Thank God for Evolution!

[Jerry-Jet]

I can understand how some might not believe that genesis shold be taken literaly–that it can be taken as allegorical truth.

Exactly what truth was Genesis trying to convey when it said that Eve was created from Adam?

No you don’t have to take that literally but how should you take it if you don’t take it literally?

Should it be totaly discarded as untrue?

I believe that Eve was created from Adam–why should I Not believe the bible when it says that?

How many fathers of the church didn’t believe that?

How many centuries went by until some Catholics didn’t believe that?

Were all the earlier Catholics wrong?

If it is wrong that Eve was created from Adam exactly where in the bible can we start believing it to be historicaly true?

Is it OK to thank God not only for evolution but for Eve being created from Adam and the Holy Spirit inspiring the people that wrote Genesis to tell us that?

 

[drpmjhess]

Uh… Jesus Christ fulfilled and is the fulfillment. He is God, not just some guy. He is the the way, the truth and the life.God bless,Ed

Absolutely!

 

[drpmjhess]

LOL…I’m reading Elizabeth Fiorenza Schussler’s "The Power of the World: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire. I’m told we aren’t to use OT and NT hehe…but CT…Christian Testament. which is inclusive. OT is not old to our Jewish friends…I shall attempt to remember in the future.**

That’s why I tend to use “Hebrew Scriptures.” I haven’t read this book – is it good?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Were all the earlier Catholics wrong?

I don’t look at it so much as that “they were wrong and we are right” as that human cultures develop over time. We regard child sacrifice in a very different light than did ancient Hebrews or Mesoamericans. We regard stories of global floods 29,000 feed deep through the lens of modern science. I don’t know that it helps to say “they were wrong,” so much as to say that we have more accurate ideas about science and more refined conceptions of the nature of divine activity and how it is reported in revelation.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Coming back to the title “Thank God for Evolution”, the various exchanges to date give little indication that it has many objectors; even the principle of macro-evolution seems to go unchallenged.

Well, I object, and it is why I took part in the discussion. My reason, as already explained in earlier posts, is that the theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church in Her magisterial teaching of 1215. This being the case, to thank God for creating the world in a way that is in contradiction to the Church’s revelation, must be a grave matter.

There are those who dissent, not because of any fault they find with the wording ot the dogma, but because of all those other other Catholics who accept theistic evolution. This, of course, is an insufficient reason, particularly for those assuming they have sufficient knowledge to join in an exchange on the subject.

The continuing fall in numbers of practicing Catholics, coupled with the massive decline in vocations is adequate proof that something is radically wrong. It is no secret that evolution provides an alternative to ‘ex nihilo’ Creation but less well known is it sets the stage for the philosophy for naturalism. Since the advent of evolutionism, Christendom has been ousted, with materialism taking its place. In some places the switch has been incredibly fast, e.g. Russia and China.

Pleading that God used evolution to create was so weak that atheist scientists had no problem in demonstrating the fact. Catholic theologians who had already embraced evolution provided no barrier because their position erroniously implied the principle of evolution was accepted by the Church. They not only allowed the enemy to get a foot in the door but opened the door wide. In the past, however, when such enemies appeared (e.g. those declaring the world was eternal) the Church produced its strongest weapon to beat them off: the Lateran IV definition of Creation, and they were beaten. No compromise: just God’s infallible unchangeable teaching. Today, however it has been overlooked.

Peter

 

[davidv]

Coming back to the title "Thank God for Evolution", the various exchanges to date give little indication that it has many objectors; even the principle of macro-evolution seems to go unchallenged.

Well, I object, and it is why I took part in the discussion. My reason, as already explained in earlier posts, is that the theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church in Her magisterial teaching of 1215. This being the case, to thank God for creating the world in a way that is in contradiction to the Church’s revelation, must be a grave matter.

There are those who dissent, not because of any fault they find with the wording ot the dogma, but because of all those other other Catholics who accept theistic evolution. This, of course, is an insufficient reason, particularly for those assuming they have sufficient knowledge to join in an exchange on the subject.

