The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[cpayne]

What I have in mind is a different kind of thread on evolution, and I hope it works out that way. I realize there have already been about 6,000 threads on evolution (or 16 billion, by some counts).

However, my question is more specific than arguing over evolution, young-earth creationism, and so on. All recent Popes have issued statements essentially supporting the ideas of evolution, the old earth, the old universe, etc. All recent Popes, in their statements, have also explicitly rejected any sort of scientific materialism, while still endorsing the central idea of long-term evolution.

So here’s the question: If the CC issues a proclamation that God’s creation of the universe used (and uses) the method of evolutionary processes—would you accept it?

Obviously, this question is addressed more or less only to Catholics in fellowship with the Church. I know non-Christians might not have any problem with this hypothetical proclamation. Further, I know non-Catholic Christians would not think a CC proclamation would be binding on them, anyway. So the question is really for Catholics. How many Catholics on this forum would reject the authority of the CC in this matter if it were to issue such a proclamation?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

So here’s the question: If the CC issues a proclamation that God’s creation of the universe used (and uses) the method of evolutionary processes—would you accept it?

 

[cpayne]

Okay–by method of evolutionary processes I mean that the universe as we see it around us is the result of natural selection taking place over billions of years.

By the way, the CC’s acceptance of evolutionary theory goes back further than JPII.

 

[cpayne]

Oops, sorry, you said JP I. But really I was thinking more of most of the twentieth century.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Okay–by method of evolutionary processes I mean that the universe as we see it around us is the result of natural selection taking place over billions of years.

By the way, the CC’s acceptance of evolutionary theory goes back further than JPII.

1. Then your version of “evolutionary processes” or theory is neo-Darwin? With punctuated leaps in the fossil record? Or is it strictly natural selection within phyla (the only supported micro-evolution in the fossil record)?
2. Did you mean to hook your question to the beginning of the universe? I thought you wanted to keep it on Earth.
3. You mentioned “all recent Popes.” I thought you meant within the last generation. JPI preceded JPII.

Thanks

Robert

 

[cpayne]

1. Then your version of “evolutionary processes” or theory is neo-Darwin? With punctuated leaps in the fossil record? Or is it strictly natural selection within phyla (the only supported micro-evolution in the fossil record)?
2. Did you mean to hook your question to the beginning of the universe? I thought you wanted to keep it on Earth.
3. You mentioned “all recent Popes.” I thought you meant within the last generation. JPI preceded JPII.

Thanks

Robert

This is becoming more than I intended. Here’s my question: Are some of the faithful Catholics on this forum so invested into young-earth creationism that the acceptance of evolution on the part of recent Popes (and the CC in general) threatens their commitment to the CC?

 

[PhilVaz]

cp << Are some of the faithful Catholics on this forum so invested into young-earth creationism that the acceptance of evolution on the part of recent Popes (and the CC in general) threatens their commitment to the CC? >>

Thanks for creation-evolution thread #23591237236123769

What those faithful Catholics need to realize:

(1) modern creationism is basically a Protestant Fundamentalist thing

(2) Specifically it goes back to the Seventh-day Adventists of the early 20th century like George McCready Price who passed his ideas down to folks like Henry Morris (co-author 1961 The Genesis Flood, and founder of Institute for Creation Research)

(3) Finally, the original evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant theologians just after Darwin accepted evolution, it was only later the SdA’s that rejected modern geology, biology, and who were anti-evolution, etc.

See the book Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders by Livingstone

So this modern (20th century) creationism is not a Catholic thing at all, it is specifically SdA.

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

(3) Finally, the original evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant theologians just after Darwin accepted evolution, it was only later the SdA’s that rejected modern geology, biology, and who were anti-evolution, etc.

See the book Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders by Livingstone

Yep, the Calvinist Presbyterians especially just fell in love with Darwin’s notion of “survival of the fittest”, of millions of years of birthing, sickness, aging, death, extinctions – it fit in so well with their theological ideas of total depravity.

 

[Nullasalus]

Since I don’t think anyone else commented on it - cute YEC/Big Bang joke.

I would never leave, no. I’m entirely at peace with an old earth, God-used-evolution concept for the most part.

One caveat: I will never insult a YEC, or call them stupid again. Even though I’m pretty firm in my belief that science has really cleared up some questions of our physical past, I utterly reject badgering and battering people who stand by those beliefs. Makes me sad when I see it.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Yep, the Calvinist Presbyterians especially just fell in love with Darwin’s notion of “survival of the fittest” >>

Also:

England’s John Pye Smith (1774-1851), a divinity tutor in the dissenting Homerton College in London, lectures issued in 1840 under the title On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science, Smith argued that geological truth was compatible with biblical truth;

America’s Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864), student and friend of Benjamin Silliman, a Calvinistic Congregationalist theologian, president of Amherst College, founding member of the National Academy of Sciences, and expert on New England geology; Hitchcock saw it “as his task to assure the world, especially any skeptics of science, that every finding of geology could then be corroborated in revelation, so that there was never any contradiction between the two accounts of nature”; because Hitchcock wrote for theological and ecclesiastical journals, he had a major impact on the thought of theologians and pastors.

