The Pope and Evolution

[jello]

Hello to all,

I am a Muslim. While I was studying I took a class in Humanities, and the professor was an American Catholic.

There hapepned to be a poster-demonstaration by a group of Muslims in our college against the Evolution theory. The professor, being an opinionated person, himself posted a number of papers outside his office, one of which said that even conservative religionists such as the Pope (at that time John Paul II) had accepted parts of the theory of evolution.

I find it hard to bellieve that anyone of religion, be he a Muslim or Christian or Hindu or whatever, could accept the theory of eveolution, i.e. that human beings are the product of random chance that made rocks suddenly become living bacteria, and from there onwards into human beings and other species. So I am wondering what my American Catholic teacher said in this respect and why ???

 

[tdandh26]

The Catholic Church can accept the concept of evolution ONLY if God was its cause. What I mean is that nothing evolved without God causing it to. So a frog did not morph into a Bronchiosaurous without God having caused it to do so. I myself personally see to many flaws in the evolution theory to believe it, but the Church does not require us to believe it or not. Only that if we do that we understand that God was the Author behind ever phase of it.

 

[jello]

Hello,

What about the central claim in evolution, that all life including human life came from the confluence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and wala! organic life forms started out. Before it was only that we evolved from monkeys, but now we apparently evolved from rocks before that. (???)

I doubt the Pope or any scholar of any religion would consider that, since it goes directly against the teachings of the Scriptures of the respective religions.

 

[Todd_Easton]

For the Catholic position on evolution, see Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.

 

[Batjacboy]

In 1996, Pope John Paul II gave a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. What caused the most controversy from this address, however, was the Pope’s observation that

"[t]oday, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical *Humani Generis*], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

The major news media maintained that it was the Pope’s belief that evolution had now reached the status of fact; it was now, after all, more than a hypothesis. But later in the address John Paul indicates that evolution is more than a hypothesis—it has become a developed theory, supported by at least some data, with theory being defined as

"a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them.  By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation."

He went on to make clear, however, that a

". . . theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability.  It must then be rethought."

John Paul also said that, when discussing evolution, “. . . rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution." He did not define evolution, nor did he, as was reported by the news media, vindicate Darwin, most apparent by the fact that Darwin’s name was not even mentioned. In fact, he maintained that Darwin’s view was incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

John Paul II, therefore, took the same position on evolution that the Church has taken for centuries on any new scientific theory: until proven, investigation may proceed, but discretion is advised.

 

[jello]

Just scrolling through the document quickly, it seems as if there is not that much approval for this theory…

Then fromw here did my professor of Humanities get the idea that the Pope agrees with Evolution? If it was from one of his letters, then what is the complete meaning of that writing?

 

[PhilVaz]

Humani Generis is a start, but we’ve come a long way in 50+ years. John Paul II wrote on evolution in 1996, and the International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Ratzinger published this statement in 2004.

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is quite good, especially since I helped edit most of it. Covers all the main Popes and theological statements.

It is De Fide (dogma “of Catholic Faith”) that:

God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

But God may create by secondary causes (i.e. evolution) and guide in ways that are not detectable by science. That is basically the "theistic evolution" position, although some people prefer the term "evolutionary creation." Others don’t like these terms and keep science and religion separate (the NOMA principle of Stephen Jay Gould).

I point out once again that Benedict XVI does not interpret Genesis literally either:

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

At the same time he does not believe we are “some casual and meaningless product of evolution” but we are an "intelligent project." As surprising as it may seem, the Pope is not Richard Dawkins thank God.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Bat << John Paul II, therefore, took the same position on evolution that the Church has taken for centuries on any new scientific theory: until proven, investigation may proceed, but discretion is advised. >>

Agree with everything you said, except this last paragraph. As Tim (Orogeny) has pointed out in many threads no scientific theory is ever proved. What we have for evolution (i.e. universal common descent via natural selection) is an enormous amount of evidence and explanatory power for the data and observations that exist. That’s the best we can hope for science.

Also, it could be said that to Pius XII evolution was merely an hypothesis, while to John Paul II evolution graduated to the level of a scientific theory, which is “more than a hypothesis.” Going further, the International Theological Commission (see paragraphs 62-70 especially) headed by Ratzinger called common descent “virtually certain.” So it seems to me the Church doesn’t have scientific doubt about evolution any longer.