The continuing fall in numbers of practicing Catholics, coupled with the massive decline in vocations is adequate proof that something is radically wrong. It is no secret that evolution provides an alternative to ‘ex nihilo’ Creation but less well known is it sets the stage for the philosophy for naturalism. Since the advent of evolutionism, Christendom has been ousted, with materialism taking its place. In some places the switch has been incredibly fast, e.g. Russia and China.

Pleading that God used evolution to create was so weak that atheist scientists had no problem in demonstrating the fact. Catholic theologians who had already embraced evolution provided no barrier because their position erroniously implied the principle of evolution was accepted by the Church. They not only allowed the enemy to get a foot in the door but opened the door wide. In the past, however, when such enemies appeared (e.g. those declaring the world was eternal) the Church produced its strongest weapon to beat them off: the Lateran IV definition of Creation, and they were beaten. No compromise: just God’s infallible unchangeable teaching. Today, however it has been overlooked.

Peter

Another significant thing that is overlooked is that “evolution” is a many faceted thing. And is often the the case these discussion we talk past each other because we use our own individual meaning of the word without making sure our audience is using the same one, whether they agree with it or not, when reading our (name removed by moderator)ut. This leads to unnecessary disagreement.

 

[drpmjhess]

Another significant thing that is overlooked is that “evolution” is a many faceted thing. And is often the the case these discussion we talk past each other because we use our own individual meaning of the word without making sure our audience is using the same one, whether they agree with it or not, when reading our (name removed by moderator)ut. This leads to unnecessary disagreement.

Quite right, David. Some people read into evolution an atheism that is not there, and misguidedly reject the science on that basis. But that is no more justifiable than rejecting gravity or the atomic theory of matter just because we read atheism into those theories. If evolution were to be rejected it would be because it is a scientifically sterile theory. The fact that it is a scientifically fruitful theory is testified to by the tens of thousands of biologists who continue to use and strengthen the theory on a daily basis, and the complete absence of productive science based on “Young Earth Creationist” assumptions.

Quite simply put, so far there has been no biologist who has made a significant discovery based on a theoretical framework other than evolution. If the Church is interested in Truth (which arguably it should be), her scientists need to employ theoretical frameworks that actually work, not outdated and irrelevant ideas espoused by churchmen in 1215.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

I think the problem has three main parts:

1. Evolution as taught to the typical student in the typical public high school is a theory that allows for no supernatural intervention. There are more than a few instances where people take this to mean God is not needed and the theory, as written, confirms that. No matter how often someone points out that no one should blame the science, from a Catholic perspective, it is a legitimate problem.
2. Many who don’t believe in God, any god, now take this information and use it to promote their cause. I’m not blaming the science but the connection is definitely real.
3. The fruit of moving away from established Church teaching, or even going to Church for that matter, is definitely connected to an increase in divorce, abortion, and approval for alternative families/lifestyles/living arrangements. When the holy is removed from one’s life, it is often replaced by the desires of the flesh, but not in appropriate way. Sex and money seem to be the driving forces in people’s lives, and not in their God-given form, but through fornication, adultery and a desire to own way more than enough. Evolution theory allows some people to justify an idea that no god watches over them or will judge them.

All one has to do is turn on the TV or go to the movies to see adultery, fornication and immoral behavior. “By their fruit you shall know them.” The fruit is rotten, but the current message is to satisfy yourself without feelings of decency or modesty, politeness, moderation or guilt or shame. People have always been free to do what they wanted but now they want it enshrined into law. They want to legalize sin.

So, no matter how often anyone says, it’s not the science, the answer is: It’s being used by people right now to justify an anti-God agenda.

Most importantly, people are ignoring divine revelation, by which I mean actual history, to further a “WE don’t want religion in our science but we want to put our science in your religion” agenda. Pope Benedict has handled this correctly by observing there is some evidence for evolution and immediately adding God’s actual, causal role in it.

Of course, science is not observing God’s causal role but the Church knows, actually knows, how God does things. And the integration of science and the deposit of faith is the whole answer. The complete answer. The correct answer.

