Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[itinerant1]

To all CAF participants:
Please follow this clearly, as this type of slight-of-hand sophistry is commonly perpetrated upon the faithful. My rebuttal below may provide some apologetical support to orthodox Catholics defending the Faith.

1. itinerant1 attempts to blur the distinction between private conjecture (the oft-quoted JP II comment referred to above) of Pontiffs and Papal Encyclicals. There are basically 4 tiers of Papal communication to be considered here:

a. Excathedra declarations of dogma - these are infallible.
b. Papal Encyclicals - these are Magisterial documents and Official Teaching organs of the Roman Catholic Church.
c. Theological treatises or scholarly writings by Popes before they assumed office - these are valuable but are not binding on any Christians.
d. Private reflections, opinions, or ruminations - these are neither official nor binding on any Christian.

Pope JP II’s comment’s on evolution to PAS in 1986 fall into category d. The Papal Encyclicals which I referred to (Humani Generis, Providentissimus Deus, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Lamentabili Sane and others) are in category b and are binding on all Christians everywhere.

1. itinerant1 also tries to slide this one in:
   This is 100% false. JP II never spoke “for the church” on this issue. There are no Papal Encyclicals that support evolutionism. His private speculations offered to PAS are just that, private speculations, and have no weight in official Catholic Teaching anywhere.
2. itinerant1 also avers
   which is like saying Tiger Woods fell into temptation. His works are under the Papal monitum and were referred to by John XXIII as “dangerous.” The monitum refers to “grave doctrinal errors” which “offend Catholic teaching.”
3. He then condescends with this:

Perhaps you should avail yourself of the Catechism and the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. You will find that your narrow, contemporary interpretations are not the voice of the Church which is found in the Magisterium. It is a grave offense to promulgate idolatrous novelties in the name of Holy Mother Church. As for the laughable paraphrase of Pius XII below:

here is a real quote in a Papal Encyclical from Pius XII:
cj

No quote here relevant to Big Bang theory by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and supported by Pius XII.

Earth to “Catholic” Johnny, come in. Hello!

So much balderdash! No wonder people don’t like talking with you. You do not comprehend what you read, and you cannot talk about anything in a straight line. LOL

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Next, Msgr McCarthy rejects the advances in Catholic biblical scholarship approved by the Biblical Commission. Specifically, Msgr McCarthy rejects the historic-critical method applied to Biblical exegesis, which was specifically approved by Ratzinger.

This is not true. He is following the teaching of Pius XII in the Papal Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

Wherefore the exegete, just as he must search out and expound the literal meaning of the words, intended and expressed by the sacred writer, so also must he do likewise for the spiritual sense, provided it is clearly intended by God. For God alone could have known this spiritual meaning and have revealed it to us. Now Our Divine Savior Himself points out to us and teaches us this same sense in the Holy Gospel; the Apostles also, following the example of the Master, profess it in their spoken and written words; the unchanging tradition of the Church approves it; and finally the most ancient usage of the liturgy proclaims it, wherever may be rightly applied the well-known principle: “The rule of prayer is the rule of faith.”

1. Whosoever considers the immense labors undertaken by Catholic exegetes during well nigh two thousand years, so that the word of God, imparted to men through the Sacred Letters, might daily be more deeply and fully understood and more intensely loved, will easily be convinced that it is the serious duty of the faithful, and especially of priests, to make free and holy use of this treasure, accumulated throughout so many centuries by the greatest intellects. For the Sacred Books were not given by God to men to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research, but, as the Apostle observes, in order that these Divine Oracles might “instruct us to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus” and “that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

What you reject is Msr. McCarthy’s reverent utilization of the historico-critical method and not the demonically inspired ravishing of the Sacred texts accomplished by Protestant heretics like Bultmann. They shall be your judges.

cj

 

[Fran65]

Sadly, your final quote does not refute itinerant1. He and others have tried to explain the difference between evolution that leaves room for God; and Evolutionism. You are arguing against Evolutionism. The two are not the same.

Also your implied accusation (in red) that those who regard evolution as a useful theory with merit are drawing others away from the faith is completely unwarranted. itinerant1 has provided you with more than enough evidence to the contrary regarding his fidelity to Catholicism. You are overstepping the mark there.

If the Pope thought as you did then the Pontifical Academy for Sciences would be a very much smaller and less active place. Or are you suggesting that the Pope is allowing the drawing of others away? Quite shocking.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Sadly, your final quote does not refute itinerant1. He and others have tried to explain the difference between evolution that leaves room for God; and Evolutionism. You are arguing against Evolutionism. The two are not the same.