Phil P

 

[zian]

jello:

I find it hard to bellieve that anyone of religion, be he a Muslim or Christian or Hindu or whatever, could accept the theory of eveolution, i.e. that human beings are the product of random chance that made rocks suddenly become living bacteria, and from there onwards into human beings and other species. So I am wondering what my American Catholic teacher said in this respect and why ???

Hi jello,

Welcome to the forums. As for evolution, I recommend you follow up with Phil’s links. Also keep in mind that evolution does not say that humans are the product of random chance (since natural selection is not random), nor does it say that rocks suddenly became living bacteria. You might get around to it eventually if you were to plow through some of the old threads, but if you start at this basic Talk Origins page, you’ll be able to start to come to grips with some common misperceptions of evolution. Sure, there are a number of folks who post at Talk Origins who are non-religious materialists. You’ll have to make the effort at times to separate the philosophical statements from the scientific discussion. However, I think you’ll find this worth the effort, since much of the science discussion will be helpful to your understanding.

Keep reading, and bring your questions.

 

[Hubriss]

It is because there is so much evidense for evolution that to not acknowledge evolution would turn many Americans away from the Church. To blatently deny evolution would cause many people to reject the church in favor of the much more plausible explanation of our existence. The church would be basically ignoring progression in our knowledge and understanding of the universe. So it was forced to conform its original beliefs to new evidense, making up new theories when it was shown that all their old ones don’t hold any water anymore. As you can probably tell, I am not Catholic, or any other religion for that matter, not even Athiest. These decisions to reject old beliefs in favor of threatening new ones shows me that they really don’t know what really is in the universe, and the church will not hesitate to change in light of any new knowledge that might arise in the future.

 

[Nullasalus]

jello:

I find it hard to bellieve that anyone of religion, be he a Muslim or Christian or Hindu or whatever, could accept the theory of eveolution, i.e. that human beings are the product of random chance that made rocks suddenly become living bacteria, and from there onwards into human beings and other species. So I am wondering what my American Catholic teacher said in this respect and why ???

Heya jello.

Studying the religious implications of evolution is new for me as well - I always assumed evolution to be true just by the explanations I came across in school, but I never bothered to sit down and think about what that actually meant for faith. I think the problem for a lot of people lies in what they consider to be miraculous - demanding, in the back of our minds, that things be downright magical. I think that is a mistake.

Oh, and don’t make the mistake of confusing evolution theory with origin of life theory. The latter is, I think, more commonly referred to as abiogenesis. Evolution can explain how a single cell may turn into, in time, a human. Origin of life theory deals with where that cell came from, a seperate subject.

I hope the readings help you out. It will be a new understanding, perhaps, but it should not be one that shakes your faith in God.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

So it was forced to conform its original beliefs to new evidense, making up new theories when it was shown that all their old ones don’t hold any water anymore. As you can probably tell, I am not Catholic, or any other religion for that matter, not even Athiest. These decisions to reject old beliefs in favor of threatening new ones shows me that they really don’t know what really is in the universe, and the church will not hesitate to change in light of any new knowledge that might arise in the future.

There was no rejection of old beliefs, just old suppositions that were vague to begin with. When a creationist says that God created the world in 7 days, they don’t have an explanation of how it happened other than what they can infer from the bible. Did God snap His fingers and suddenly everything came into existence? Did He create base materials and then mix them? With two God-hands? Through angels? Even the most adamant creationist won’t claim to know these things. They just know when it should have taken place, and the general order it likely unfolded in.

The Church knew - and knows - that God created man. Science is providing us with specifics that are upsetting to people who supposed something different. Nothing more.

 

[Hubriss]

To Nullasalus: You cannot deny that the Creation Story was the belief that Catholics held of creation prior to Darwin.

But if you still deny it, then what is the use of the Old Testament if it is wrong?

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

To Nullasalus: You cannot deny that the Creation Story was the belief that Catholics held of creation prior to Darwin.

But if you still deny it, then what is the use of the Old Testament if it is wrong?