Those who push science without divine revelation are only promoting an answer that is naturalistic, and therefore, denying to God His causal role. They may believe they are doing the Church some service but numerous Papal Encyclicals warn of how grave, careful and humble one must be when looking at this issue. The fact is, all science that involves human origins must include God’s role as it pertains to the Christian faith. All science in this area is subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s why I tend to use “Hebrew Scriptures.” I haven’t read this book – is it good?

Petrus

so far,but i’m still in the first chapter. I inverted her middle and last names BTW…I think she is considered to be the pre-eminent feminist theolgian today. She raises some interesting points about the power of empire language in the NT, expecially in Paul. And some interesting stuff on the deconstructing of the kyriocentric model while re-instructing wo/man back in. It;s still a bit fuzzy. To tell the truth, it takes a while to get back into theological language without stopping every third sentence to grab a dictionary. She particularly likes to coin new words which can be maddening, keeping all the definitions straight.

For example her use of Christian Testaments, the*logy which I’m not sure yet what she means and wo/man as in part an exercise for men to have to stop and wonder whenever seen if what is said applies to them. She is amazing though. One of my favorites.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Coming back to the title "Thank God for Evolution", the various exchanges to date give little indication that it has many objectors; even the principle of macro-evolution seems to go unchallenged.

Well, I object, and it is why I took part in the discussion. My reason, as already explained in earlier posts, is that the theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church in Her magisterial teaching of 1215. This being the case, to thank God for creating the world in a way that is in contradiction to the Church’s revelation, must be a grave matter.

There are those who dissent, not because of any fault they find with the wording ot the dogma, but because of all those other other Catholics who accept theistic evolution. This, of course, is an insufficient reason, particularly for those assuming they have sufficient knowledge to join in an exchange on the subject.

The continuing fall in numbers of practicing Catholics, coupled with the massive decline in vocations is adequate proof that something is radically wrong. It is no secret that evolution provides an alternative to ‘ex nihilo’ Creation but less well known is it sets the stage for the philosophy for naturalism. Since the advent of evolutionism, Christendom has been ousted, with materialism taking its place. In some places the switch has been incredibly fast, e.g. Russia and China.

Pleading that God used evolution to create was so weak that atheist scientists had no problem in demonstrating the fact. Catholic theologians who had already embraced evolution provided no barrier because their position erroniously implied the principle of evolution was accepted by the Church. They not only allowed the enemy to get a foot in the door but opened the door wide. In the past, however, when such enemies appeared (e.g. those declaring the world was eternal) the Church produced its strongest weapon to beat them off: the Lateran IV definition of Creation, and they were beaten. No compromise: just God’s infallible unchangeable teaching. Today, however it has been overlooked.

I think the reason you’ve gotten little receptivity to your claim is that nobody is interested in doing all the research necessary to prove you wrong. We all know of statements made by Pius XII, JPII and Benedict that acknowledge to growing degrees that indeed evolution appears to be the method by which life has evolved on this planet. The only real discussion is how God is framed within this discussion.

To argue that because of an encyclical issued in 1215 that discounts evolution is a reason why anybody should suspend their natural reasoning and ignore 150 years worth of work, is I suspect such a uncalled for proposition, that it needs no rebuttal. I know a lot of folks here would like to turn back the clock to 1959 but its a bit much to turn it back that far.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

My reason, as already explained in earlier posts, is that the theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church in Her magisterial teaching of 1215. This being the case, to thank God for creating the world in a way that is in contradiction to the Church’s revelation, must be a grave matter.

The theory of evolution didn’t even exist in 1215. I agree with you that Lateran IV’s declarations are infallible, but I can’t find much information on the context of the discussions at that council regarding creation. Nor do I have any idea of what the creed issued by that council is trying to say about creation. Do you have any information on it? I’d love to learn more.

If I can’t find more information, I’ll just have to assume that Benedict XVI knows better than me and that Lateran IV didn’t say anything about evolution.