Also your implied accusation (in red) that those who regard evolution as a useful theory with merit are drawing others away from the faith is completely unwarranted. itinerant1 has provided you with more than enough evidence to the contrary regarding his fidelity to Catholicism. You are overstepping the mark there.

If the Pope thought as you did then the Pontifical Academy for Sciences would be a very much smaller and less active place. Or are you suggesting that the Pope is allowing the drawing of others away? Quite shocking.

Leaves room for God?

Yes, shocking is an appropriate adjective here.

Science is not dependent on evolution, evolutionism, evolutionary hypothesis, evolutionary theory, and nor any other unproven cosmogeny. Catholic Faith however, is dependent on the cosmogeny revealed in Genesis, and on that side of the partition you will find the Prophets, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors and the beatified Popes, most lately Pius X.

As for my accusation that theistic evolutionism ruins faith, all one must do to see this up close and personal is to survey the empty churches of Europe. Since theistic evolution (more properly speaking, Modernism) infiltrated the Church, vocations have plummeted, Catholics attend Mass in fewer and fewer numbers, and belief in the True Presence in the Eucharist have sharply declined. The supposed ‘help’ theistic evolution provides Christians is a bald fiction. Because you are willing to sacrifice the Divine Word revealed in Genesis for unproven contemporary theories, do not assume all Christians do.

The benefit of the doubt should always be given to Divine Writ.

cj

 

[itinerant1]

What you reject is Msr. McCarthy’s reverent utilization of the historico-critical method and not the demonically inspired ravishing of the Sacred texts accomplished by Protestant heretics like Bultmann. They shall be your judges.

cj

Not so at all.

Have you even read much Bultmann on kerygma and myth and scholarly critiques of his faulty methods by eminent Catholic biblical scholars such as Fr. John L. McKenzie who have published in journals of biblical studies? Or, are you just repeating what you have heard and have no real understanding of the exegetical issues involved?

What would be revealing is to find out what Msr. McCarthy thinks about pre-eminient works of O.T. scholarship by McKenzie such as The Two-Edged Sword. That would reveal the whole issue in one setting.

Ultimately Msr. McCarthy tends to devalue legitimate form criticism as a part of the historico-critical method, regardless of the lip-service paid, and defers to patristic interpretations, which are spiritually valuable in themselves, but used exclusively or with selective use of the historico-critical method does not always arrive at a proper recognition of the genus litterarium of many biblical texts, a recognition necessary for a correct interpretation according to the author’s intent.

Fortunately, Msr. McCarthy recognizes Aquinas’ four senses of Scripture, as a recap of neo-patristic methods, but Msr. McCarthy idiosyncratic use of these four senses allows interpretations that fail to fully appreciate the *genus litterarium, *and rather reveals RTF’s reactionary brand of Catholicism. I see the following excerpted text from RTF as carefully nuanced, but I quote it as some indication that I am familiar with RTF, and that your accusations are totally without merit.

"3. The historical-critical method as used by Catholic form-critical scholars. The term “historical-critical method” of interpreting Sacred Scripture, as used in this article, is a basically Rationalist approach descending from the anti-Christian Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, developed into the “higher criticism” of the nineteenth century, and advanced in the “form-criticism” of the twentieth century. The use of this kind of historical criticism began among Catholic Scripture scholars at the end of the nineteenth century, persisted against the opposition of the Holy See during the early twentieth century, gained the ear of the Hierarchy during the second half of the twentieth century, and is now the predominant approach of Catholic Scripture scholars and their followers. The higher-critical phase of the historical-critical method was condemned as pseudo-scientific and harmful by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (EB 119), but Catholic form-critical scholars claim, in keeping with their method of interpretation, that this censure was removed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu (1943). They also claim that the constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council (no. 11) reduced the divine guarantee of inerrancy of Sacred Scripture only to “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (see Living Tradition 31 [September 1990]).

