R
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Schönborn’s article in the 2007 April issue of First Things received several responses. The responses and the Cardinal’s response to the responses are in the current 2007 August/September issue of First Things.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Rob << Paragraphs 64 through 69 (with one or two exceptions) expands upon what Cardinal Schonborn summarizes in the referenced article. However, I do not think this is the essay I have (and I haven’t found it yet!). >>
Schonborn has essays in “First Things” magazine as well, a reply to a Catholic physicist Stephen Barr and others (see above post).
My position is basically the same as that ITC document (if I understand it right):
(1) There is strong scientific evidence for macroevolution (we all have common ancestors) and an old earth/universe (4.5 billion/about 15 billion years old).
(2) Evolution works through natural means, but “according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence…[and] even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”
(3) There are additional metaphysical and philosophical questions (on meaning, purpose, “design”) that can’t be addressed by the scientific method and are separate from the purely scientific questions (“common descent” or macroevolution).
Phil P
Schonborn has essays in “First Things” magazine as well, a reply to a Catholic physicist Stephen Barr and others (see above post).
My position is basically the same as that ITC document (if I understand it right):
(1) There is strong scientific evidence for macroevolution (we all have common ancestors) and an old earth/universe (4.5 billion/about 15 billion years old).
(2) Evolution works through natural means, but “according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence…[and] even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”
(3) There are additional metaphysical and philosophical questions (on meaning, purpose, “design”) that can’t be addressed by the scientific method and are separate from the purely scientific questions (“common descent” or macroevolution).
Phil P
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
J
Jimbo2
Guest
It’s worth noting that as evolutionary science progresses, it’s coming closer to denying gradual speciation by descent with modifcation, too. That’s the “punctuated equilibirum” concept.
I think if everyone was perfectly honest, reporting and not speculating, we’d have no concern about compatibility between the latest and best evolutionary science and Catholic theology.
BTW, PhilVaz has always impressed me in this area. I’ve been reading his posts for years at another Catholic board. Smart guy.
I think if everyone was perfectly honest, reporting and not speculating, we’d have no concern about compatibility between the latest and best evolutionary science and Catholic theology.
BTW, PhilVaz has always impressed me in this area. I’ve been reading his posts for years at another Catholic board. Smart guy.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
:bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:
Prove that the CC denies the descent of one species from another.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Rob << Here’s the difficulty, Phil. “Descent” from what? The Catholic position vehemently denies descent from another species. >>
Now where do you get this idea that officially the Church is against common descent? The ITC statement (endorsed by Ratzinger) says:
“In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
What this statement says is that “common descent” or macroevolution is “virtually certain” that we all come from a “first organism” about 3-4 billion years ago.
And yes, the evidence is in: human beings, chimpanzees, and the “great apes” have common ancestors from 5-10 million years ago. We know this from paleonanthropology and genetics studies. And the same ITC statement (again, endorsed by Ratzinger) says this as well:
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”
No, evolution doesn’t explain “everything” but it does explain why we look like apes and chimps. We are apes, highly advanced ones with human souls created by God. In fact you are a eukaryote, animal, chordate, vertebrate, tetrapod, synapsid, mammal, homeothermic, eutherian, primate.
BTW, science examines the natural world, so methodological naturalism is what you are talking about. God is ruled out as a cause in science, since science works by the scientific method which allows natural explanations only. Some philosophers have problems or critiques of this.
Phil P
Now where do you get this idea that officially the Church is against common descent? The ITC statement (endorsed by Ratzinger) says:
“In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
What this statement says is that “common descent” or macroevolution is “virtually certain” that we all come from a “first organism” about 3-4 billion years ago.
And yes, the evidence is in: human beings, chimpanzees, and the “great apes” have common ancestors from 5-10 million years ago. We know this from paleonanthropology and genetics studies. And the same ITC statement (again, endorsed by Ratzinger) says this as well:
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”
No, evolution doesn’t explain “everything” but it does explain why we look like apes and chimps. We are apes, highly advanced ones with human souls created by God. In fact you are a eukaryote, animal, chordate, vertebrate, tetrapod, synapsid, mammal, homeothermic, eutherian, primate.
BTW, science examines the natural world, so methodological naturalism is what you are talking about. God is ruled out as a cause in science, since science works by the scientific method which allows natural explanations only. Some philosophers have problems or critiques of this.