 

[drpmjhess]

Those who push science without divine revelation are only promoting an answer that is naturalistic, and therefore, denying to God His causal role. They may believe they are doing the Church some service but numerous Papal Encyclicals warn of how grave, careful and humble one must be when looking at this issue. The fact is, all science that involves human origins must include God’s role as it pertains to the Christian faith. All science in this area is subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church.God bless,Ed

Ed, how do scientists do science without employing the assumption of methodological naturalism? That is, what theological principles should inform the work of biologists, geologists, chemists and physicists? And should these theological principles be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu in flavor? Can you be specific? I’m seriously trying to understand what you mean here, but so far without success.
Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think the problem has three main parts:

1. Evolution as taught to the typical student in the typical public high school is a theory that allows for no supernatural intervention. There are more than a few instances where people take this to mean God is not needed and the theory, as written, confirms that. No matter how often someone points out that no one should blame the science, from a Catholic perspective, it is a legitimate problem.

**No its not a “Catholic” problem. It’s an Ed problem. The Catholic church through both its catechesis and general teaching is more than capable of explaining God’s role as Creator. It does not need nor would it want secular folks in a school setting explaining these matters. As you finally accede to, it is not science’s fault that this occurs. Then why do you attempt to place this burden upon it, and why don’t you demand the same thing from science when it speaks of astronomy, physics, etc? **

1. Many who don’t believe in God, any god, now take this information and use it to promote their cause. I’m not blaming the science but the connection is definitely real.

**So? How does this effect the rightness of evolution? You’re arguments are about atheism and you keep trying to tie atheism to evolution. There is no connection. Everyone uses information of whatever kind to their advantage if they can. You often site the bible to prove what you wish to prove. **

1. The fruit of moving away from established Church teaching, or even going to Church for that matter, is definitely connected to an increase in divorce, abortion, and approval for alternative families/lifestyles/living arrangements. Sex and money seem to be the driving forces in people’s lives, and not in their God-given form, but through fornication, adultery and a desire to own way more than enough. Evolution theory allows some people to justify an idea that no god watches over them or will judge them.

Absolutely none of this has to do with the efficacy of evolution. Your bemoaning of the state of the world in terms of faith has no connection to this discussion. It has nothing to do with evolution.

All one has to do is turn on the TV or go to the movies to see adultery, fornication and immoral behavior. The fruit is rotten, but the current message is to satisfy yourself without feelings of decency or modesty, politeness, moderation or guilt or shame. People have always been free to do what they wanted but now they want it enshrined into law. They want to legalize sin.
**Same point. The world is an ugly place from your perspective. We get it. It’s all sinful, everyone is becoming evil. Still, evolution has nothing to do with this. **
So, no matter how often anyone says, it’s not the science, the answer is: It’s being used by people right now to justify an anti-God agenda.

**Again so what? Some people wish to misuse the atom. Does that make nuclear physics wrong? **

Most importantly, people are ignoring divine revelation, by which I mean actual history, to further a “WE don’t want religion in our science but we want to put our science in your religion” agenda. Pope Benedict has handled this correctly by observing there is some evidence for evolution and immediately adding God’s actual, causal role in it.
**Science has no interest in your religion whatsoever. SOME people use scientific information in an attempt to further their particular world view. Of course Benedict has handled it correctly…He accepts the reality of evolution and reminds everyone that God is still the Creator. Nobody has said anything else. **
Of course, science is not observing God’s causal role but the Church knows, actually knows, how God does things. And the integration of science and the deposit of faith is the whole answer. The complete answer. The correct answer.
**The Church does know that God is creator. It does not know or claim to know in what manner God created. Of course science and God will harmonize. How could they not? **
Those who push science without divine revelation are only promoting an answer that is naturalistic, and therefore, denying to God His causal role. The fact is, all science that involves human origins must include God’s role as it pertains to the Christian faith. All science in this area is subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

**But no one is promoting science without divine intervention. We are saying that the evolution of life can be explained naturally, and that does not in any way exclude God. You continue to call us atheists and I’m getting rather tired of being victimized in this way. Apparently you are allowed for some reason to continue to call me names. **

