Question for Catholics who accept Evolution

[CarlosG]

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?”.

I cant really say i’d agree with this. From all the evidence we have humans only started doing “human things” when they could rightfully be called homo-sapien sapiens. “Thinking”, well I think you are going to have to qualify what you mean by that, because certainly other animals think (maybe you mean self-consciousness?), but stuff like wearing ornamental clothes, ceremonial burials and drawing just for the sake of drawing has thus far only been attributed to modern humans. There have been a few cases where Neanderthals have been found with jewelry or some sort of really good hunting spears, but most experts attribute those to being stolen from dead humans because they are only found in burial sites dated to exactly around the time humans showed up in the respected area.

But for some reason I keep remembering a vague line from Chesterton’s ‘Everlasting Man’ that talks about the absurdity of ‘prehistoric history’ (of course they will argue that they push the boundaries of where history starts and prehistory begins, but no need to ruin a good Chesterton quote .).

 

[Riley259]

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

The creation stories in Genesis are not meant to be read as scientific manuals but rather as basic truths told to an audience (at that time) that had no idea electrons, protons, or genes even existed. Nonetheless, the basic truths put there such as the assertion that God created the universe from nothing can be confirmed quite nicely with modern scientific theories (ex., The Big Bang). Other basic truths put forth in Genesis (such as our fallen nature) can’t be proved in a strictly scientific way but are obvious to even the most skeptical person.

 

[Bosun]

I cant really say i’d agree with this. From all the evidence we have humans only started doing “human things” when they could rightfully be called homo-sapien sapiens. “Thinking”, well I think you are going to have to qualify what you mean by that, because certainly other animals think (maybe you mean self-consciousness?), but stuff like wearing ornamental clothes, ceremonial burials and drawing just for the sake of drawing has thus far only been attributed to modern humans. There have been a few cases where Neanderthals have been found with jewelry or some sort of really good hunting spears, but most experts attribute those to being stolen from dead humans because they are only found in burial sites dated to exactly around the time humans showed up in the respected area.

But for some reason I keep remembering a vague line from Chesterton’s ‘Everlasting Man’ that talks about the absurdity of ‘prehistoric history’ (of course they will argue that they push the boundaries of where history starts and prehistory begins, but no need to ruin a good Chesterton quote .).

Now remember we are talking about evolution. From the creation of creatures (to include man). The human being is the only creature who has evolved its own use of tools to the techology we have today. There is fundamental difference between human and animal mind, due to which humans possess ‘knowledge’ whereas animals do not. Actually ‘knowledge’ is the ‘theoretical awareness’ of any thing or phenomenon. Only humans are theoretically aware about their surrounding environment as well as about their ownselves, so only humans possess ‘knowledge’.

Is it too dificult to consider that the first man and woman created by God were merely beings that evolved into the modern human.

again, a middle ground.

 

[Evoken]

A Catholic is only responsible for the deposit of faith…

Indeed, and I think that this a very important thing when it comes to issues like reconciling evolution with Catholicism. The focus it would seem must not be on how to reconcile The Bible with evolution, rather the question to be asked is: “what dogma of The Catholic Church does evolution contradicts or is in conflict with”?

I think that this change in focus helps a lot.

Evo

 

[CarlosG]

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

Dont let issues like this bother you, but rather just ponder them. I know it sounds kinda high-browed and emotionless, but often emotions just cloud our vision on certain issues that can only be dealt with with a clear head.

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.

Please understand, and it should be evident from not only this thread but this whole sub-forum, that there are precious few things in the Bible that are ‘plainly said’. The translations, the fact that it was written for a specific audience (Genesis that is), the fact that we cannot go back in time and ask whoever wrote Genesis to explain to us what they meant by the whole thing so all we are left with is a few words on a page and a whole lot of speculation. The Church tells us what is a permissible interpretation because of the apostolic succession and would have known alot better what was meant than anyone who just picks up a Bible in the library today and starts reading it.

Evo

 

[CarlosG]

Now remember we are talking about evolution. From the creation of creatures (to include man). The human being is the only creature who has evolved its own use of tools to the techology we have today. There is fundamental difference between human and animal mind, due to which humans possess ‘knowledge’ whereas animals do not. Actually ‘knowledge’ is the ‘theoretical awareness’ of any thing or phenomenon. Only humans are theoretically aware about their surrounding environment as well as about their ownselves, so only humans possess ‘knowledge’.