"4. In 1993 the reconstituted Pontifical Biblical Com*mission published a document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, in which it declared that “the historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts,” and that the proper understanding of Holy Scripture “not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it” (I.A). In Living Tradition 75 (May 1998) I reported that the 1993 document of the Commission identifies “the whole series of different stages characteristic of the historical-critical method,” and these stages are: “from textual criticism one progresses to literary criticism, with its work of dissection in the quest for sources; then one moves to a critical study of forms [form-criticism] and, finally, to an analysis of the editorial process.” As an overall evaluation, the Commission finds that the historical-critical method "is a method which, when used in an objective manner, implies of itself no a priori. … Oriented, in its origins, towards source criticism and the history of religions, the method has managed to provide fresh access to the Bible. … For a long time now scholars have ceased combining the method with a philosophical system” (IBC, IA.4).

“5. In the same document the Pontifical Biblical Commission, while it acknowledges some abiding pastoral value in the framework of allegory used by the Fathers of the Church, does not recommend its further use, such as in the method of the Four Senses. But Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then President of the PBC, in his Preface to the same 1993 document, while finding the document “very helpful for the important questions about the right way of understanding Holy Scripture,” took the occasion to remark that “there are also new attempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual interpretation of Scripture.” And, interestingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an authentic expression of Catholic teaching published in the same year as the PBC document of 1993, actually mandated the patristic framework of the Four Senses as the proper way even in our day to interpret Sacred Scripture (CCC 115-119). We honor Saint Thomas Aquinas as the founder of the neo-patristic method in that he clearly organized the senses of Sacred Scripture into the literal, the allegorical, the tropological, or the moral, and the anagogical, and he outstandingly illustrated these Four Senses in his biblical commentaries. A summary of the Thomist framework of the Four Senses by Thomas P. Kuffel is presented in Living Tradition 38 (November 1991).”

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Not so at all.

Have you even read much Bultmann on kerygma and myth and scholarly critiques of his faulty methods by eminent Catholic biblical scholars such as Fr. John L. McKenzie who have published in journals of biblical studies? Or, are you just repeating what you have heard and have no real understanding of the exegetical issues involved?

What would be revealing is to find out what Msr. McCarthy thinks about pre-eminient works of O.T. scholarship by McKenzie such as The Two-Edged Sword. That would reveal the whole issue in one setting.

Ultimately Msr. McCarthy tends to devalue legitimate form criticism as a part of the historico-critical method, regardless of the lip-service paid, and defers to patristic interpretations, which are spiritually valuable in themselves, but used exclusively or with selective use of the historico-critical method does not always arrive at a proper recognition of the genus litterarium of many biblical texts, a recognition necessary for a correct interpretation according to the author’s intent.

Fortunately, Msr. McCarthy recognizes Aquinas’ four senses of Scripture, as a recap of neo-patristic methods, but Msr. McCarthy idiosyncratic use of these four senses allows interpretations that fail to fully appreciate the *genus litterarium, *and rather reveals RTF’s reactionary brand of Catholicism. I see the following excerpted text from RTF as carefully nuanced, but I quote it as some indication that I am familiar with RTF, and that your accusations are totally without merit.

I don’t have time for a full reply now. For readers of this forum, I humbly implore you to hear Monsignor McCarthy in his own sage words which far surpass anything I can offer.

Of course I am familiar with Bultmann’s demonically inspired blasphemies. The promiscuous liberties arrogated by the Modernists (falsely espousing the title ‘Catholic’) upon the publishing of DAS in 1943 have brought endless ruin to theology and especially religion in the West.

I respectfully request that you cease from conflating tertiary organs such as the modern manifestation of the PBC with Papal Encyclicals. The PBC established by Leo XIII in 1902 provided pronouncements that were promulgated in many Papal Encyclicals through 1915. The version of the PBC that exists now was assembled by Paul VI in 1971 and in the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is “a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office.” It is telling that their work enjoys no pronouncements in Papal Encyclicals.

Conflating the gravity of an encyclical with the changing and controversial arguments proposed by exegetes who openly confess to antisupernaturalism (Raymond Brown’s horror The Jerome Biblical Commentary comes to mind) is deceitful, itinerant1. Papal Encyclicals are the Voice of Peter while these commissions of theologians have become the “the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” (Revelation 18:2).

Lastly, DAS never authorized any theologians to arrive at conclusions at odds with the Magisterium.

Pope Pius XII took occasion, in the publication in 1950 of his encyclical Humani Generis, to point out that some Catholic biblical scholars were wrongly interpreting what he had said in Divino Afflante Spiritu about the historical approach to Sacred Scripture and were trying to reduce the immunity from error of the Bible to a “divine sense” that they were claiming lies below the alleged errors of the “human sense” (EB 612-614). Pontifical Biblical Commission: Yesterday And Today

Let me ask you, itinerant1: do you believe satan is real?