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Ed, how do scientists do science without employing the assumption of methodological naturalism? That is, what theological principles should inform the work of biologists, geologists, chemists and physicists? And should these theological principles be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu in flavor? Can you be specific? I’m seriously trying to understand what you mean here, but so far without success.
Petrus

OK. Science is using the theory of evolution as science. Enter the scientific and non-scientific users of the same theory, plus the general public. In the Biology textbook, every living thing comes about naturally. Generally, the average person can conclude one of two things: a) Evolution theory is complete, and apparently functional, without any divine/supernatural intervention. God was not involved. b) Whatever evolution theory states, the Catholic Church adds God’s causal role, and hopefully, the person reading the Biology text understands this.

The problem comes in when this same information is used by scientists and non-scientists alike to say: “See, there is no God. We all got here through purely natural processes.”

I am not suggesting the Catholic Church dictate to scientists, but the Catholic Church adds the necessary, and complementary, and completing, information, that through whatever process, God had a direct, causal role. This is what every Christian should understand as factual and real.

Hope that helps,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

SpiritMeadow:
Apparently you are allowed for some reason to continue to call me names.

Indeed, and some people on CAF get suspended or banned for far less egregious things they say.
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

OK. Science is using the theory of evolution as science.

The problem comes in when this same information is used by scientists and non-scientists alike to say: “See, there is no God. We all got here through purely natural processes.”

I am not suggesting the Catholic Church dictate to scientists, but the Catholic Church adds the necessary, and complementary, and completing, information, that through whatever process, God had a direct, causal role. This is what every Christian should understand as factual and real.

Hope that helps,
Ed

Thanks, Ed – that does help. Distinguishing between how people approach the world through science, and how they view it through the lens of faith, is very important.

Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller writes quite differently in his Biology textbook (with Joseph Levine) than he does in his memoir Finding Darwin’s God.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for the book suggestion. I still find evolution, specifically as it regards speciation via mutation, genetic drift and environmental pressures, unconvincing. It does not appear that such successive series of fortuitous events is possible or reasonable in the given, or any, time frame.

I compare this to adding a chair leg to a car’s engine while it is running or a bottle or a piece of wood, the mutations have no goal. As a Catholic friend of mine told me (an owner of all of Stephen Jay Gould’s books), the cell is too complex to have evolved on its own - much more complex than a car engine. I favor Intelligent Design as a far better way of looking at the development of life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

This doesn’t go against evolution. If God made dust from nothing then made man from the dust, then God still made man from nothing, since dust could be considered an intermediate stage in the creation process. In the same way lower forms of life and apes could be intermediate stages, all made from nothing by God.

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:

In their whole substance, God didn’t leave us half-made, he finished the job.

 

[hecd2]

Thank you for the book suggestion. I still find evolution, specifically as it regards speciation via mutation, genetic drift and environmental pressures, unconvincing. It does not appear that such successive series of fortuitous events is possible or reasonable in the given, or any, time frame.

I compare this to adding a chair leg to a car’s engine while it is running or a bottle or a piece of wood, the mutations have no goal. As a Catholic friend of mine told me (an owner of all of Stephen Jay Gould’s books), the cell is too complex to have evolved on its own - much more complex than a car engine. I favor Intelligent Design as a far better way of looking at the development of life.

But given that your personal knowledge of the theory and evidence of evolution, molecular biology and genetics is non-existent, then your personal incredulity carries no weight. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, of course, but that has no influence on the science, or on scientists.

You are welcome to make statements such as this “It does not appear that such successive series of fortuitous events is possible or reasonable in the given, or any, time frame” to yourself, but since you do not and cannot support them with any empirical or theoretical reasoning they remain your personal prejudice.

Alec

 

[edwest2]

Not so. I join with others in examining the theory that says all life evolved and find it lacking. There are too many anamolies that point to incorrect geologic dates, survival of creatures supposedly millions of years old and evidence that modern men observed dinosaurs. I view current evolutionary science as thoroughly corrupted by ideology.

God bless,
Ed