Thank God for Evolution!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If by evolution macro-evolution is meant then thanking God for it is not coherant with the Church’s magisterial teaching.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) doctrine on ex nihilo creation teaches that in the beginning all things, visible and invisible, were created in their whole substance by God alone out of nothing.

In canon 5 of Vatican I (1869-70) the words « whole substance » (i.e. both as to matter as well as to form) were used adding further confirmation of the incompatibility between the dogma and the theory of one kind evolving into another. Each thing was, as the doctrine quite clearly says, created in the beginning, in its whole substance, out of nothing:

Peter
Those are good points Peter. But if this is true then it need to be asked why the history of life on earth shows such a dramatically different story?

I think, personally, that these councils were drawing on Augustine’s thoughts of a creation according to seminal principles-- which are very compatible with these declarations you’ve posted.
Creation According To Seminal Principles
Several of the early church fathers believed that God created the universe in the form of seminal principles, including Hilary of Pontiers (c. 315-367),(33) Gregory of Nyssa(34) and Augustine.(35) As Augustine’s writings present the most developed version of this theory it is worth looking at them in some detail.
I personally think Robert I. Bradshaw did a marvelous job with his research of the early fathers and I often come back to his pages when questions like this come forward…
Saint Augustine:
With regard to certain very small forms of animal life, there is a question as to whether they were produced in the first creatures or were a later product of the corruption of perishable beings. For most of them came forth from the diseased parts or the excrement or vapors of living bodies or from the corruption of corpses; some also from decomposed trees and plants, others from rotting fruit.… it is absurd to say that they were created when the animals were created, except in the sense that there was present from the beginning in all living bodies a natural power, and, I might say, there were interwoven with these bodies the seminal principles of animals later to appear, which would spring from the decomposing bodies, each according to its kind and with its special properties, by the wonderful power of the immutable Creator who moves all His creatures.(51)
More can be found here. Consequently, I think these thoughts from St. Augustine came be used as a bulwark for a theistic evolutionary model that fits within the council’s words you’ve quoted. 🙂
 
Yes, except for the fact that God imbued each “bag of chemicals” with an immortal soul. That changes the picture considerably.
How how does it change the picture considerably? We cannot control our own genes unfortunately today… people suffer with the Apolipoprotein E4 allele and their soul is rather feeble to force their dementia into abeyance. It seems that once you have alzheimer’s disease, you become an empty shell regardless whether you have a soul.
 
Quoting the Church’s official teaching on Creation is not equivalent to accusing anyone of heresy, let alone a pope.

From the few posts I have seen there has been little mention of the Lateran IV/Vatican I defintion of Creation. The reason I raise it is not to accuse any one of anything, but simply to find out what theological reasons Catholics may have for giving it such a low profile. The majority opinion has rarely been a good argument, in fact it has often prevented the truth being discussed.
.
For instance, Popes and clergy influenced by 4th century Arianism presumably knew the Magisterial teaching on the divinity of Christ. They just got mislead by the majority popular teaching of the time which, no doubt, was as persuasive as evolution theory is today.

One could mention that before the geological theories inluenced the theological thinking of the latter part of the 19th century, all the popes, doctors of the Church and theologians accepted the Lateran IV teaching as confirmation of the “ex nihilo” creation of all kinds of life in their whole substance together at the beginning.

TMC writes:


I agree that the Magisterial position of the Church is that God created all things, seen and unseen. But that does not preclude evolution as a creation methodology.
Let’s compare the evolutionary proposition with the Church’s
teaching:

The general theory of evolution:

…a primeval explosion of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled
living matter transformed into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. The mechanisms for this transformation are random chance, natural selection and mutation.

