Question for Evolution-believing Catholics

[rossum]

Pjs2ejs:

By the way, the whole evolution theory is based on self evolving, not through breeding or hybridization, but by natural selection.

“self”, does not evolve, populations evolve. Individuals reproduce, populations do the evolving. There is more to it than natural selection. There is random mutation feeding in the variation which natural selection filters. There is also sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect and others working on that variation. Evolution is a large and complex theory to explain the complex phenomenon of the change in the genetic makeup of interbreeding populations over time.

Pjs2ejs:

So, show me where an animal or plant has evolved to another genus. And please, it would be nice to use an example (if there are any) of an animal we can all see, not some protazoa or obscure fungus.

Individuals do not evolve, so you are looking for a population that has evolved into a new genus. Given that there are many species to a genus, then examples will be rarer. Unfortunately most current examples will be among the fast breeding species, which generally means bacteria or some small and squishy invertebrate. If you want a contemporary example then you will have to wait a few tens of thousands of years - slow breeding animals evolve slowly. For a historical example how about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

Pjs2ejs:

Mathematically, you are wrong. Human growth rates have changed but could have never gone below a certain rate. Or man would have died away. Do the math.

Populations can increase and decrease. Population growth rates in Europe were negative during the Black Death, the population dropped by about one third. Native Americans suffered large population losses after the arrival of Europeans. The only mathematically impossible growth rate is negative infinity which is never attained in practice. Given that growth rates vary over time your original calculation based on a constant growth rate is of no practical use.

Pjs2ejs:

You have all been swept up in the evolution whirlwind. You have convinced yourselves that it is true.

I did not convince myself, I was convinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Pjs2ejs:

Now, your faith may not be affected, but I can tell you that many people’s faith has been questioned because of the evolution “theory”. They have doubts about the bible.

YEC style creationism can also cause people to have doubts about their faith, see some personal stories. To quote Saint Augustine:“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20 [A.D. 408]).
(From: catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp)A rejection of young earth creationism does not have to be a rejection of the Bible, it is just a rejection of the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

rossum

 

[Pjs2ejs]

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. The evolution theory argument will most likely never be fully explained or proved. In what I have researched there is interesting evidence on both sides. Who is to be trusted and what is fact? I don’t know.

My theory is that God created man out of nothing, in his image. Whether or not the world is billions of years old, I really don’t care.

These debates raely go anywhere, due to the fact that they are both theories. So, I am officially retiring from evolution posts.

Thanks to all of you who responded. See ya.

 

[Nullasalus]

I do have another questIon (trying to to make any more threads unless I need to) for theistic evolutionist Catholics.

Do any of you believe in miracles, particularly the ones Jesus is said to have performed in the bible?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Nullasalus:

I do have another questIon (trying to to make any more threads unless I need to) for theistic evolutionist Catholics.

Do any of you believe in miracles, particularly the ones Jesus is said to have performed in the bible?

Of course. Christianity is the only religion in the world that REQUIRES belief in miracles! The Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. I hope you’re not drifting into empiricism and scientism. Have you studied metaphysics?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nullasalus:

I do have another questIon (trying to to make any more threads unless I need to) for theistic evolutionist Catholics.

Do any of you believe in miracles, particularly the ones Jesus is said to have performed in the bible?

Of course I believe in miracles – as a Catholic, I must. I accept the teachings of the Church in matters of religion. That’s the Assent of Faith.

But evolution is a matter of science and evidence, not of faith and belief.

I do not “believe” in evolution. The idea that evolution is a matter of belief is an error many evangelicals make. Instead, I and many others aproach it with scepticism, challenging all the evidence. And after doing that, I am forced to admit the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Nullasalus]

JSmitty2005:

Of course. Christianity is the only religion in the world that REQUIRES belief in miracles! The Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. I hope you’re not drifting into empiricism and scientism. Have you studied metaphysics?

Isn’t metaphysics a catchall word for the mechanics of the spiritual and supernatural in general?

I have only the strongest faith in the Catholic Church when it comes authoritative teaching on morality and ethics - that hasn’t been shaken. But recently I’ve found myself trying to truly square away things against rational science (evolution is a part of that) - maybe that’s what you mean about empiricism and sciencism.

These are new thoughts for me, so I’m just doing what I can to balance both the miraculous (resurrection, eternal life, ascension, etc) with what we know of reality. It’s obviously not my strong point - so, I’m looking for other Catholics who have managed as much, and can offer insights on how they see things. For me it’s a little hard to go from the rationality of ‘Alright, evolution is a reality, we study the physical world and these are the results’ and stop before wondering about the resurrection and ascension.

I may be misreading, but I get the feeling people think I’m playing Devil’s Advocate with these questions. Honestly, that isn’t the case. I’m just trying to enlighten myself - I’ve learned a lot about theistic evolution from this thread, but I still have more questions to go through. This part of the faith is in need of education, obviously.

 

[Orogeny]

Nullasalus:

I do have another questIon (trying to to make any more threads unless I need to) for theistic evolutionist Catholics.

Do any of you believe in miracles, particularly the ones Jesus is said to have performed in the bible?

