetic similarities between species are used to draw the cladistics diagrams. Considering the genetic variety in common ancestor populations, Adam and Eve could slip in without being noticed.

****An additional question from your post 699 comment. “For example, the Adam and Eve story sums up well the human condition” I can agree with this comment. – but –
I am very curious. What is your explanation or description of the “human condition?”

And, please. How did this "human condition" come about? I do not mind if the answers seem absurd, simplistic and do not do the writers justice when taken literally. On the other hand, the answers may need a little help.

 

[Kelt]

Correct. It is basically a different sized population descending from an existing population. Adam and Eve did not descend from an existing human population.

Correct. The founder effect comes from an original population. Adam and Eve were the original population. There can be a comparison to the concept that large populations can arise from a small population if one accepts a population of two rational intelligent beings.

This is my favorite site. I find the bottom of this page fascinating even though it is simplistic. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Have you tried Tree of Life? tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

An interesting proposal to ponder. Considering that Adam and Eve are vertebrates, their anatomy would be similar to upright walking hominins. Obviously, there would be some DNA similarities with their chimp cousins after the Homo/Pan divergence. Genetic similarities between species are used to draw the cladistics diagrams. Considering the genetic variety in common ancestor populations, Adam and Eve could slip in without being noticed.

****An additional question from your post 699 comment. “For example, the Adam and Eve story sums up well the human condition” I can agree with this comment. – but –
I am very curious. What is your explanation or description of the “human condition?”

And, please. How did this "human condition" come about? I do not mind if the answers seem absurd, simplistic and do not do the writers justice when taken literally. On the other hand, the answers may need a little help.

Not sure what you mean by not minding that the literal interpretations don’t do the writers justice?
The human condition? Knowledge - as represented by a tree bearing fruit in the story. Self awareness, knowledge of our own mortality, of the concept of right and wrong, development of a conscience etc. Our superior understanding and ability to build on knowledge makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom - we can see just how complicated life is. A conscience complicates life! Other animals have limited ‘knowledge’ but not in the same league - they might be wary of predators but they are untroubled by the angst that is part of our lives… For them; food, shelter and sex…and avoid being eaten.
A ‘perfect’ state for a human, before knowledge of right and wrong is, of course impossible, as that knowledge is the very thing that makes us human!
Before knowledge = not human.
After development of understanding of knowledge = human.
Our ‘human’ condition came about by evolution. We evolved from something not human, gradually to being human. From then on, I find social evolution a fascinating subject.
When and where you put in the concept of a ‘soul’ depends on your personal faith.

 

[clem456]

Not sure what you mean by not minding that the literal interpretations don’t do the writers justice?
The human condition? Knowledge - as represented by a tree bearing fruit in the story. Self awareness, knowledge of our own mortality, of the concept of right and wrong, development of a conscience etc. Our superior understanding and ability to build on knowledge makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom - we can see just how complicated life is. A conscience complicates life! Other animals have limited ‘knowledge’ but not in the same league - they might be wary of predators but they are untroubled by the angst that is part of our lives… For them; food, shelter and sex…and avoid being eaten.
A ‘perfect’ state for a human, before knowledge of right and wrong is, of course impossible, as that knowledge is the very thing that makes us human!
Before knowledge = not human.
After development of understanding of knowledge = human.
Our ‘human’ condition came about by evolution. We evolved from something not human, gradually to being human. From then on, I find social evolution a fascinating subject.
When and where you put in the concept of a ‘soul’ depends on your personal faith.

I have to applaud your post, not because I agree with it, but because finally a poster articulates the polygenism that the Catholic Church objects to, which includes the concept of gradual development of the rational soul. (Or at least the “rational” part of that, not sure where you come down exactly).

While I disagree with you on the spiritual side of this, it’s a position that’s worthy of respect because you don’t misrepresent it as something it’s not.

 

[Kelt]

---

I have to applaud your post, not because I agree with it, but because finally a poster articulates the polygenism that the Catholic Church objects to, which includes the concept of gradual development of the rational soul. (Or at least the “rational” part of that, not sure where you come down exactly).

While I disagree with you on the spiritual side of this, it’s a position that’s worthy of respect because you don’t misrepresent it as something it’s not.

I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or not?!
I did say when and where you put the concept of soul in our evolution is up to your own religious faith. I suspect that most Catholics with a good understanding of evolution have to come to their own conclusion about this. Are you saying that you believe Adam was born suddenly human, of non human parents, and Eve likewise of different non human parents and that their progeny were human while their progeny’s cousins were not? Their progeny would have to have ‘intermarried’ with their cousins and fellow ‘creatures’ otherwise they would have had to rely on incest which would mess up the gene pool.
I confess I can’t see the problem with gradual evolution for religious faith. To cling to a ‘sudden creation’ story in the face of modern knowledge seems an unnecessary denial of reality to fit a dogma based on a belief of the time. After initial problems, the Catholic Church managed very well to adapt to the changing of ideas based on the discoveries of Galileo for example, although many of its members were unconvinced for some time.

 

[anthony022071]

Thank you for that. I am now 6,000 years old, as is every other human being. None of us were created in the last 150 years. Does that mean that nobody ever has to work and we can claim our old-age pension backdated from the moment of our conception?

That doesn’t follow from what I said. The Church teaching that God created all things at once by his own power refers to substances and forms natures. When God created the first man he created all of humanity in substance and form and nature. But he also creates all subsequent persons from the substance form and nature of the first.

Since persons and all other living creatures are created immediately,it stands to reason that species are created immediately as well,because species exist as particular creatures that come into existence immediately.

And Genesis tells us that God did not create living organisms directly: “let the waters bring forth”, “let the earth bring forth”. Since Genesis does not describe the exact method used, then science is free to investigate the method God used. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God made the earth. Studying the earth, and its rocks, is studying God’s work, just as studying the Bible is studying God’s word. Both are, indirectly, studying God and so have equal value.

God’s use of natural things to bring forth other things does not mean that he does not create directly. He is present to all of nature and has power over all of it. God doesn’t use any method to create. He uses his power and wisdom.

I agree that studying the natural world is studying God’s work. But if we admit that the natural world is God’s work,we should understand it according to what can be known about God’s power in it. We should not interpret natural causation as if nature is self-sufficient and has creative power. Even though science cannot examine God’s power in nature, reason can perceive it.