The Ecumenical Council Lateran IV
states that God:

…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing (D. 428)

Comment:

The Church’s Magisterium dogmatically teaches that from the beginning God created all things at the same time from nothing. Science disagrees and insists that nothing was created from nothing and that all things evolved over billions of years from primeval matter to man. Whereas the Church declares that everything was created at the beginning, science says even if there were a beginning, a subject upon which there is little consensus amongst scientists, nothing existed apart from indefinite matter. The contradiction between the Church’s infallible teaching and scientific theory is clear.

Peter
 
In these kinds of arguments I fall back on my signature statement.

**GOD IS **- All the rest is just details.

Genesis describes creation in a form understandable to those reading it at the time. What is interesting is that the ordering in Genesis parallels nicely with the scientific view of how the universe, solar system, planets, and life came to be.

There are a great many Church held beliefs that had to be revised based on a better understanding and/or irrefutable evidence. The Church once taught that the earth was at the center of the universe. It believed this to the point of excommunicating those who opposed it.
Does any Catholic hold that the earth is at the center of the Universe? That the sun revolves around the earth?

God did not give us perfect understanding of all things. Instead he made us curious creatures. We seek, and we find, and we learn, and we adjust our thinking. So long as we don’t “adjust” god out of the equation we are OK.

Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Eventually the Church will recognize this in some sort of theologic language and move merrily on its way. It is the way it has always been.

Those who cling blindly to the literal interpretation of Genesis harm themselves in two ways.
First they limit the Glory and Grandeur of God to a narrow interpretation and Second they come dangerously close to Idol worship by placing a literal infallibility of the Bible above the Wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thereby denying man’s ability to grow in knowledge and understanding of God, His plan and our place in it.

Just my Humble opinion - Of Course.🤷
 
Quoting the Church’s official teaching on Creation is not equivalent to accusing anyone of heresy, let alone a pope.
Did you or did you not claim that the Church has infallibly declared instantaneous creation of all things as they are? Is it not heretical for someone, especially a Pope, to teach contrary to that infallible declaration?

Yes, Peter, you are accusing at least the last two Popes of being heretics if you insist that the Church infallibly teaches that all things were created instantaneously.
Let’s compare the evolutionary proposition with the Church’s
teaching:

The general theory of evolution:

…a primeval explosion of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled
living matter transformed into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. The mechanisms for this transformation are random chance, natural selection and mutation.
You don’t even know what the theory of evolution is, Peter. You have combined at least three different scientific theories in your “general” theory of evolution.
The Church’s Magisterium dogmatically teaches that from the beginning God created all things at the same time from nothing. Science disagrees and insists that nothing was created from nothing and that all things evolved over billions of years from primeval matter to man. Whereas the Church declares that everything was created at the beginning, science says even if there were a beginning, a subject upon which there is little consensus amongst scientists, nothing existed apart from indefinite matter. The contradiction between the Church’s infallible teaching and scientific theory is clear.

Peter
So, are you not claiming, with that statement, that a Pope who teaches that the Big Bang and evolution, at least one guided by God, are true are heretics? Perhaps you can enlighten us with your definintion of heresy. Obviously your definition of evolution is different than that of scientists so maybe your definition of heresy is different than that of Catholics.

Peace

Tim
 
The general theory of evolution:
…a primeval explosion of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled
living matter transformed into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. The mechanisms for this transformation are random chance, natural selection and mutation.
The “general” theory of evolution can be called the law of accelerating returns; it encompasses the time period before the origin of life, and describes the (future) evolution of technology.

kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
Epoch 1. Physics and Chemistry
This epoch starts at the beginning of the universe (for example, the Big Bang). In this epoch, information is mostly held in subatomic structures such as particles and atoms. That is, the most complicated stable objects in the universe do not exceed the molecular scale in size or complexity.
Epoch 2. Biology and DNA
This epoch starts with the beginning of life on Earth (or elsewhere), suddenly giving rise to more complicated, yet stable, organisms that are capable of growth and self-sustainment. However, in this epoch organisms do not change within their lifetimes as evolution takes thousands of generations. Moreoever, in this stage, genetic information is stored in DNA molecules.
Epoch 3. Brains
The evolution of life gradually produced more and more complex organisms, necessitating the need for fast central control and thus giving rise to the evolution of brains. With brains, organisms can now change their behavior dynamically to suit changes in the environment and can also learn from past experiences. Evolutionary information is, in this stage, stored in neural patterns, with the meme emerging as the primary information unit.
Epoch 4. Technology
Evolution of brains culminates with the evolution of humans, which possess the ability to create technology. In this stage, technological designs are also subject to evolution and information is held in hardware and software designs.
Epoch 5. The Merger of Human Technology with Human Intelligence
This epoch, which Kurzweil argues we are in the process of entering, is where technology reaches a level of sophistication and fine-structuring comparable with that of biology, allowing the two to merge to create higher forms of life and intelligence.
Epoch 6. The Universe Wakes Up
After mastering the methods of technology and biology, Kurzweil predicts that human/machine civilization will expand its frontiers into the universe, gradually (or perhaps explosively) consuming the contents of the cosmos until the universe reaches a ‘saturated’ state where all inanimate matter has been converted to substrates for computation and intelligence, and a truly universal super-intelligence takes form.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_is_Near

Epoch 6 is too weird… but “evolution” doesn’t only encompass biology. Epochs 2 and 3 are the age of Darwinian evolution while Darwinian evolution looses power during Epoch 4.
 
The Church’s Magisterium dogmatically teaches that from the beginning God created all things at the same time from nothing.
I am sorry, Peter, but this is not what the church teaches. Nor does Genesis relate that everything was created at the same time. The Church’s teachings are presented in many ways and places, but we can rely on the accuracy of the catechism which John Paul declared: “by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

The catechism says:
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator **symbolically **as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206
338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are **rooted in **this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.207
This does not mean that God created all things at the same time. Genesis describes a process that took some amount of time to occur, represented as six days. The Church teaches us that the six days are symbolic. That the existence of all things are rooted in the Divine Creation. None of this is incompatible with evolution or the Big Bang. It is also not in compatible with Young Earth theories. The methodology used by God has no theological implications, as long as you believe God created everything out of nothing on His own initiative.
 
How how does it change the picture considerably? We cannot control our own genes unfortunately today… people suffer with the Apolipoprotein E4 allele and their soul is rather feeble to force their dementia into abeyance. It seems that once you have alzheimer’s disease, you become an empty shell regardless whether you have a soul.
How does having an immortal soul (and an immortal, glorified body) change things considerably? Gee, that’s so obvious I’m not even sure how to put it into words.
 
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I think these thoughts from St. Augustine (his seminal principles) can me be used as a bulwark for a theistic evolutionary model that fits within the council’s words you’ve quoted.
Of course you are right about St Augustine’s “ratio seminales” being used to support theistic evolution. To make their argument credible, modern theistic evolutionists turn to St. Augustine’s idea of seeds being created from which forms appeared subsequent to the period of creation. For instance, they reason that a seed was planted by God which some millions of years later would produce a dinosaur. They go even farther and cite St. Thomas as affirming Augustine’s thesis. Apart from the fact that neither Augustine nor Thomas had any interest in accommodating a period of creation longer than a single instant or six days, the theological argument for things being created in their causes or as metaphysical seeds was shown to be false by Fr. Francesco Suarez, S.J. This Jesuit theologian is considered as one of the greatest the Church has produced. He lived in the seventeenth century when theories of long ages and evolution had not been introduced. His arguments reflect his evident knowledge of the dogma of ex nihilo creation pronounced by Lateran IV in 1215. This was his advantage over Augustine who taught eight centuries before the Council. He also showed that St. Thomas was not supporting Augustine’s argument for seeds.