Absolutely!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Nullasalus:

I have only the strongest faith in the Catholic Church when it comes authoritative teaching on morality and ethics - that hasn’t been shaken. But recently I’ve found myself trying to truly square away things against rational science (evolution is a part of that) - maybe that’s what you mean about empiricism and sciencism.

I think you have to separate science and faith. In science, everything is based on evidence. Faith requires us to believe without evidence. Remember the words Jesus spoke to Thomas in John 20 19:29 :

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23 16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” 24 Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” 28 17 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 18 Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

We don’t rely on evidence to believe.

These are new thoughts for me, so I’m just doing what I can to balance both the miraculous (resurrection, eternal life, ascension, etc) with what we know of reality. It’s obviously not my strong point - so, I’m looking for other Catholics who have managed as much, and can offer insights on how they see things. For me it’s a little hard to go from the rationality of ‘Alright, evolution is a reality, we study the physical world and these are the results’ and stop before wondering about the resurrection and ascension.

I commend you for making an effort to reconcile your feelings. Miracles are outside of science - that’s why they are miracles. They are a matter of faith. Keep praying and never stop trusting the faith. If it ever comes down to one or the other, choose the faith!

Peace

Tim

 

[ScottH]

Tom:

P.S. God created the earth BANG!

Tom- you are right on there.

Remember though- the big bang theory goes against science’s law of thermodynamics as well as the law conservation of mass/matter.

So they break their own laws in promoting “big bang”. (Which would then be a supernatural event, to say the least.)

And yet the same scientists who promote the scientific law-breaking “Big Bang”, also are 100% against the “supernatural”.

“Nothing” exploding into “the world” sounds pretty supernatural to me.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orogeny:

I think you have to separate science and faith. In science, everything is based on evidence.

I agree with this somewhat. Science is based on the natural sciences while faith is based on the supernatural. That doesn’t mean that there is never evidence for the supernatural. In fact, that’s how the Church verifies miracles. First, they look for a natural explanation for the evidence, but if none are reasonable, then it’s considered a miracle. The evidence is there, but it’s unexplainable through natural phenomenon.

Truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[melbourne_guy]

rossum:

I accept evolution because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it. If the evidence changes then my acceptance will change.

Your source is wrong. See Observed instances of speciation.

Ok Rossum, now i will present the other side of issue, one argument at a time.
Concerning speciation refer to answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp
answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

"Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information"

 

[magdelaine]

ScottH:

And yet the same scientists who promote the scientific law-breaking “Big Bang”, also are 100% against the “supernatural”.

Are you sure about this? I’m just going to throw into the argument another book title for y’all: The God Particle. I remember reading that if you asked most scientists at the beginning of the century if they believed in God, they would have said “Of course not!”, but if you asked them now they would say “How could I not?”. This is because of the discoveries that have been made in particle physics and cosmology. It’s a great read, I highly recommend it.

I’m more of an artist but I’ve always had a fascination with the sciences because when I study the nature of things I feel like I’m peering into the mind of God. I just don’t see the conflict…

 

[buffalo]

Nullasalus:

Isn’t metaphysics a catchall word for the mechanics of the spiritual and supernatural in general?

I have only the strongest faith in the Catholic Church when it comes authoritative teaching on morality and ethics - that hasn’t been shaken. But recently I’ve found myself trying to truly square away things against rational science (evolution is a part of that) - maybe that’s what you mean about empiricism and sciencism.

These are new thoughts for me, so I’m just doing what I can to balance both the miraculous (resurrection, eternal life, ascension, etc) with what we know of reality. It’s obviously not my strong point - so, I’m looking for other Catholics who have managed as much, and can offer insights on how they see things. For me it’s a little hard to go from the rationality of ‘Alright, evolution is a reality, we study the physical world and these are the results’ and stop before wondering about the resurrection and ascension.

I may be misreading, but I get the feeling people think I’m playing Devil’s Advocate with these questions. Honestly, that isn’t the case. I’m just trying to enlighten myself - I’ve learned a lot about theistic evolution from this thread, but I still have more questions to go through. This part of the faith is in need of education, obviously.

It is tempting indeed to fall victim to science and empiricism. Science by its own definition is very limited in what it can say about the universe. It can only speak about the natural, and has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Think of it this way - look through a tube and what do you see? Take the tube away from your eye and now what do you see?

 

[magdelaine]

Just for fun, or enlightenment (whichever comes first), I’m going to link this article . It is the first real scientific paper I’ve read as to what exactly is NOT explained by the theory of evolution. What do you think?

 

[JSmitty2005]

magdelaine:

Just for fun, or enlightenment (whichever comes first), I’m going to link this article . It is the first real scientific paper I’ve read as to what exactly is NOT explained by the theory of evolution. What do you think?

Here’s another interesting article:

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48911

 

[jimmy]

Nullasalus:

I do have another questIon (trying to to make any more threads unless I need to) for theistic evolutionist Catholics.

Do any of you believe in miracles, particularly the ones Jesus is said to have performed in the bible?

Of course. That is essential to the faith. You must believe that Christ ressurected from the dead. You must believe this stuff.

