Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[edwest2]

The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual book. People who don’t understand science think or project their scientific ignorance onto the Bible and quote from it as if it was scientific theory.

If the Bible is not a science book then the science book is not a book of theology. It cannot study God. If a scientist could go back in time and witness Jesus performing miracles, what natural explanations would he get?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual book. People who don’t understand science think or project their scientific ignorance onto the Bible and quote from it as if it was scientific theory.

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

The very first line. Just recently confirmed by science.

 

[tjm190]

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

The very first line. Just recently confirmed by science.

Because there is a version of the big bang theory which states that the Earth has existed since the beginning of time?

 

[AlbertBall]

This is a major problem for religion, for creationists drag religion down to the point where many people view all religion at the same intellectual level of creationism.

A very good interview with Father George Coyne on this very subject.

Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins. Father George Coyne is obviously a very intelligent man and the former director of the Vatican Observatory, creationists should open their ears to this man.

youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=PlayList&p=965C53D2B4BCCCF5&index=0&playnext=1

 

[donsnow]

You can not insist on a literal interpretation of a piece of work that contradicts itself if taken literally. Without magic.

Speak for yourself.
I’ve found many paradoxical statements in the Holy Bible, and complimentary statements, but no real contradictions. Of course, in your reading of the Holy Bible for yourself, instead of being influenced by skeptic or Darwinist propaganda, you may have interpreted some of the paradoxes or complimentary passages as contradictions. That’s just your opinion that you may have come to without pressure, excuse me persuasion, no I mean influence…uh…how about (name removed by moderator)ut…from skeptics and Darwinists around you. Yeah.

My opinion is stated in the first sentence of the paragraph, arrived at after spending 8 months in 1975 reading the Holy Bible all the way through. And rereading many parts since then.

I consider the idea of contradictions, which I first heard at Pershing Square in Los Angeles about '63 or '64, just a widespread opinion. That’s been repeated over and over and over just like any other propaganda or sales pitch. Repetition is not truth.

 

[ricmat]

This is a major problem for religion, for creationists drag religion down to the point where many people view all religion at the same intellectual level of creationism.

A very good interview with Father George Coyne on this very subject.

Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins. Father George Coyne is obviously a very intelligent man and the former director of the Vatican Observatory, creationists should open their ears to this man.

youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=PlayList&p=965C53D2B4BCCCF5&index=0&playnext=1

It is no wonder that Father George Coyne is the former director of the Vatican Observatory.

Here’s what Cardinal Schoenborn says about Coyne in “Chance or Purpose”:

“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”

And no, we should not open our ears to this man.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have the impression that some contemporary biologists are drifting from Darwinist uniformtarianism, to a concept that contains both catastrophic and gradual changes in the natural world. Hopefully, Darwin’s impact on theories of evolution will continue to subside. I think basically Darwin was the 19th century PR man for the Uniformtarian school of evolutionary thought at that time. Evolutionists really need a contemporary rather than 19th century foundation to their theories. Unfortunately many of them cling to Darwinism with religious fervor. What a pity.

Can you give some examples of scientists who “cling to Darwinism with religious fervor”? Or are you just making this up?

 

[StAnastasia]

Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins. Father George Coyne is obviously a very intelligent man and the former director of the Vatican Observatory, creationists should open their ears to this man.

Fr. Coyne is brilliant, humorous, and humble man. We are friends, and I had the privilege of visiting with him at a conference last week. Regrettably, cancer forced him to retire early from his post leading the Vatican Observatory, but he is still lecturing and working on astronomy. His Wayfarers in the Cosmos is a very engaging book.

StAnastasia

 

[Fran65]

The second shows the importance of man.

By that logic then women are not part of ‘mankind’ and we are less important than plants and animals.

Is there an explanation for this?

 

[MindOverMatter]

You have absolutely no basis for your claim. It has been shown by me and others time and time again the constant belief and understanding.

Ah…perhaps you should actually read some of the Catholic Theology that you and edwest keep posting as evidence for your position, and read them properly because a lot of it undermines your absolutist position. You have been trading on mere appearances and misinterpretations, and i have exposed both of you before on that matter!