Francisco Suarez, On the Works of Each of the Six Days and on the Seventh Day’s Rest, pp. 139-141 he wrote:

(NB this is a partial quotation because the forum restricts the number of words that can be used)
Wherefore, since the former basis has been removed, and a real temporal interval has been established for these days, as other Fathers have taught, and as we maintain, Augustine’s explanation is not necessary. And besides if that discussion of his is on firm ground, the same thing might be said about the production of fishes and birds on the fifth day, and of other animals on the sixth day, because all these animals are composite, and therefore they were not made in themselves in the first moment: therefore it will be necessary to say that on the fifth and sixth days they were made only in potentiality or in seed. But this cannot in any way be said. First, because that patently is contrary to the words of Scripture, for it says first: God created the large great-sea-creatures and every living thing and flying thing etc. These words are sufficiently explicit in themselves, nevertheless they are more evidently made clear because as soon as the things were so produced, God blessed [them], saying, Increase and multiply. These words clearly suppose that the animals had already been created, [animals] that could generate ones like themselves. And in the same way the words of the sixth day can be introduced, in which what is said is most apparent, And God created man. Besides a special process (ratio) is added in animals because they cannot be produced by seed, because the seed must be separated from the animal itself, and neither can it be naturally preserved outside the animal itself nor [can it] effect its own operation, and therefore it was necessary that each species of animal be immediately made at first by the author of nature in some individual or in some individuals… . . Hence therefore we turn to the same method of argumentation with respect to plants…
  • Peter
 
The Church’s Magisterium dogmatically teaches that from the beginning God created all things at the same time from nothing.
I’m sorry, but even the most literalist reading of Genesis shows that not to be true. God did not create man at the same time as he created the birds and the fish and the hoofed creatures and the trees and the land and the water. The very fact of the six days of creation which you insist are literal days disproves your assertion. Six days is not a single instant.
 
General comment

The object of my posts, as already stated, is to discuss the reasons why the Lateran IV and Vatican I teachings on creation are barely mentioned on this forum. It is not to accuse or be accused of calling popes heretics. Such expressions of personal opinion are pure polemic, in which I have abslolutely no interest. If anyone has a contribution to make to an academic exchange I am open to discussion.

TMC

claims that the Church does not teach that God created all things at the same time. One can only repeat the infallible doctrinal teaching of Lateran IV which says so without ambiguity by using the word “simul”:
…creator of **all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once (simul) from the beginning of time **created each (utramque) creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (DZ 428)
There is no doubt that before evolution theory began to be taught the entire Church professed belief in “ex nihilo” or instant creation of all things during the hexameron or creation period.

The fact that the CCC speaks of the Six Days being symbolic is taken into account by the Council definition which refers to “from the beginning”. This expression allows for both St. Augustine’s “instantaneous” creation and the majority of the other Church Fathers’ Six Day Creation.

Peter
 
P Wilders << The object of my posts, as already stated, is to discuss the reasons why the Lateran IV and Vatican I teachings on creation are barely mentioned on this forum. >>

Naw, I dealt with them. (that is, Lateran IV, Council of Florence, Vatican I)

Do you believe God created, at once (simul) from the beginning of time, all species of mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, etc we have today? There are approx 1 to 2 million total known species on the planet, another estimated 10-50 million that haven’t been discovered yet. And 99+ percent of all species have gone extinct. That is A LOT of species. Did they all exist on the earth at the same time?

Does God create – “at once” (simul) from the beginning of time – even species that only existed recently? Such as the species of bacteria that eats Nylon (Nylon didn’t exist until 1935), or the species of moth (genus Hedylepta) that only eats bananas (bananas were brought to the Hawaiian kingdom only 1000 years ago by the Polynesians). There are thousands of new species like this. But they all existed, “at once” (Latin simul) from the beginning of time. Interesting! :rolleyes:

Phil P
 
General comment

The object of my posts, as already stated, is to discuss the reasons why the Lateran IV and Vatican I teachings on creation are barely mentioned on this forum. It is not to accuse or be accused of calling popes heretics. Such expressions of personal opinion are pure polemic, in which I have abslolutely no interest. If anyone has a contribution to make to an academic exchange I am open to discussion.
Fine. You bring up that the Church has taught infallibly that all things were created simultaneously. You are not accusing anyone of anything.