 

[Nullasalus]

Orogeny:

I think you have to separate science and faith. In science, everything is based on evidence. Faith requires us to believe without evidence. Remember the words Jesus spoke to Thomas in John 20 19:29 :
We don’t rely on evidence to believe.

I commend you for making an effort to reconcile your feelings. Miracles are outside of science - that’s why they are miracles. They are a matter of faith. Keep praying and never stop trusting the faith. If it ever comes down to one or the other, choose the faith!

Peace

Tim

Well, faith does offer evidence - maybe not reproducable or falsifiable evidence in the way that science does. Christ performed miracles - they may not have been meant as evidence, but they certainly were effectively such.

Maybe my problem is needing to understand everything as a precursor to believing it - not a recipe for success even if there truly is a God and if Christ was who He is believed to have been. I really need to find a site where the very learned talk about their faith and why they believe in it. Not that religion is more valid when it comes from someone with a PhD, but in a world where many intellectuals and scientists seem to have their guns squarely aimed at religion in general and Christianity in particular, I feel particularly unarmed. That’s what I get for majoring in political science.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nullasalus:

I’ve been going through the (many, many) evolution debate threads on this forum - the historicity of the bible is a big question for me, as I’m exploring my faith and trying to weigh things out in my mind.

My question doesn’t involve the validity of evolution versus creationism, mind you - I personally believe evolution and an old earth to be correct, though I’m not an expert by any means. But, I’ve seen some very spirited, articulate defenses of evolution by people who consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

It’s a broad question, I know. But I would really appreciate hearing thoughts about this - like I said, I’ve been struggling with some concepts of God, faith, religion, afterlife… this is one of the weightier questions I have, and really look forward to responses.

Thank you.

OK ​

1. IMO, Genesis 1 & 2 are making a theological point: the God of Israel, and only He, freely and unopposed created all things by His Will & Power - IOW, Israel’s faith is in a God Who is significantly different from the many gods of their neighbours. The text, on this view, is not giving a day by day account of the creation, but, re-arranging traditional material from various creation myths in order to make that point, and to emphasise the sacredness of the Sabbath in so doing. IMO, the Sabbath commandment and Genesis 1 are closely related. It’s a theological reflection in the form of a story - and because it is a story in form it’s memorable, as a long list of theological propositions would not be.
2. ISTM that knowing about the detail of evolution gives knowledge of the detail of how God created what He did. If one believes in God the Creator, the mere material numbers, all these thousands of millions of years, and trillions of stars and planets, are, in a sense, unimportant - because God is more real than they: He is unimaginably real. Things are important, only in relation to God - physical scale is of no importance. So this vastness and bigness is in no way to be feared - it is something to move us to wonder, not to fear. Only God is worth fearing.
3. In addition, the selection of *this *creature rather than that in evolution seems to be an instance of the process of election. Abram was chosen and called from Ur, and that selection was part of a long process which came to a point in the Incarnation. It went on again with the selection of certain books, and not others. Why did God choose to be a hominid ? Not because man was deserving - we were nothing of the kind; as St. Paul makes clear. IMO, He was completing a process in which dinosaurs and planets and galaxies were also players - IOW, the Incarnation is something prepared for by the very fact of evolution, & everything leads into and up to it. Evolution implies Incarnation - that is what it is for; it is a Christ-centred process, from beginning to end, through & through. Since man cannot *evolve *into being capable of the Beatific Vision, which is the whole point of his existence, human nature has to be taken beyond itself; so God must be Incarnate: God must lower Himself to us, if we are to come to be like God.

As for the Bible, I see it as a “coming-to-a-point” of human experience of God, evolving from within & among the People elected by God, so that God might be born from among them. Israel is special, because it was chosen - not the other way round. So it is a representative nation, a nation of no importance, except that it was chosen for the sake of Christ. And that’s why Mary is important - she is important only because she does on a small scale what the whole of created nature does: from it comes a renewed creation every spring; from her, the Creator & Renewer. He Who comes from nothing, and from Whom alone all things come, comes from her alone, by His own Will.

And because creation is fallen, it needs redemption. The Reality is the Love of Christ - what sin does, is modify how that Love is to be shown. If Christ really is our High Priest, maybe His offering is on behalf of all non-human creaturely suffering: unless dinosaurs don’t suffer. If He sums up all humanity in Himself, why not all earthly creatures ?

That’s how I see it. ##

 

[zian]

melbourne_guy:

Ok Rossum, now i will present the other side of issue, one argument at a time.
Concerning speciation refer to answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp
answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

"Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information"

Well, I’m not a mathematical biologist, but (from here) , here goes -

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
… Source
Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463 (technical) and

Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

 

[Francis_C]

I am a practicing Catholic who believes 100% in evolution. The reason or purpose of science is to find the “truth” so I can support it 100%. God is the “truth”. By definition “truth” can not be proven false, so I never have to worry that science will prove anything from God false because God is “truth” and by definition can never be proven false.

It is so wonderful that we have the Catholic Church to always guide us in the “truth”. If you have doubts about the Catholic Church please study what the Church preaches because I promise you it is the “truth” straight from God. The “truth” is the word of God and is true.

Fran