Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[StAnastasia]

I am not convinced. The modernist and feminist reading of scripture are of recent vintage and not at all the constant teaching and understanding of the Church since the beginning.

I’m not trying to convince you. I merely want to note that I don’t personally know any Catholics who read literally the account of the creation of Eve from Adam’s side (I teach, research with, and worship alongside thousands of Catholics). If it helps your spirituality to interpret the story literally, that’s great! No one should prevent you from believing in a six-day creation 6,000 years ago, or a global Noachian flood, or Cain mating with his sisters, or Moses parting the Red Sea. If it helps your spirituality, that’s fine.

StAnastasia

 

[donsnow]

Thanks, Donsnow. I understand people’s enthusiasm for a “founding father” of a science (Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Darwin, Wegener), but I don’t 'see how that is akin to “religious” fervor. My family and I had a very enjoyable day in July at Down House where the Darwin’s lived; I had an equally enjoyable time at the Vatican last March. Both visits were inspiring, thought provoking, and educational.

Nor do I know any biologists today who “cling” to Darwin. The theory of evolution is 150 years old, and has been strengthened with every passing year by contributions from complementary sciences.

Fundamentalists like to call it “Darwinism” but that is no more convincing than the theory of gravity being called “Newtonism.”

StAnastasia

Maybe we just have different perspectives that see different things and/or don’t see other things. I respect your opion on “no religious fervor”, but I ask to agree to disagree.

Nice chatting with you, don’t really want to debate my opinion vs your opinion. We’re neither going to change, heh?

 

[buffalo]

I’m not trying to convince you. I merely want to note that I don’t personally know any Catholics who read literally the account of the creation of Eve from Adam’s side (I teach, research with, and worship alongside thousands of Catholics). If it helps your spirituality to interpret the story literally, that’s great! No one should prevent you from believing in a six-day creation 6,000 years ago, or a global Noachian flood, or Cain mating with his sisters, or Moses parting the Red Sea. If it helps your spirituality, that’s fine.

StAnastasia

Consensus is political not truth. In any case the issue for me is what is true. That is it bottom line. Nothing more nothing less.

And any of the above - none of them bother me (except for the 6000 yrs) for nothing is impossible with God. (or do you think it is?)

 

[edwest2]

I’m not trying to convince you. I merely want to note that I don’t personally know any Catholics who read literally the account of the creation of Eve from Adam’s side (I teach, research with, and worship alongside thousands of Catholics). If it helps your spirituality to interpret the story literally, that’s great! No one should prevent you from believing in a six-day creation 6,000 years ago, or a global Noachian flood, or Cain mating with his sisters, or Moses parting the Red Sea. If it helps your spirituality, that’s fine.

StAnastasia

In the encyclical Arcanum, which one poster here tried to tell me was only about marriage and not miracles, it’s pretty clear that God did, in fact, form Eve from Adam’s side miraculously. It’s worth noting that while science can study certain things, that there are certain things that it cannot study. The origin of Eve falls into that category along with the ontological leap to man, the answer to which Pope John Paul II said could not be found within science.

Arcanum:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

When I was in Catholic school in the 1960s, the creation of Eve by God from Adam was taught literally.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tmancath]

No I feel Christians should reject evolution

 

[ricmat]

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

None of us are surprised by your revelation above.

 

[StAnastasia]

None of us are surprised by your revelation above.

No, I didn’t think you would be surprised!

 

[StAnastasia]

When I was in Catholic school in the 1960s, the creation of Eve by God from Adam was taught literally.Peace,Ed

I too was in Catholic school in the 1960s (Wisconsin). It was a fairly conservative school that tried to scare the bejabbers out of us every week with stories of communism taking over the whole world. But I don’t recall scriptural literalism either in school or in the parish.

 

[StAnastasia]

Maybe we just have different perspectives that see different things and/or don’t see other things. I respect your opion on “no religious fervor”, but I ask to agree to disagree. Nice chatting with you, don’t really want to debate my opinion vs your opinion. We’re neither going to change, heh?