Thanks for clarifying your previous statement, so you mean as I said, humans are defined by their self-consciousness, correct? Our ability to reflect on a reflection yes?

Is it too dificult to consider that the first man and woman created by God were merely beings that evolved into the modern human.

Obviously it is not difficult to consider a great number of things including space mice with jetpacks and Golgor the dragon that lives in the middle of the world, but the question is, is there any evidence for holding such a position? If you are just speculating then thats fine, everyone does, but the fact remains, there is evidence for the human body evolving, but the implantation of a human soul, and self-consciousness (which I think the two are intertwined but I have not fleshed this thought out much), a huge leap in technology, culture, and thought in general when true homosapiens showed up on the scene; there is no evidence for the evolution of those.

again, a middle ground.

 

[Bosun]

Obviously it is not difficult to consider a great number of things including space mice with jetpacks and Golgor the dragon that lives in the middle of the world, but the question is, is there any evidence for holding such a position? If you are just speculating then thats fine, everyone does, but the fact remains, there is evidence for the human body evolving, but the implantation of a human soul, and self-consciousness (which I think the two are intertwined but I have not fleshed this thought out much), a huge leap in technology, culture, and thought in general when true homosapiens showed up on the scene; there is no evidence for the evolution of those

Yes, I am only speculating. If anyone knew for sure this would not be a descussion.

My comment is based on a “what if” statement. I challenge you to think and discuss this “what if” statement with your friends and family, in person. Come back in a couple of days and tell us what you think. I am not stating that is the way things happen I am simply speculating.

“space mice with jetpacks”?? “Golgor”?? Yeah, okay.

 

[Nick]

I haven’t been following this thread too closely but has anyone mentioned the Pope Pius XII Encyclical Humanis Generis? It discusses evolution, and what Catholics are allowed to believe. You can read it at EWTN. Also, Pope John Paul II wrote or spoke about evolution, and this is available at ewtn.com as well.

 

[tomarin]

the question to be asked is: “what dogma of The Catholic Church does evolution contradicts or is in conflict with”?

the official Vatican answer would have to be “none” because in the catholic view faith and science are both aspects of God’s truth so one cannot contradict the other.

i know that Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this topic and what he said, essentially was that you as a catholic may believe in evolution if you find it the most convincing scientific theory but you are not required to. even if there were viable scientific alternatives to evolution through natural selection the Pope would not feel the need to recommend one as better than another because science is not his area of expertise.

occasionally i wonder about whether australopithecines or other human ancestors had souls and what about neanderthals (a more likely candidate since they are grouped as a subspecies of homo sapiens – although current trends in physical anthropology regard them as increasingly less “human” than us; there’s no evidence of them wearing jewelry for instance despite what an earlier poster said) but it helps knowing that our church’s postion is that it is impossible for science and faith to contradict one another.

 

[Evoken]

I just want to add a general comment and say that I really apreciate the responses that have been given so far. Plenty of them have been really helpful.

Thanks,
Evo

 

[MariaG]

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

Well, I hope you can see here that there really is no conflict. As long as you believe God’s divine hand made it happen, one can believe in evolution all the way. In fact, one of the explanations that I read when I was looking into this myself, (I can’t remember where ), was that if you look at the language of genesis, the words used imply an ongoing activity. That is, God spoke the *process, *into existence and the activity continued.

Okay, that was really butchered. I bet it was in one of those books recommended to you. There really is an explanation that can allow you to rest easy and believe in God AND evolution.

One of the things I truly admire about the Catholic Church is it is a “thinking” man’s (and woman’s ) church. Faith and reason go together. We don’t have to abandon science and rational thinking just because we have faith. Our ability to think and reason are part of who God made us and we do not have to abandon any part of the creation we are in order to worship the divine.

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

Although others touched on this, I would like to reinforce this. The bible is not meant to be a scientific or even a historical document. It is a spritual one meant to give us spiritual truths.

Although at times, things are found in science that can help reinforce our faith, scientific accuracy is not necessary for God did not dictate the bible, he inspired it and worked with the limitations of the human writers.

Although I will say, occassionally science will reinforce my faith.

Like one time I was watching the history channel, (not the best at presenting faith forming information ). It was an archealogical dig on Jericho. The archeaologists expected to find that, contrary to the biblical story where the walls just tumbled down after walking around it 7 times and blowing horns, the walls had been battered down. This is what they usually find in cities that have hostile takeovers.

In this case though, the walls appeared to have just, well, fell down not inward as one would expect with a battering ram, but outward.

God bless,
Maria