Scotland’s Hugh Miller (1802-1856), a highly respected and devout Presbyterian who was gifted with an elegance, grace, wit, and clarity of written expression matched by few; editor of Witness, the voice of the evangelical wing of the Church of Scotland that ultimately formed the Free Church of Scotland during the Disruption of 1843, Miller gained a reputation as a zealous, eloquent, and trusted defender of Christian orthodoxy;

“Plain men who set themselves to deduce from Scripture the figure of the planet” had little doubt that the earth was flat “until corrected by the geographer”; “plain men who set themselves to acquire from Scripture some notion of the planetary motions” thought that the sun moved around an earth at rest “until corrected by the astronomer”; “plain men who have sought to determine from Scripture the age of the earth” were confident that the earth was about six thousand years old “until corrected by the geologist.” (Hugh Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks [1857], p. 305-306)

Then there are the Protestant theologians like Charles Hodge (1797-1878) and B.B. Warfield (1851-1921):

“Hodge, Warfield, and most of their colleagues at Princeton shared a common attitude toward science in relation to theology. Their steady goal was to preserve the harmony of truth. Hodge and Warfield refused to countenance any permanent antagonism between the two realms of knowledge…The commitment of Warfield and Hodge to solid empirical science and to the concursus of divine and natural action gave them extraordinary balance in sifting the difficult questions of science and faith that beset their era. One of the reasons that many in subsequent decades have failed to retain their equipoise on this subject may be that they have abandoned one or both of these commitments.” (“Hodge and Warfield on Science, the Bible, Evolution, and Darwinism,” by Mark Noll / David Livingstone in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller [2003], page 62, 71)

Phil P

 

[Riley259]

What I have in mind is a different kind of thread on evolution, and I hope it works out that way. I realize there have already been about 6,000 threads on evolution (or 16 billion, by some counts).

However, my question is more specific than arguing over evolution, young-earth creationism, and so on. All recent Popes have issued statements essentially supporting the ideas of evolution, the old earth, the old universe, etc. All recent Popes, in their statements, have also explicitly rejected any sort of scientific materialism, while still endorsing the central idea of long-term evolution.

So here’s the question: If the CC issues a proclamation that God’s creation of the universe used (and uses) the method of evolutionary processes—would you accept it?

Obviously, this question is addressed more or less only to Catholics in fellowship with the Church. I know non-Christians might not have any problem with this hypothetical proclamation. Further, I know non-Catholic Christians would not think a CC proclamation would be binding on them, anyway. So the question is really for Catholics. How many Catholics on this forum would reject the authority of the CC in this matter if it were to issue such a proclamation?

I’d accept it as long as it continues to state what it states now: that the soul was infused from the moment of conception.

 

[Ahimsa]

Don’t forget the inestimable president of Princeton University, James McCosh, who, fresh from the fogs of Scotland, landed on American shores and captured Darwinian theory within a framework of Christian theology.

That this attitude toward evolution was speedily changed among theologians was due partly to President James McCosh (1811–94) of Princeton. He had but recently come from Great Britain to America. Many of his long list of books, expounding the Scottish “Common Sense” philosophy, had been written. There was no question of his complete orthodoxy, of his intense religious zeal, or of his international standing as thinker and educator. He, however, gave liberal recognition to “powers modifying evolution.” These agents are light, life, sensation, instinct and intelligence, morality. “As evolution by physical causes cannot [produce them], we infer that God does it by an immediate fiat, even as He created matter.… It makes God continue the work of creation, and if God’s creation be a good work, why should He not continue it?”

 

[cpayne]

I’d accept it as long as it continues to state what it states now: that the soul was infused from the moment of conception.

Yes—I agree completely.

 

[cpayne]

Since I don’t think anyone else commented on it - cute YEC/Big Bang joke.

I would never leave, no. I’m entirely at peace with an old earth, God-used-evolution concept for the most part.

One caveat: I will never insult a YEC, or call them stupid again. Even though I’m pretty firm in my belief that science has really cleared up some questions of our physical past, I utterly reject badgering and battering people who stand by those beliefs. Makes me sad when I see it.

Thanks for the compliment. I was kind of proud of that joke myself.

On the insulting: Agreed. Of all the “litmus tests” that should NEVER be used to gauge (1) intelligence, (2) biblical knowledge, or (3) Christian spirituality, one’s view on creation has to be near or at the top.

Of course, I don’t think we’re supposed to gauge those things anyway. But to do so based on creation beliefs!