 

[MindOverMatter]

ignorant

Says the person who is trying very hard not to realize the contradiction of the sun and moon being introduced only on the fourth day. And why would God create the world in timely successions and then rest from all the hard work? Sounds very…lets say…human. If an intellect like Saint Augustine can see the gigantic stretch that you are going to have to make in order to justify a literal interpretation then i can count my self as being in the company of good thinkers and saints.

 

[Contrabass101]

When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely." The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”

Which, of course, is not exactly what Father Coyne said, or at least not what he meant. He clarifies that in the interview, by the way.

Father Coyne is a theologian in good standing with Rome, and his leaving the post at the Vatican Observatory was not due to censure of any kind. Catholics should abstain from such slanderous speculation. He has been asking for a replacement for years, and finally got it - that the media has conjured up some ID-conspiracy involving even the Pope, should not surprise anyone who knows the first things about journalism.

• CB

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Q. Should Christians embrace evolution ?

A. Did our Blessed Redeemer Jesus Christ? That’s your answer.

 

[Ismael]

They should.

The theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

The Catholic Church, recently also Benedict XVI, affirmed time and time again that Christians need not to deny science.

Being a Christian means living in Christ. It’s not the religion’s job to explain physical phenomena.

One can accept evolution as the explaination on how man came to be PHYSICALLY.

We must also remeber that Genesis 1-3 is highly allegorical. It does tell a TRUE story, but with symbols.
This was understood by pre-Christian Jews and also by the Fathers of the Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas als clearly states this in the Summa Theologica when he comments on the scriptures.

So one person can be perfectly Catholic and still accept evolution. The Pope clearly stated so 2 years ago (vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html):

Question - *Fr Alberto: Holy Father, young people are our future and our hope: but they sometimes see life as a difficulty rather than an opportunity; not as a gift for themselves and for others but as something to be consumed on the spot; not as a future to be built but as aimless wandering. The contemporary mindset demands that young people be happy and perfect all of the time. The result is that every tiny failure and the least difficulty are no longer seen as causes for growth but as a defeat. All this often leads to irreversible acts such as suicide, which wound the hearts of those who love them and of society as a whole. What can you tell us educators who feel all too often that our hands are tied and that we have no answers? Thank you. *

Answer Benedict XVI: I think you have just given us a precise description of a life in which God does not figure. At first sight, it seems as if we do not need God or indeed, that without God we would be freer and the world would be grander. But after a certain time, we see in our young people what happens when God disappears. As Nietzsche said: “The great light has been extinguished, the sun has been put out”. Life is then a chance event. It becomes a thing that I must seek to do the best I can with and use life as though it were a thing that serves my own immediate, tangible and achievable happiness. But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being. Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that they are not enough to explain all of reality. They are insufficient. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life. This seems to me to be the first point: to discover that my being is truly reasonable, it was thought of, it has meaning. And my important mission is to discover this meaning, to live it and thereby contribute a new element to the great cosmic harmony conceived of by the Creator. If this is true, then difficulties also become moments of growth, of the process and progress of my very being, which has meaning from conception until the very last moment of life. We can get to know this reality of meaning that precedes all of us, we can also rediscover the meaning of pain and suffering; there is of course one form of suffering that we must avoid and must distance from the world: all the pointless suffering caused by dictatorships and erroneous systems, by hatred and by violence. However, in suffering there is also a profound meaning, and only if we can give meaning to pain and suffering can our life mature. I would say, above all, that there can be no love without suffering, because love always implies renouncement of myself, letting myself go and accepting the other in his otherness; it implies a gift of myself and therefore, emerging from myself. All this is pain and suffering, but precisely in this suffering caused by the losing of myself for the sake of the other, for the loved one and hence, for God, I become great and my life finds love, and in love finds its meaning. The inseparability of love and suffering, of love and God, are elements that must enter into the modern conscience to help us live. In this regard, I would say that it is important to help the young discover God, to help them discover the true love that precisely in renunciation becomes great and so also enables them to discover the inner benefit of suffering, which makes me freer and greater. …]

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Evolutionism is a theory whose fruit is death, destruction, statism, utopianism, eugenics, paganism, and destruction of Catholic faith. Our Blessed Lord said, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

All of B16’s equivocation with modernists cannot ever hope to approach the majesty of that Divinity which revealed to Moses the origins of mankind and his world and the dogmas of eternal truth which can never fail.

