Question for Catholics who accept Evolution

[antimon]

why is one animal eating another so evil?
why eating plants isn’t evil?

 

[MH84]

Greetings,

I am a lapsed Catholic who is slowly but surely returning to the Church. Among some of the things I have been struggling with and trying to overcome, there is the issue of evolution and how it can be reconciled with Catholicism. I find the issue an obstacle because I am convinced by the evidence in favor of the theory (even tho I still have my doubts) and I am also leaning towards Catholicism.

As far as I can see evolution is not compatible with Catholicism. Some people think the issue is solved by just giving a metaphorical interpretation to Genesis, but I think this approach is superficial as the issue is deeper than that. Evolution involves a great deal of death, suffering, creatures killing each other, species going extinct, the strong killing the weak, etc. All of this contradicts the nature of the God of Catholicism, who is a God that chooses the weak to shame the strong, the innocent to shame the wise, who told Noah to bring each of the species to the ark, who makes sure that all of the animals receive their food, who watches and cares over his creation, etc. I think that evolution is the very opposite of this, so it seems like it is not a method God would use to create the diversity of life on earth.

I have my own take on the issue, which was the one I held back as a Catholic, however, a friend of mine (also a Catholic) raised these objections to me and I think that he hit the nail in the head with them.

How do Catholics who are theistic evolutionists reconcile evolution with Catholicism?

Any insight is really appreciated,
Evo

I’m not saying the secular attitude to evolution is right, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking you know how God did or should have created. I think that God definately loves us more than the rest of Creation. For example, if you read the parts in the Old Testament (mainly from the Pentateuch) or a work from Scott Hahn titled, ‘A Father Who Keeps His Promises’, God ordered the Israelites after He set them free from slavery in Egypt to sacrifice certain animals. This was not neccessarily what God wanted, but because after about 400 years in Egypt, the Israelites became corrupted and worshipped those particular animals. So, God required people to sacrifice those animals (apart of His creation) to turn away from sin and into His arms.

Also, God was willing to and did give up His Son for our redemption. Jesus gave himself for us and allowed Himself to be handed over to the Jews and the pagans, the very people He created and knew before they were born!

There is a great Mystery in God’s love that often seems contrary to our rationale or agreement, so we tend to question why and how. The key is to not search without being at God’s side and in His Church otherwise life’s mysteries will drive you insane.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Either there was no death and suffering before the Fall, or there was. You can’t have it both ways. You can either accept the Bible as the word of God, or you can except Evolution as the word of Darwin. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, contrary to what some people claim.

Either there was no Fall, since “monkeys will be monkeys”, or there was. Either there was no death and suffering, or the Bible is a lie. And if the Bible is a lie, why do Evolutionists still claim to be Catholics, or even Christians?

I have trouble understanding how anyone can be gullible enough to swallow the idea of one animal “evolving” into another. I think that evolution is sort of like the emperor and his clothes. A lot of people are afraid to say, this is a lot of nonsense! We were created in the image of God. We didn’t evolve from monkeys, apes or any other simians.

ابو كمون

 

[MariaG]

Frankly, I don’t care either way, since none of that makes the least difference in my faith in Christ or in the way I treat my neighbor.

Having researched it both ways, I finally came to the same conclusion. It doesn’t matter to my faith. However it happened, God did it:thumbsup:

If it was through Evolution, and there was what I see as death and cruelty in the world to bring it about, I just don’t have God’s view of it, and someday, I pray that He will give me peace and understanding. Until then, Knowing He is in charge is enough for me.

I pray that it will be enough for Evo or that God will give Evo peace and understanding about this issue soon

However, I will also say that I do not think that Evolution is incompatible with Catholicism. I lean more towards evolution these days, and see no problem with being Catholic and believing in theistic Evolution. There are probably more Catholics who believe in evolution than non-Catholics.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Science can tell us nothing about the first man and woman, and their state or place of existence before the Fall.

And the bible does not tell us how the Fall fits into the larger history of the universe. I can understand people looking back about 6,000 years, because that is about where recorded human history begins.