Phil P
G
Ghosty
Guest
This may come as a shock to some, since I tend to be one of the biggest supporters of evolutionary theory on these forums and have been here for years, but I would be against such a declaration by the Catholic Church. It is not the Church’s place to rule on scientific questions, except where they touch the Faith. Saying that evolution is certainly the way in which life came about would be a scientific conclusion, not a conclusion of Faith, and therefore the Church would be stepping in a big pile, IMO. It would be akin to declaring 500 years ago that we must dogmatically assert that illness is caused by an imbalance of bodily humours.
That being said, such a case would never come about. The Church could dogmatically say that Genesis does not necessarily portray a literalistic account of creation, but it couldn’t affirmatively come down in favor of a purely scientific theory one way or another. This is a limit the Church itself has set, so it’s not going to be repealed.
Peace and God bless!
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
I agree completely – especially that it was a cute joke!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.
Furthermore, unless there was a sufficient reason to believe the Church hierarchy had been subverted (see Bud MacFarlane’s Pierced by a Sword), I would accept the Church’s teaching if it said the sky is green. My suspicions would certainly be aroused, though, if She ever started making broad statements such as that which run contrary to observable truth.
Peace,
Dante
C
cpayne
Guest
I thought of this too late (after I’d already gotten the thread started). I think you’re right; the CC has its hands full with abortion, abusive gay priests, just vs. unjust war, and so on, without weighing in on scientific issues all over the place. I suppose the question was more hypothetical than I thought.This may come as a shock to some, since I tend to be one of the biggest supporters of evolutionary theory on these forums and have been here for years, but I would be against such a declaration by the Catholic Church. It is not the Church’s place to rule on scientific questions, except where they touch the Faith. Saying that evolution is certainly the way in which life came about would be a scientific conclusion, not a conclusion of Faith, and therefore the Church would be stepping in a big pile, IMO. It would be akin to declaring 500 years ago that we must dogmatically assert that illness is caused by an imbalance of bodily humours.
That being said, such a case would never come about. The Church could dogmatically say that Genesis does not necessarily portray a literalistic account of creation, but it couldn’t affirmatively come down in favor of a purely scientific theory one way or another. This is a limit the Church itself has set, so it’s not going to be repealed.
Peace and God bless!
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
PhilVaz: there’s only one real question really and it is this and I would like to hear your opinion:
Did Adam and Eve have hominid parents?
If they did how does that square with Catholic De Fide Doctrine that Adam and Eve are the common parents of us all?
The answer to these questions is what separates those who choose science against the church and those who choose science and the church!
Evolution + Special Creation of Adam and Eve? No conflict!
Evolution through Adam and Eve–please resolve the conflict of Adam and Eve being the parents of us all and having hominid parents themselves!
Sometimes between a rock and a hard place–there really is an Either/Or!
The one solution I could think of out of the dilemma would be if hominids gave birth to Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve were different from them and constituted a totally new species that God infused with souls.
That I might could believe!
Evolutionists who think that none of the Genesis account literally happened–in other words didn’t believe that at a definite point in history that an actual man Adam and an actual woman Eve actually lived–those people I do not believe!
I’ll tell you another thing too: the very same people who would have a Totally Negating view of the Genesis account would be the same people who wouldn’t really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus as actually happening either!
Don’t tell me such people don’t exist and that some of them don’t try to teach in seminaries!
Having said all of that–does that mean that Genesis should be taken literally?
No! But it is to say that there is Literal truth in the Genesis account in the scriptures.
And maybe more Catholics would believe in evolution if they didn’t think that many evolutionists who claim to be Catholic were up front and didn’t try to hide the fact that they don’t believe many other things in the bible such as miracles or the resurrection!
I think that many Catholics who tend more to the creationist side disbelieve those people more than they disbelieve true science about evolution.
The reason I believe that God created BOTH through evolution AND through miraculous special ways is because Jesus healed in miraculous ways but he also healed a blind person by spitting on clay and putting it on the person’s eyes.
If Jesus as God healed in both ways it only makes sense to me that God created in both ways also.
And why would He do it that way?
So people of true faith in Him would struggle with Him like Jacob did.
The struggle to reconcile what we can’t reconcile while knowing that God is real and knowing also that evolution in some aspects did occurr–all that brings us closer to our creator!
What do you think?