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

So here’s the question: If the CC issues a proclamation that God’s creation of the universe used (and uses) the method of evolutionary processes—would you accept it?
?

Cpayne: Here is your question. That is why I asked, specifically, about YOUR definition of “evolution.”

A few years ago in the NY Times, an essay was published outlining WHAT type of evolution the Church endorsed. Some of the posters have (intentionally or not) mentioned some of the aspects of that view.

That is the official statement (originally in English!) on evolution and Church teaching.

I cut it out and I will look for it presently.

As to “young-earth creationism,” that was not mentioned in your original question, but, from my experience among other Catholics (RCIA, CCD, college level instruction, KofC, et cetera) I have yet to meet someone who LITERALLY believes the earth’s geological age to be around 6000 years old.

Robert

 

[PhilVaz]

Rob << As to “young-earth creationism,” that was not mentioned in your original question, but, from my experience among other Catholics (RCIA, CCD, college level instruction, KofC, et cetera) I have yet to meet someone who LITERALLY believes the earth’s geological age to be around 6000 years old. >>

Stick around a while, there’s at least 100 of them in here. And myself, hecd2 (Alec), Orogeny, rossum, SteveAnderson, and zian (among other pro-evolution regulars) have debated them since 2004 in here. In fact, here’s a page I made about some of them:

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Rob << A few years ago in the NY Times, an essay was published outlining WHAT type of evolution the Church endorsed. Some of the posters have (intentionally or not) mentioned some of the aspects of that view. That is the official statement (originally in English!) on evolution and Church teaching. >>

You mean this July 2005 New York Times editorial by Cardinal Schonborn? New York Times editorials are not official statements of Church teaching as far as I know.

I would figure that this International Theological Commission statement endorsed by the present Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) would be more an official statement (see paragraphs 62-70).

Later Schonborn clarified he doesn’t have problems with evolution per se, but only philosophical ideas people put on the science:

“…Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge…I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one’s territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews…I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things.” (Cardinal Schonborn, October 2005 catechetical lecture)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Rob << That is why I asked, specifically, about YOUR definition of “evolution.” >>

BTW, evolution is descent with modification by natural selection. The scientific definition says nothing about God. The current Pope and Cardinal Schonborn agree with that scientific definition not being in conflict with Catholic faith. Of course they would clarify further on philosophical and theological grounds.

Also, intelligent designer Mike Behe agrees:

“The point I’m trying to drive home here by discussing my own work as well as the work of [Kenneth] Miller [Catholic biologist at Brown Univ} and [John] Haught [Catholic theologian-philosopher Georgetown Univ], is that a very wide range of views about the mechanism of evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching, from the natural selection defended by Miller, to the intelligent design I have proposed, to the animated, information-suffused universe that John Haught sees. Those mechanisms are all proposed by persons who attach the same bottom-line philosophy to their ideas that Pope John Paul described: that ‘it is the God of Israel who acts’ and that ‘it is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint.” (Michael Behe, from “A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing edited by William Dembski [2004], page 143-144)

Just some quotes I’ve dug up in our many past creation-evolution threads I thought I’d throw at you.

Phil P

 

[cpayne]

Cpayne: Here is your question. That is why I asked, specifically, about YOUR definition of “evolution.”

A few years ago in the NY Times, an essay was published outlining WHAT type of evolution the Church endorsed. Some of the posters have (intentionally or not) mentioned some of the aspects of that view.

That is the official statement (originally in English!) on evolution and Church teaching.

I cut it out and I will look for it presently.

As to “young-earth creationism,” that was not mentioned in your original question, but, from my experience among other Catholics (RCIA, CCD, college level instruction, KofC, et cetera) I have yet to meet someone who LITERALLY believes the earth’s geological age to be around 6000 years old.

Robert

Dear Robert: Thank you for clarifying. I’m not really sure what I’m fishing for here; I know that on this forum, as PhilVaz has pointed out, there are several who believe strongly that the Bible teaches young-earth creationism. I guess I’m just trying to find out what would happen to that belief if the CC contradicted it even more than it already has.

P.S. This is not meant at all as a slam against young-earth creationists. I was one myself for years, and I had the same brain cells back then that I have now. Or more, come to think of it.

 

[PhilVaz]

cp << as PhilVaz has pointed out, there are several who believe strongly that the Bible teaches young-earth creationism. I guess I’m just trying to find out what would happen to that belief if the CC contradicted it even more than it already has. >>

Well I’ve quoted Schonborn’s condemnation of young-earth creationism:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Is a Catholic free to believe in young-earth creationism? Sure just as you are free to accept other long-discredited “scientific” theories. The question is why should anyone. Only thing that will shake their belief is reading a bit from non-creationist sources. Sorry I’ve got three years worth of creation-evolution quotes from previous debates in here.

Phil P