But that says nothing about pre-history or the history of galaxies or the universe as a whole.

I believe that Adam and Eve were real persons, and that they had a special relationship to God before the Fall–a relationship which was broken with the Fall. That doesn’t mean that the entire cosmos started nearly simultaneously with Adam and Eve.

 

[MariaG]

I believe that Adam and Eve were real persons, and that they had a special relationship to God before the Fall–a relationship which was broken with the Fall. That doesn’t mean that the entire cosmos started nearly simultaneously with Adam and Eve.

Yup. This would sum up my belief also

 

[Evoken]

Evolution does have a massive amount of empirical evidence to support it. One of the major problems I had when I was a Protestant was many hated science and biology in particular because of the theory of evolution, and were converting rapidly to ‘scientific’ creationism. I have read several books by scientists who thoroughly refute creationism, so creationism is not a viable alternative to evolution.

True, and it is worth pointing out that creationism was the reigning paradigm long before evolution came into the scene. And it was Christians who first found evidence against a young earth and also against a global flood. And Darwin, as far as I know, was not a rabid atheist seeking to disprove God, in fact he seems to have believed in God even after he had proposed the theory of evolution.

On the other hand, the metaphysical naturalism which underpins the arguments of some evolutionists, particularly when they attack religious belief and the existence of God, means many people equate the theory of evolution with the grander metaphysical premises of metaphysical naturalism, which says basically in a Spinozan sense the cosmos is all there is.

The issue is that atheist capitalize a lot on evolution. It is like a pillar for metaphysical naturalism. They use it as an argument against God (Dawkins). That is why so many equate evolution with atheism. But in reality evolution is just science, just like any other science. The use atheists give to evolution does not emerges from the scientific theory but from their own metaphysical presuppositions.

In my view Christian theology has failed generally to give an appropriate intellectual response to the scientific revolution as a whole, and has also failed a lot in responding to the challenges of modernity and the industrial revolution, and the globalisation of the world. The onus lies then in my view on the theologians rather than the scientists, to give a convincing case for the Christian God and the Gospel in a world of conflicting ideas and beliefs. Catholic theologians must also respond in an appropriate way to this challenge.

Agreed, the swarm of modernism present in the Church today is certainly of no help.

Evo

 

[Evoken]

I pray that it will be enough for Evo or that God will give Evo peace and understanding about this issue soon

Many thanks! Really apreciated.

However, I will also say that I do not think that Evolution is incompatible with Catholicism. I lean more towards evolution these days, and see no problem with being Catholic and believing in theistic Evolution. There are probably more Catholics who believe in evolution than non-Catholics.

I think that me seeing a conflict between Evolution and Catholicism emerges from the attitude I had as an atheist not long ago. I used evolution a lot as an argument against God and religion. I think this has carried on with me at least a bit of it, even after I have returned to theism and am leaning towards Catholicism again.

Evo

 

[CarlosG]

why is one animal eating another so evil?
why eating plants isn’t evil?

This is what I was going to say as well. This is probably the biggest stumbling block (and maybe their biggest recruiting tool?) for most protestants I talk to about accepting anything other than YEC. I dont necessarily see it as “bad”. I havent really developed a full answer that I would think of as satisfactory and i’ve read two books on the subject and to be honest their answers weren’t all that great either but there is an answer, and that is what we must remember. Im bad with quotes but theres two i’d say on this:
“a thousand questions are better than one doubt” - cant remember who said that
and
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” - Jesus?

 

[antimon]

Either there was no death and suffering before the Fall, or there was. You can’t have it both ways. You can either accept the Bible as the word of God, or you can except Evolution as the word of Darwin. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, contrary to what some people claim.

Either there was no Fall, since “monkeys will be monkeys”, or there was. Either there was no death and suffering, or the Bible is a lie. And if the Bible is a lie, why do Evolutionists still claim to be Catholics, or even Christians?

I have trouble understanding how anyone can be gullible enough to swallow the idea of one animal “evolving” into another. I think that evolution is sort of like the emperor and his clothes. A lot of people are afraid to say, this is a lot of nonsense! We were created in the image of God. We didn’t evolve from monkeys, apes or any other simians.