So, let’s have an academic exchange here. My understanding of an infallible declaration by the Church is that once declared infallible, no further discussion is allowed. I don’t mean that we can’t talk about it, but we certainly can’t teach that it is incorrect. Is that your understanding? If not, please let us know what your understanding of infallible teaching is and where I am wrong.

If that is your understanding, what is the consequence for Catholics who teach something contrary to the infallible teaching? For example, I accept an old universe and earth and I accept evolution. If I were a theologian and was teaching theology at a Catholic university and I taught that my beliefs are correct and allowed by the Church, am I not heretical in my teaching?

Peace

Tim
 
Philvaz says:
Do you believe God created, at once (simul) from the beginning of time, all species of mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, etc we have today?
The “prototype” of all beings were created all together (simul) as declared by Lateran IV during the period of creation (the italicised word was used by St. Bonaventure). Varieties of the prototypes would appear as and when adaptation to environmental conditions or artificial selection required; even today.

Peter
 
Orogeny asks:
My understanding of an infallible declaration by the Church is that once declared infallible, no further discussion is allowed. I don’t mean that we can’t talk about it, but we certainly can’t teach that it is incorrect. Is that your understanding?
That is the Magisgerial position of the Church to which as a Catholic I adhere.

He continues:
…what is the consequence for Catholics who teach something contrary to the infallible teaching? For example, I accept an old universe and earth and I accept evolution. If I were a theologian and was teaching theology at a Catholic university and I taught that my beliefs are correct and allowed by the Church, am I not heretical in my teaching?
Isn’t that up to you to decide?

Peter
 
Isn’t that up to you to decide?

Peter
No, not if I am faithful to the Church. I am not free, as a faithfull Catholic to teach that Mary was actually born with original sin. Nor am I free to teach, as a Catholic, that the Trinity is false. Those are infallible teachings of the Church. If instantaneous creation of everything has been infallibly declared, I am not at liberty, again as a faithful Catholic, to teach otherwise, am I?

Peace

Tim
 
Evolution is the way, brought to you by empirical science. Just take this simple formula and you will be transformed! Into what?

A bag of chemicals whose primary purpose is to reproduce? Or, a post-human, cybernetic device that is programmed?

God bless,
ED
It truly is so sad to see you twist everything to be something negative. Your anger is palpable. God will be your way or else huh Ed? Wanna call me an atheist again?
 
exceedingly destructive weapons are now small enough to conceal and within the realm of possibility for motivated individuals and groups to obtain. For this reason, anything that bridges faith and reason and helps reconcile opposing religious viewpoints surely restores hope
Is he suggesting that creationists and terrorists waiting to set off a nuclear weapon are one and the same people?
 
Yes, the media has been spreading vicious lies about the identity of Christians in the United States, “American Taliban,” “Radical Christianity,” and let’s not forget that we all really want to kill abortion doctors. But it is standard procedure in any conflict to demonize and to regard the enemy as somehow less than human, and in this case, less than rational.

This is also a way to sell “believe in evolution before it’s too late” by fear, which is neither accurate or scientific.

Let the Government go after the terrorists wherever they may be, but do not add fear to the marketing tools being used to promote evolution as science. This is a great example of, if it’s “just” science, why promote it like this?

God bless,
Ed
 
Is he suggesting that creationists and terrorists waiting to set off a nuclear weapon are one and the same people?
A terrorist may in fact also be a creationist, since neither “terrorist” nor “creationist” is limited to any one religion. But that’s not his point. His point is that some people, of any religion, reject reason, thinking that it is incompatible with faith. His goal is to show that reason and faith are mutually supportive and complementary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top