Thanks, Donsnow – I suspect we won’t get very far in this conversation. However, I see change all around me – in the views of my students, my children, my parents, and myself.

 

[StAnastasia]

And any of the above - none of them bother me (except for the 6000 yrs) for nothing is impossible with God. (or do you think it is?)

I think nothing is impossible with God except logical self-contradiction.

 

[ricmat]

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

Well, perhaps he has recanted his views lately. If so, I haven’t seen that (if you have a link, please share it). He certainly wasn’t in good standing with Cardinal Schoenborn at the time of his original remarks. Since Cardinal Schoenborn is the primary author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and speaks German (and Coyne’s remarks were originally published in German), and he certainly knows Coyne better than I do, I’ll go with him on this.

Coyne’s original remarks were in “Der Spiegel Number 52, December 22, 2000.”

Here is the original interview in German, with a translation in English. This is a google translation, so obviously it’s not perfect, but then, I doubt that Schoenborn was relying on google since he speaks both German and English.

Here’s the translation by google of the key part of Coyne’s essay on THIS PAGE:

**If we consider the results of modern science seriously, it is hard to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of the scholastic philosophers.
**
Die Wissenschaft erzählt uns von einem Gott, der sehr anders sein muss als der Gott, den mittelalterliche Philosophen und Theologen sahen.

The science tells us of a God who must be very different than the God, the medieval philosophers and theologians saw.
Könnte Gott zum Beispiel nach einer Milliarde Jahre eines 15 Milliarden Jahre alten Universums vorhergesagt haben, dass menschliches Leben entstehen würde?

Could God, for example, after a billion years of a 15 billion years old universe have predicted that human life would be?

Gehen wir davon aus, dass Gott im Besitz der “Universaltheorie” wäre, alle Gesetze der Physik, alle Elementarkräfte kennen würde.

Let us assume that God is in possession of the “universal theory” would be all the laws of physics, all the elementary forces would know.

Selbst dann: Könnte Gott mit Sicherheit wissen, dass der Mensch entstehen würde?

Even then: could God know with certainty that the man would?

Wenn wir wirklich die wissenschaftliche Sichtweise akzeptieren, dass es neben den deterministischen Vorgängen auch Zu-

If we truly scientific approach to accept that, in addition to the deterministic processes also increases

fallsprozesse gibt, denen das Universum ungeheure Gelegenhei-

processes are covered, where the universe is enormous opportunity -

ten bietet, dann sieht es so aus, als könnte selbst Gott das Endergebnis nicht mit Sicherheit kennen.

ten offers, then it looks as if even God the end result is not known with certainty to know.

Gott kann nicht wissen, was nicht gewusst werden kann.

God can not know what may be unaware.

And here is another interesting review of Coyne’s beliefs.

But again, if he has recanted (or “clarified” if you prefer) then I think that’s wonderful for him, and for the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

And here is another interesting review of Coyne’s beliefs.

“Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis[5] which denies that HIV causes AIDS. His The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes global warming denialism, AIDS denialism, and skepticism of evolution (which Bethell denies is “real science”[6]), promoting in its place intelligent design,[7] a viewpoint dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience.[8]”

So much for that review…

 

[PEPCIS]

"Buffalo:

ignorant

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

The Literalist so declares. . . .

 

[PEPCIS]

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

Dawkins
StAnastasia
Gould (though I think he abandoned that thought on May 20, 2002)
Sagan, (though I think he abandoned that thought on December 20, 1996)
Lynn Margulis

 

[donsnow]

Thanks, Donsnow – I suspect we won’t get very far in this conversation. However, I see change all around me – in the views of my students, my children, my parents, and myself.

Thank you, ma’am -

Your suspicion is well founded .

I’ve seen some change here, in Texas, from so many Latinos coming here from south of the border. I’ve heard Masses given in both English/Spanish. That’s a change from when I converted to Roman Catholicism, in '68. There’s also other changes in the Liturgy of the Church, such as types of music. However, to my limited understanding of Vatican I and II, there has been little, if any, change of substance to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Which comforts me.
Because I believe that our Church (and the U.S. of A. following it) were put on earth by God to change worldly people and governments, not to be changed by them.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you, ma’am -

Your suspicion is well founded .