ابو كمون

1. Were our bodies created in God’s image? Does God have two arms, two legs, a torso and a head?
2. If God is so omnipotent, could He give living organisms the ability to adapt and change? If He is so omnipotent, could He give universe such attributes that the life according to His plan would evolve?
3. Maybe we are from monkeys, maybe not. But I don’t think that the idea of being from monkey is more ridiculous or silly than the idea of being directly from just a heap of clay. (and don’t forget that if scientists are right, everything is from dust that was produced by first stars).

I wasn’t created directly by God’s intervention, I was born of my mother. But that doesn’t contradict the idea that God wanted me and created me, sex was only His tool for that. If this doesn’t contradict God’s creation, why should the idea that everything has it’s material cause or predecessor, if God created those causes?

I don’t say that my beliefs on this topic are necessarily true, but I perceive it as such. Maybe 6-day creationism is true, but I don’t see how the idea of theistic evolution contradicts God’s omnipotence and sovereignty.

 

[Contrabass101]

Either there was no death and suffering before the Fall, or there was. You can’t have it both ways.

Sure, that is basic logic.

Either there was no death and suffering, or the Bible is a lie.

Does the Bible say, that no animals died before the fall?

And something I had a lot of trouble with in my YEC-days, the trouble og the little red riding hood: Why do the predators come with such sharp claws and teeth?

You can’t get around the fact that many of Nature’s killers are made for just that: Killing.

And to be quite honest, it doesn’t bother me. I think it is fascinating to watch an eagle catch another bird in flight, or (National geographics) a cheetah run at amazing speeds to catch an antelope. I don’t feel sorry for the killed animals - it’s just they way of life.

Animals can’t be cruel, only human beings can be cruel.

Another problem: Where do you draw the line? Do we have to feel sorry for mice? Insects? Bacteria? Could bacteria die before the fall?

And if not, wouldn’t the world be overcrowded in a rather short time-span? How long does it take for two rats to become two billion rats? Do the math…

I have trouble understanding how anyone can be gullible enough to swallow the idea of one animal “evolving” into another. I think that evolution is sort of like the emperor and his clothes. A lot of people are afraid to say, this is a lot of nonsense!

I think what you need is a basic scientific understanding of the theory of evolution, rather than some over-simplified pre-school textbook fancy.

It is like atheists arguing against Christianity, that attack “dogma” that people haven’t even heard since their Sunday school days.

We were created in the image of God.

True.

We didn’t evolve from monkeys, apes or any other simians.

Possibly false.

• CB

 

[Evoken]

Does the Bible say, that no animals died before the fall?

Indeed it doesn’t and as you mention, if God commanded all animals to multiply, then wouldn’t the earth become overcrowed in a short amount of time?

Also, when God told Adam that he would die if he ate from the Tree of Knowledge, that presuppsoes that Adam was familiar with what death was (by seeing animals die perhaps), otherwise the commandment would not really make any sense.

Animals can’t be cruel, only human beings can be cruel.

Very simple yet important observation.

Evo

 

[down_under]

Greetings,

I am a lapsed Catholic who is slowly but surely returning to the Church. Among some of the things I have been struggling with and trying to overcome, there is the issue of evolution and how it can be reconciled with Catholicism. I find the issue an obstacle because I am convinced by the evidence in favor of the theory (even tho I still have my doubts) and I am also leaning towards Catholicism.

As far as I can see evolution is not compatible with Catholicism. Some people think the issue is solved by just giving a metaphorical interpretation to Genesis, but I think this approach is superficial as the issue is deeper than that. Evolution involves a great deal of death, suffering, creatures killing each other, species going extinct, the strong killing the weak, etc. All of this contradicts the nature of the God of Catholicism, who is a God that chooses the weak to shame the strong, the innocent to shame the wise, who told Noah to bring each of the species to the ark, who makes sure that all of the animals receive their food, who watches and cares over his creation, etc. I think that evolution is the very opposite of this, so it seems like it is not a method God would use to create the diversity of life on earth.