Respectfully,
cj

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. St. Paul, Letter to the Romans, chapter 1

Pius X rightly calls the Blessed Virgin Mary, “destroyer of all heresies.” The iconography of Mary in Revelation 12 being “clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet” is a sign of her truimph over heresy. The moon is a symbol of false religion (ie, the crescent in Islam) and Mary’s trampling of the devil is a sign of the Church’s victory over false religion, error and heresy.

In the text above, St. Paul clearly teaches that nature reveals the power and divinity of our Creator. Evolution is 180 degrees the opposite of what the God of nature reveals. Far from revealing natural selection or survival of the fittest, nature reveals intelligence, symmetry, design, irreducible complexity, and defies any final definitive cosmological conclusion apart from revelation.

In light of St. Paul’s words, we must conclude that if nature teaches us evolution and natural selection, then we must needs ascribe to eugenics. We have a duty to honor God by weeding out the weak and imperfect among us. After all, as Paul teaches, “His invisible attributes are clearly seen.” If God is the God of natural selection, then Mary is clearly misinterpreting His will. (kinda makes you wonder why people of color in the third world aren’t as enthusiastic over darwin as Western pseudo-Catholics are…)

Our Lady demonstrates the truth in the Magnificat: God’s supranatural intervention in creation and His upholding of all things:

“He has cast down the mighty from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.”

Far from starting the material universe with a big bang and then receding into obscurity, the Magnificat shows us that man’s ideas about reality are soiled with the delusions of sin; God confounds the wise, the powerful, the mighty, the strong and raises up the weak, the fallen, the humble, the defenseless.

Mary teaches us that God is not bound to our limited reasoning ability tainted by sin; just as He created all things from nothing by His powerful Word, He yet intervenes in the events of our world and saves the lowly.

The spirit of evolution says, “kill the weak.”

The Spirit of Christ says, “serve the poor.”

The Mother of Christ says, “He has shown the strength of His arm;
He has scattered the proud in their conceit.”

Evolution is an idol. It is a hideous perversion of the voice of nature which tells us of the glory of our Creator. The Blessed Virgin Mary crushes this abomination with her Magnificat. God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and show compassion to whom He will show compassion. (Exodus 33:19) The brute forces of nature have nothing to do with it. God reigns over creation; glorify His name!

 

[grannymh]

Tiny observation about being educated regarding evolution. There is really only one thing anyone must know and that is the philosophical foundation of evolution.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing:

 

[NowAgnostic]

That is my only complaint about science today: It is ideology, little else.

Well so is religion. The difference is that science **can **be conducted on a non-ideological basis, save for certain very basic truths: e.g. law of non-contradiction, an external, objective reality exists, etc. Religion cannot.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I don’t have a problem with abiogenesis in which chance plays a limited role, but I am wondering about your laboratory examples.

Who are the researchers involved in the synthesis of DNA and proteins that you have in mind? And who are the researchers for the bacteria synthesis?

For DNA synthesis I can refer you to the wikipedia article. There are several companies that are doing it commercially. And for further developments regarding the synthesis of strands with greater numbers of base pairs see here.

The bacteria synthesis is being performed by Craig Venter and his group. You can read more details about it here as well as in the wikipedia article.

 

[grannymh]

Well so is religion. The difference is that science **can **be conducted on a non-ideological basis, save for certain very basic truths: e.g. law of non-contradiction, an external, objective reality exists, etc. Religion cannot.

Oooops. Evolutionary science is conducted on the idealogical basis of the philosophy of materialism. Please prove otherwise.

 

[Fran65]

Of course I am familiar with Bultmann’s demonically inspired blasphemies.

My goodness, are you familiar with the virtue of charity? Or what about temperance? Prudence? Or even justice?

I am very surprised by your tone here. It has no place in a civilised discussion.

 

[Fran65]

NowAgnostic,

You are arguing that science is conducted free from ideology. That is manifestly untrue. What is studied, what is funded and how science is carried out, as well what is published and what is publicised in the popular media is all determined by the prevailing ideology of whichever society the science is being conducted in. Many scientists in the UK for example are funded by the government, by the military and by industry. There’s even a research pot run by Pedigree pet foods. They funded much research looking at the benefits of pet ownership. Do you think that they would fund research that ran counter to their values? We have a battle going on all over academia to try to reduce the excesses of industry and strings attached funding because it imposes an ideology. Those are just the obvious ideological constraints. What about the invisible ‘taken for granted’ constraints that sociologists and psychologists identify?