However, to my limited understanding of Vatican I and II, there has been little, if any, change of substance to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Which comforts me.
.

It should, there were no dogmatic changes.

 

[donsnow]

Thank you, ma’am -

Your suspicion is well founded .

I’ve seen some change here, in Texas, from so many Latinos coming here from south of the border. I’ve heard Masses given in both English/Spanish. That’s a change from when I converted to Roman Catholicism, in '68. There’s also other changes in the Liturgy of the Church, such as types of music. However, to my limited understanding of Vatican I and II, there has been little, if any, change of substance to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Which comforts me.
Because I believe that our Church was put on earth by God to change worldly people and governments, not to be changed by them.

This was the only way I could delete an inflammatory political phrase in parenthesis. Why does the “Edit” button sometimes not appear?

OK, going off line so I can use my telephone. Just have the one land-line for both modem and telephone.

 

[ricmat]

“Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis[5] which denies that HIV causes AIDS. His The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes global warming denialism, AIDS denialism, and skepticism of evolution (which Bethell denies is “real science”[6]), promoting in its place intelligent design,[7] a viewpoint dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience.[8]”

So much for that review…

Or, so much for your source of the criticism of that review.

They use the word “denialism” too much. That’s a word that is used to quash inquiry and the search for truth. Sort of like “settled science” or “settled law” (as in abortion), where “settled” is yet another term used to dismiss dissenting views.

If you have a retraction by Coyne, please list it. Since you’ve been posting on this forum, you’ve mentioned 3 or 4 separate occasions during which you met him, ate dinner with him, convened with him, etc. Ask him where his retraction is posted.

Also, with regard to the above article, please list exactly what you think is incorrect about Coyne. Saying that Bethell is wrong on Coyne because you disagree with Bethell’s other views is hardly a convincing argument.

 

[PEPCIS]

Such a person has fallen for the propaganda of naturalism, and is striking out in fear rather than with reason.

That’s the old “homophobic” propaganda argument rolled into the evolutionary one. We must be “evophobics”, resisting out of an irrational fear of science!!

MindOverMatter:

Evolution doesn’t tell us why there is something rather then nothing, or how we should conduct ourselves morally.

All ideas have logical sequences. Evolution theory is no different. The belief that humans arrived on this world through a blind, natural process is antithetical to the moral law of God, and it is the logical endpoint for evolution theory.

 

[Contrabass101]

Well, perhaps he has recanted his views lately. If so, I haven’t seen that (if you have a link, please share it). He certainly wasn’t in good standing with Cardinal Schoenborn at the time of his original remarks. Since Cardinal Schoenborn is the primary author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

Pope John Paul II is the only ratifier of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and this is what counts.

That someone disagrees with a Cardinal doesn’t make one a heretic, not even if that cardinal assisted the pope greatly in his teaching of the faithful.

and speaks German (and Coyne’s remarks were originally published in German), and he certainly knows Coyne better than I do, I’ll go with him on this.

Fair enough.

However, Coynes states in the interview, that what he meant was, that “if God were a purely immanent being, could he ‘predict’ the outcome of evolution and the Big Bang?” In other words: Is the universe an effect of absolute determinism? His answer is no. God’s creation of the universe is on a deeper level, and Fr. Coyne here brings in none less than Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, to argue for the existence of God, and argues for the orthodox view of God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

But again, if he has recanted (or “clarified” if you prefer) then I think that’s wonderful for him, and for the Church.

Why would he recant? Has he been deemed heretical by anyone but yourself?

I fail to see how a supposed behind-the-scenes conspiracy to remove him from his post at the Observatory, is anywhere close to an official condemnation by the Church. Apart from it all being a fabrication by the media, of course.

His comment in the Dawkins interview is, that if Schoenborn had used the wording that he now uses, from the beginning, there would have been no controversy.

• CB