Did Adam and Eve have hominid parents?
If they did how does that square with Catholic De Fide Doctrine that Adam and Eve are the common parents of us all?
The answer to these questions is what separates those who choose science against the church and those who choose science and the church!
Evolution + Special Creation of Adam and Eve? No conflict!
Evolution through Adam and Eve–please resolve the conflict of Adam and Eve being the parents of us all and having hominid parents themselves!
Sometimes between a rock and a hard place–there really is an Either/Or!
The one solution I could think of out of the dilemma would be if hominids gave birth to Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve were different from them and constituted a totally new species that God infused with souls.
That I might could believe!
Evolutionists who think that none of the Genesis account literally happened–in other words didn’t believe that at a definite point in history that an actual man Adam and an actual woman Eve actually lived–those people I do not believe!
I’ll tell you another thing too: the very same people who would have a Totally Negating view of the Genesis account would be the same people who wouldn’t really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus as actually happening either!
Don’t tell me such people don’t exist and that some of them don’t try to teach in seminaries!
Having said all of that–does that mean that Genesis should be taken literally?
No! But it is to say that there is Literal truth in the Genesis account in the scriptures.
And maybe more Catholics would believe in evolution if they didn’t think that many evolutionists who claim to be Catholic were up front and didn’t try to hide the fact that they don’t believe many other things in the bible such as miracles or the resurrection!
I think that many Catholics who tend more to the creationist side disbelieve those people more than they disbelieve true science about evolution.
The reason I believe that God created BOTH through evolution AND through miraculous special ways is because Jesus healed in miraculous ways but he also healed a blind person by spitting on clay and putting it on the person’s eyes.
If Jesus as God healed in both ways it only makes sense to me that God created in both ways also.
And why would He do it that way?
So people of true faith in Him would struggle with Him like Jacob did.
The struggle to reconcile what we can’t reconcile while knowing that God is real and knowing also that evolution in some aspects did occurr–all that brings us closer to our creator!
What do you think?
G
Ghosty
Guest
This is actually quite simple. Adam and Eve were the first to have human souls, and all who have human souls are descended from them as their first parents. What makes us human is our souls; the body and its DNA are simply the matter that is formed by the human soul. Though this matter is a critical part of being human it’s not formal element of humanity; if it was then a corpse would be a human as well.
Since human souls come ONLY from Adam and Eve, humanity as humanity comes ONLY from Adam and Eve as well. The hominids before them simply supplied the material God used to make humans, which is really not ultimately different from the Earth supplying the dirt.
Peace and God bless!
C
cpayne
Guest
Jerry-Jet’s question is one I’ve thought about, too; thanks for the answer, Ghosty. But now I have another question. Would your answer entail that Adam and Eve were the first GENETIC Homo sapiens, or simply the first with a divinely infused rational soul? It seems they would have to be the first genetically, would it not?
So, even leaving aside the soul issue for now, would this make Adam and Eve genetic mutations?
C
cpayne
Guest
Let me explain this a little better. You said the matter of humans is not their formal cause, which is right. But could there be hominids existing pre-Adam and Eve who were genetically human but lacked the endowment of the formal soul? How?
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
The question boils down to this.
Do you believe Adam and Eve were our first parents supernaturally created by God with preternatural gifts?
Do you believe Adam and Eve were our first parents supernaturally created by God with preternatural gifts?
C
cpayne
Guest
Hi, Robert. Let’s assume I am NOT going to check any “neo-Darwinian sources” to find the difference between common ancestor and common descent. (That assumption is very safe to make. 
) But I still want to know the difference. What is it?
P.S. I know you were talking to PhilVaz. I just jumped in.
) But I still want to know the difference. What is it?P.S. I know you were talking to PhilVaz. I just jumped in.
C
cpayne
Guest
Hi, Buffalo. Let me give you an answer that means nothing:
Yes.
Now from that answer, can you tell what I think about evolution?
(No.
)
B
buffalo
Guest
Well then, as long as any evolutionary theory does not conflict it is OK.
C
cpayne
Guest
I agree. But how many people think that if one answers “Yes” to your question, one also has to answer “No” to any evolutionary theory. I think maybe a key to this is to remain very specific (as your question was). Maybe that’s what Robert Southwell was trying to point out with his earlier questions: my OP was not specific enough. Too vague, in other words.
uch:- Status