I cannot deny that, before Darwin, the average person probably didn’t have much of a cohesive concept of how the biological world as they knew it came into being. Were there Catholics - many Catholics - who thought Genesis was a factual account through and through? Yes. Were there priests, even bishops - maybe even popes - who personally thought as much? Probably.

Does that make it a Catholic teaching? Nope.

There are also many Catholics who believe that if you die while wearing a scapular, you go right to heaven. There were plenty of catholic women who believed that having a son who became a priest was a ‘get out of hell free’ card too. You can’t blame Catholicism - certainly not catholic dogma, which is a more organized affair - for every conclusion, right or wrong, that has been reached by catholics over the years.

 

[Hubriss]

So the church only claims infallability only on things that can be neither proven nor disproven?

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

So the church only claims infallability only on things that can be neither proven nor disproven?

Why would the Church bother to make a decisive claim about the specific mechanics of the world’s mechanical creation? How God created life, the universe, and everything isn’t the point - it’s that He created it. By extension, God created physics too - should we expect de fide statements on gravity next?

The Church’s interest is in teachings and practices. Science is for scientists - even the most recent popes essentially say as much. You sound disappointed that this is the case - maybe you want the Church to get into falsifiable claims so you can have concrete evidence to hit them with. It’s not so simple.

I’ll be honest with you - I am not the best Catholic, and I am not certain what I believe. But these arguments seem a little grasping. Whether or not you’re an atheist, the actual Church is simply not as sinister (or as insipid) as you seem to believe it to be. There may be a lot of bad personal examples of Catholics, but no, they don’t constantly change teachings to fit in with the modern day. One look at the fight over contraception should be enough to cast a lot of doubt on that notion.

 

[Hubriss]

Why would the Church bother to make a decisive claim about the specific mechanics of the world’s mechanical creation?

To establish some credit so that it has enough to be able to make other claims, and allow them to be seriously considered by people.

 

[zian]

Hubriss:

So the church only claims infallability only on things that can be neither proven nor disproven?

There are lots of great resources here on this very website to help you improve your understanding of the concept of infallibility. See this on Papal Infallibility. There’s lots more - use the search feature on the CA home page and click away.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

To establish some credit so that it has enough to be able to make other claims, and allow them to be seriously considered by people.

The Church is and has been considered seriously by people without making those claims - when it comes to ethics and morality, the Church is a philosophical heavyweight and persuasive all on its own. In fact, that’s one thing that bolsters my faith in the Church - the intricate defense of moral and ethical beliefs, showing a deep understanding of justice and nature. It’s not a measurable thing though, so it wouldn’t be as persuasive for you.

Really, it sounds like you’re asking for undeniable proof of God. But there’s no way to provide such a thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if a miracle occured before your eyes and there was no rational explanation for it, you could just assume that there IS a rational explanation and you just haven’t found it yet. So what’s the point?

Anyway, this has gotten off-topic from what jello wanted.

 

[rwoehmke]

In “doing science” one forms a hypothesis and then designs experiments to attempt to verify the hypothesis. If it checks out and all looks good one moves hypothesis to the stage of theory which explains the observed facts, however going from observations to established facts is sometimes subject to a certain amount of subjective (name removed by moderator)ut. No matter how totally objective science claims to be the observer is always human and subject to human limitations. A theory is the current best explanation of the observed facts. When futher work shows contadiction the theory must be re- evaluated. After time and further study and verification by other scientists a theory may become a Law. Thus far we have a theory or theories of evolution which are the best explanation of the observed facts. That does not mean the theory is incorrect or wrong, but it is still not a Law of Evolution if you will. It bothers me when either a scientist or non-scientist looks on a theory as being an absolute or alternatively as having no basis in fact.

Creation Theory or Intelligent Design cannot be subjects of science as the “facts” cannot be observed or measured in any physical or material manner; such measurements or observations being properly in the realm of science. To teach them as science then is in a real sense neither possible nor honest. They belong to the realm of theology and philosophy.

Further I copy a modified post from my post to a previous thread:
In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr.( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows:

“First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguements show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

In this day when there is sufficent archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts certain historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures it seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken as carrying mainly theological truth. The historical or scientific facts may have only some or very little basis in actuality. So what is to be made of narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

Posted by Daniel Marsh in support of the Woods Jr. quote. newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.