I have my own take on the issue, which was the one I held back as a Catholic, however, a friend of mine (also a Catholic) raised these objections to me and I think that he hit the nail in the head with them.

How do Catholics who are theistic evolutionists reconcile evolution with Catholicism?

Any insight is really appreciated,
Evo

try to understand that the THEORY of evoluition has a long way to go before it is proven. Way back in 1980 scientists met in chicago and had to create another theory because of the rather imbarrising lack of evidence in the fossil record that was susspose to turn up to vindicate evoluition.
Now we are suspose to believe that evoluition happens spontaniously. a triceretops hatched an egg and a chicken came out. This is really dr suse stuff here. Then there is the evidence or lack there of supporting evoluition itself. They found a skeleton of early man and said this is it this proves it all. they developed elaborate pictures about the missing link based on this skeleton. Last I checked the human body had 206 bones in it. They had exactly 5 bones of this skeleton. 3 of which were fingers. And now we find out the crainum does not go with the leg bone they found. they are from 2 different people. There are too many embarrising examples like this. evoulition has not been proven. Not by a long shot.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Classic Catholic teachings on this use both a variant of “Intelligent Design” and Evolution.

Prior to the Big Bang was ID and everything that happened after that is just part of the way things work. Evolution is just a God-created process for how things work. It is not an either-or argument.

 

[Riley259]

A couple books for you to read: Modern Physics and Ancient Religion by Stephen Barr and Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. Others are somewhat critical of Darwinian evolution but are not anti-evolution including William Dembski, Gerald Shroeder, Roy Abraham Varghese. Also, see the recent book, The Language of God by Francis Collins (former head of the Genome Project).

 

[Evoken]

A couple books for you to read: Modern Physics and Ancient Religion by Stephen Barr and Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. Others are somewhat critical of Darwinian evolution but are not anti-evolution including William Dembski, Gerald Shroeder, Roy Abraham Varghese. Also, see the recent book, The Language of God by Francis Collins (former head of the Genome Project).

Thanks for the book recommendations.

Evo

 

[Evoken]

There is another issue that bothers me a bit about this.

If we must interpret the creation account in Genesis in a non-literal manner, then what this implies is that the evidence we find in the universe does not lends support to what The Bible plainly says. So, the creation account in Genesis ends up without any sort of scientific evidence to support it.

This seems to undermine the ability to link the God who created this universe, with the God revealed in The Bible.

How do people feel about this issue?

Evo

 

[patg]

If we must interpret the creation account in Genesis in a non-literal manner, then what this implies is that the evidence we find in the universe does not lends support to what The Bible plainly says.

No one says you must interpret it that way. The authors of the bible did not know about the evidence we have found in the universe; they wrote about something that was beyond their understanding using a literary form which still allowed them to explain that God created everything in a way that made sense to them within their world-view.

So, the creation account in Genesis ends up without any sort of scientific evidence to support it.

The account in Genesis isn’t a scientific account - the author didn’t know a scientific account. It was written as a myth to explain the truth that God created everything.

This seems to undermine the ability to link the God who created this universe, with the God revealed in The Bible.

The revelation as to who created the universe is consistent. The understanding as to *how *it was created was (and still mostly is) beyond our understanding.

 

[Bosun]

A few of my catholic friends and I debated over this a few years back. One of my pals made a comment that although he was joking got me thinking. He said “What if Adam and Eve were monkeys?” Now, wait, don’t get upset or insulted over this comment. Think about what he asked. We (I say we because I also agree with the question), are not saying monkeys like the ones you see at the zoo. We are talking about he illusive “missing link”. The bible says God created man in His own image. The ability to think. That is the major difference between Humans and any other species on earth. Mechanicaly most creatures work the same. Evolution is a natural occurance ther is no link between science and faith but in theory there is a middle ground, “What if?”.

 

[marybee]

A Catholic is only responsible for the deposit of faith, one is free to believe in Evolution as long as they believe God stepped in at the creation of man!