St. Pius X thunders from eternity against you modernists in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.

1. To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution.

and again:

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: *In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.
*The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: *Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.
*

and lastly, you modernists blaspheme against the sacred texts:

To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.

Merciful God, be pleased to grant us pius heroes such as Blessed Saint Pius X to defend us from this Babylonian syncretism!

 

[MindOverMatter]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)Ed

Scientifically speaking, insofar as we are working within the immediate framework of secondary causes rather than events that are all puppeteered by a divine intellect, this statement is correct and compatible with Catholic theology. There is obviously such a thing as natural events; there is natural development, micro changes within complex organisms, and changes are influenced according to the environment. And Kenneth obviously believes in a God that loves us. But in order to see this you require a greater level of understanding of where science and theology differ in explaining reality, and how they relate to one another insofar as they seek understanding or have knowledge of the same reality. You obviously lack or refuse to comprehend such an understanding; such as the difference between natural events and events that do not ultimately exist to fulfill a purpose. Science does not deal with ultimate questions.

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)Ed

This is also true within the context of empirical science. You are jumping to conclusions with out really understanding what these people are saying.

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)Ed

It is true that natural events do not care. It is also true that natural events do not seek to fulfill a purpose. And it is absolutely true that theology should not be used to explain scientific data in the place of a physical theory. When science can no longer explain physical reality, it will not say God did it, but rather it will stay silent on the matter. God is the ultimate cause, not a contingent cause, and neither is God an object of empirical science, but is instead an being known through revelation, Catholic theological science, and philosophy.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)Ed

I dare say that this quote is being quoted out of context; which makes you dishonest, at least in so far as the implication is that this is the belief of Kenneth R Miller. Please correct me if i am wrong. Also, what is being said in this quote is not the Theory Of Evolution, this is naturalism; and i am unaware that this is being taught in a science class rooms. It certainly isn’t science.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

“ but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)Ed

This is on the edge. But it really depends on the context in which these views are presented. I am not sure where you are getting these quotes from.
Are you getting this from a college text book that would be taught in a science classroom? And does the same text book explain that science cannot prove or disprove Gods existence?

In any case, like i said before, this view is still compatible with the Catholic Faith so long as it is interpreted within the proper context. In some cases, the manner in which nature is explained by the empirical sciences is very anti-teleological, but that is not because Science is anti God but rather it is in fact the case that empirical science is focused primarily on natural events. saying that God did it tells us nothing about natural events, and so teleology is not included in scientific language and as a result describes reality only in its physical sense.

Natural events are unguided and seek no goals in the strict sense of them being natural; however this does not mean that there is no ultimate purpose behind natural events. What it does mean is that things evolve naturally rather than by the direct influence of an intellect such as our selves or God. Its obvious to me that Natural interactions, given the right circumstances, are as such that they give actuality to meaningful and purposeful behavior which only makes sense within the context of there being an ultimate purpose behind nature; but nature itself does not purposely seek those ends, but rather they nature is influenced to those ends according to the laws and principles of nature and the environment in which biological organisms develop. Thus in the correct context it is correct to say that physical events are unguided and purposeless in so far as there is no direct need or presence of a divine will, and at the same time one can say with out contradiction that God created the universe to fulfill a purpose.

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”

(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)Ed

Within a scientific context, Richard is correct in saying that natural selection is totally blind to the future. And he is also correct in rebuking design in so far as such a concept means that organisms, species or kinds, are a direct manifestation of God rather than an expression of natural events. Again there is no necessary contradiction. Although i am aware of Richard Dawkins atheistic views, and disagree with him, in so far as absolute naturalism is concerned. But i agree with him on Evolution. “Natural selection” is the blind watchmaker, and the blind watchmaker was designed by God. .

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)Ed

This is indeed compatible with the Catholic faith, especially since God creates the soul, as reggieM keeps hammering home to us. I see no problem with this world view. There is no reason to suggest that we could not have been placed within completely different organisms with a different evolutionary line if need be.

Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance.Ed

That’s one interpretation. But other interpretations are entirely possible. In any case i think that some so called Christians are just as much to blame for the negative feeling towards Evolution as the Atheists are.

we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

It is evident that naturalism has its tentacles attached to the theory of evolution, but that does not give us an excuse to try and undermine a scientific theory with the pseudo science intelligent-design. Such an act makes us just as bad as the naturalists whom promote their propaganda of anti-design.

 

[buffalo]

Says the person who is trying very hard not to realize the contradiction of the sun and moon being introduced only on the fourth day. And why would God create the world in timely successions and then rest from all the hard work? Sounds very…lets say…human. If an intellect like Saint Augustine can see the gigantic stretch that you are going to have to make in order to justify a literal interpretation then i can count my self as being in the company of good thinkers and saints.

St Augustine thought that everything was created with potential instantaneously. He did not argue long ages.

The questions of why God would do it a certain way? How on earth do you expect the human mind to grasp the Divine?

 

[reggieM]

It is evident that naturalism has its tentacles attached to the theory of evolution…

That is a good point. Atheism is attached to the theory of evolution. The theory emerged from an atheistic-materialist mind-set and it was designed to prove an atheistic worldview. Let’s try these quotes again and I will continue to “hammer” on the errors of Darwinian theory – some of which you happily and correctly already oppose.

First - a preliminary.

Premise – evolutionary theory claims to explain the origin of human beings.
Falsification – Human beings cannot be reduced to biological or natural processes alone. The human soul, as taught by the Church and supported by St. Thomas Aquinas – is the “form of the body”, it is immaterial and cannot be the product of evolution.
Therefore, evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of human beings - since there cannot be a human being without a human soul.
Additionally, and logically – the human soul, as form of the body, united to the body – profoundly affects, shapes and directs the development of human life. Reducing human beings to being the product of random mutations and natural selection (and ancillary physical processes) alone is false.
Therefore, evolutionary theory is falsified.

Does evolutionary theory claim to explain the origin of human beings?

Here are the textbooks again (the references are provided in Ed West’s posts so I’ll just give relevant quotes)

**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **

Not only false - but a claim that evolution can understand what humans are without reference to the immortal soul.

**“[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed **

False. Humans are a major part of the diversity of life. Humans cannot be explained through chance alone since the human soul is not the product of chance.

we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design

Not only false, but again – evolutionary theory claims to explain the origin of human beings. As above, this is impossible since the human soul is integral to human beings – as the form of the body. Materialistic-science cannot even correctly define what a human being is since the fundamental difference is an immaterial substance.

**Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig **

Again, materialistic science claiming to explain the origin of human beings. Science cannot know that origin since a human being cannot exist without a soul – and the origin of souls (consciousness, rationality, free-will, grasp of universals, spirituality) is not reducible to science.

Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous

It’s true that Darwin attempted this, but Darwin is refuted since spiritual explanations are necessary in defining the origin of human beings.

Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us

Again, evolutionary-science claims to have an understanding of the nature and origin of “humanity” and that is totally false for reasons I’ve already hammered many times.

Thus – the textbook version of evolution is false.

Can some other theory be proposed as an alternative to “textbook evolution” – for example, the “Mind Over Matter version of evolution” or the CAF-Catholics version, that gives the “correct” interpretation? Sure - just show me the peer-reviewed work that references and publishes those private interpretations of evolution and I’d love to critique them. The Mind Over Matter version, or the CAF version may be true – but lacking any reference to the published works of CAF-Catholics on the “new evolutionary theory which doesn’t reduce all of nature to materialistic-processes”, then we have no way of evaluating those theories.

Thus, the neo-Darwinian view stands, as evidenced in textbooks, and that view is false.

 

[MindOverMatter]

St Augustine thought that everything was created with potential instantaneously. He did not argue long ages.

It irrelevant; the point is he didn’t hold to a literal account, and this is fine.

The questions of why God would do it a certain way? How on earth do you expect the human mind to grasp the Divine?

I don’t expect a person to grasp the mind of God, but expect them to have an understanding of Gods nature and a more than adequate grasp of common sense. God obviously did not create the world in seven 24 hour days.