No, science is not ideology or value free, although philosophically one can argue for it as an ideal.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Oooops. Evolutionary science is conducted on the idealogical basis of the philosophy of materialism. Please prove otherwise.

You’re just like ed and have seen fit to discard critical thought when there’s your own ideology to defend. Just like ed, even if your assertion is correct, it doesn’t show what you think it does. Just to remind you, my assertion was that science **can **be conducted on a non-ideological basis, not that it necessarily **is **in every case.

In ed’s case, he asserts that science has not demonstrated, but only hypothesized, that life came from non-life (which of course, I dispute with evidence about what scientists are doing in the laboratory today). Ergo, he says, it’s impossible. This is a clear case of affirming the consequent:

1. If life cannot come from non-life, then scientists will not be able to demonstrate it did.
2. Scientists have not demonstrated it did.
3. Therefore, life cannot come from non-life.

In your case, you are also affirming the consequent:

1. If evolutionary science cannot be conducted otherwise but assuming a philosophy of materialism, then evolutionary science will be conducted according to a philosophy of materialism.
2. Evolutionary science is conducted according to a philosophy of materialism.
3. Therefore, evolutionary science cannot be conducted otherwise but assuming a philosophy of materialism.

Of course, I dispute premise 2). Not all biologists or molecular geneticists are atheists, let alone materialists. Some may be naturalists, but naturalism does not imply materialism. There are, in fact, plenty of believers such as biologist Ken Miller - plenty of theistic evolutionists around. To get around this you will have to dredge up the old “no true Scotsman” fallacy and claim that either no **true **believer in God also believes in evolution or no **true **believer in evolution also believes in God.

 

[NowAgnostic]

NowAgnostic,

You are arguing that science is conducted free from ideology.

No, I am arguing that it **can **be, not that it is. I even put the word **can **in bold font in my original post. I really make an effort to be as precise with language as I possibly can.

What is studied, what is funded and how science is carried out, as well what is published and what is publicised in the popular media is all determined by the prevailing ideology of whichever society the science is being conducted in…

And you think I am blissfully unaware of this? Biologists in the Soviet Union were killed or sent to the gulag by “Uncle Joe” Stalin because they wouldn’t adhere to his favored doctrine of Lysenkoism over Darwinism.

Many scientists in the UK for example are funded by the government, by the military and by industry.

Same in the US.

No, science is not ideology or value free, although philosophically one can argue for it as an ideal.

If feminists had their way in this country, all research relating to sex-related differences would be banned if it contradicted their PC viewpoint. So yeah, I’m more than aware of political pressures to produce the “desired” result (a major reason I simply absolutely despise politicians). But if the reality is not what feminists, or any other group of “ists” would like it to be, or dogmatically claim it to be, then so much the worse for them.

 

[Fran65]

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I’m recovering from a bad bout of H1N1 (despite having had the vaccination!). Research on sex differences is interesting - especially the positive publication bias - reminds me of the pharmaceutical research scandals involving fluoxetine and oseltamivir. I’ve just finished my course of Tamiflu and if it did decrease severity and length of infection then I would be very scared of having H1N1 without it. Seven days and I still have rigors, two secondary infections and I’m not out of bed yet. All I know is that Roche made 1.6 billion this year out of Tamiflu sales - although I haven’t seen the figures myself. I’m now officially a Tamiflu sceptic…

 

[grannymh]

You’re just like ed and have seen fit to discard critical thought when there’s your own ideology to defend. Just like ed, even if your assertion is correct, it doesn’t show what you think it does. Just to remind you, my assertion was that science **can **be conducted on a non-ideological basis, not that it necessarily **is **in every case.

May I respectfully ask you to step back a moment from the fray and consider what the appropriate (philosophical/ideological) basis of evolutionary theory is. Appropriate is the operative word.

Not all biologists or molecular geneticists are atheists, let alone materialists

Please consider that the philosophical foundation for evolutionary theory is completely separate from people. People have the free choice to think whatever they want to think. Thus, either a biologist or a theist or an atheist or a farmer can understand the same materialistic philosophical foundation for evolutionary theory. I don’t have to be a materialist when I study research papers. But I do have to understand how research papers reflect materialistic philosophy.

On the other hand, maybe you do not see philosophy as ideological. Then please explain the difference so I can reword my statement.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.