Theistic Evolution

[edwest2]

What is it exactly? How does God fit into it? And, regardless of your answer, how do you know it is correct?

My position is there is no such thing due to the fact that atheists have taken whatever science there may be in evolutionary theory and are now using it to
A) Convince people that the only “rational” explanation for human beings is an entirely “natural” process that does not involve supernatural intervention in any way, shape or form.
B) Therefore, if you believe A) above, is rational, a belief in an invisible God must not be rational.
C) Therefore, atheism or just not believing in any invisible being is your only “rational” choice.

To my fellow Catholics, as Pope Benedict has stated, the evolutionary theory is too narrow to describe other aspects of reality in a rational way. Each of us is wanted, each of us is loved by God. The earth we live on was part of an intelligent project. This is what I believe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Each of us is wanted, each of us is loved by God. The earth we live on was part of an intelligent project. This is what I believe.

God bless,
Ed

I agree with the above. But I can believe that the earth—indeed the universe—is part of an intelligent project, without tossing out evolutionary theory or the scientific method.

Science cannot make use of the idea of supernatural intervention without violating its own methodology. Of course it has to be naturalistic in its methods. But science is not the totality of knowledge, nor is the scientific method the only way of knowing. Most of the ways in which we know things everyday, acquiring knowledge through sense perception, and inductive or deductive reasoning, do not involve the scientific method. Infants don’t have to be taught the scientific method in order to be capable of knowledge.

There are three things, that according to Dinesh D’Souza, evolutionary theory cannot explain: the origin of life from non-life, consciousness and abstract reasoning, and morality. Now, science can keep working on naturalistic explanations for those things, but they may not find them.

 

[Orogeny]

What is it exactly? How does God fit into it? And, regardless of your answer, how do you know it is correct?

Theistic evolution, as I would define my belief, is the acknowledgement that evolution, as described in science, is the tool God uses to develop life on earth. I believe it to be correct for the same reason I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the third part of the Holy Trinity - faith.

My position is there is no such thing due to the fact that atheists have taken whatever science there may be in evolutionary theory and are now using it to
A) Convince people that the only “rational” explanation for human beings is an entirely “natural” process that does not involve supernatural intervention in any way, shape or form.
B) Therefore, if you believe A) above, is rational, a belief in an invisible God must not be rational.
C) Therefore, atheism or just not believing in any invisible being is your only “rational” choice.

The problem, Ed, is that your argument in no way invalidates theistic evolution or athiestic evolution (ie - evolution used as an argument against the existence of God). The science is valid regardless of it’s usage.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your responses. I suspect there is more than evolutionary theory, but that is another topic. I will say this: politics is too much involved in what should be direct access to knowledge, but due to the fact that evolution is being used in a political fashion, it makes the science suspect to me for that reason also, especially, the provable, consistent, daily, propagandizing and promotion of the “theory.” It appears to be nothing more than laying the groundwork for an anti-God ideology.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Cathryn]

A theistic evolution would have to be monogenism. The popular scientific views I have seen are polygenism, with “Eve” having multiple partners, with the need for a large gene pool. As Pope Pius explains polygenism is not what Catholics are free to believe.

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

I don’t see Catholics making this distinction between mongenism and polygenism, that Pope Pius XII warns against.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. This is exactly what I believe. There was a literal Adam and a literal Eve. God, after all, can perform miracles.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Hubriss]

Thank you for your responses. I suspect there is more than evolutionary theory, but that is another topic. I will say this: politics is too much involved in what should be direct access to knowledge, but due to the fact that evolution is being used in a political fashion, it makes the science suspect to me for that reason also, especially, the provable, consistent, daily, propagandizing and promotion of the “theory.” It appears to be nothing more than laying the groundwork for an anti-God ideology.
God bless,
Ed

Why do you think that promoting natural selection is propaganda? This atheistic movement or whatever you want to call it is only a response to the overwhelming power faith believers have in our political system. It is merely a reaction to presidents making decisions based on faith, and the huge lobbying power that religions currently have. Yes, I agree that politics is too involved in access to direct knowledge, but who do you think are actually the ones doing the interfering? Science is the only method that gives us direct access to knowledge, and yet we still have hicks denying this knowledge for purely political reasons. Evolution is not a theory, there is enough evidence and tests that basically prove it to be a fact. The only reason it is still called a theory is because there are religious people who make their purely unscientific assumptions look like a valid contrary to what we know.

A theistic evolution would have to be monogenism. The popular scientific views I have seen are polygenism, with “Eve” having multiple partners, with the need for a large gene pool. As Pope Pius explains polygenism is not what Catholics are free to believe.

-Cathryn

The polygamy of Eve is only a statistical explanation for the large variety of gene pools we have today. It basically points out that it’s impossible for the species current state to have only come about from a single man and woman at one time.

 

[edwest2]

Your response is an example of the mindset I’ve encountered everywhere else. Apparently, because of “hicks,” this aspect of science has become political. Not so.

If you are Catholic, you must believe that God can perform miracles, including Adam and Eve. As a result of their sin, Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Hubriss]

Your response is an example of the mindset I’ve encountered everywhere else. Apparently, because of “hicks,” this aspect of science has become political. Not so.

If you are Catholic, you must believe that God can perform miracles, including Adam and Eve. As a result of their sin, Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

God bless,
Ed

Let me try to figure out what you’re trying to say here…

Is that an example of the scientific mindset of Catholicism? I can show you how that is absolutely not science or reasonable knowledge or anything, and then it should be evident that this faith is messing up our politics. You say if you are Catholic you must believe… etc. But, you don’t come to be Catholic through science, and those must believes are only dogmatic beliefs likely forced on someone when they were a child. Those are all beliefs totally based on faith, claimed to be “mysteries” by the Church. Are you telling me that we should base political decisions on such nonsense rather than emperical studies, data, and actual knowledge? Do you honestly believe you can absolutely or even somewhat reasonably know that the claims you made are true? If so, then please explain. Your statement was totally circular reasoning based on wishful thinking.

 

[edwest2]

This place is called Catholic Answers. I am presenting Catholic viewpoints. And none of them are new.

For anyone to suggest that somehow, now, today, that these viewpoints should be added to public political debate sort of ignores the fact that they have been part of public political debate since the founding of this country. The only thing I want to point out are those who want this to change.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Let me try to figure out what you’re trying to say here…

Is that an example of the scientific mindset of Catholicism? I can show you how that is absolutely not science or reasonable knowledge or anything, and then it should be evident that this faith is messing up our politics. You say if you are Catholic you must believe… etc. But, you don’t come to be Catholic through science, and those must believes are only dogmatic beliefs likely forced on someone when they were a child. Those are all beliefs totally based on faith, claimed to be “mysteries” by the Church. Are you telling me that we should base political decisions on such nonsense rather than emperical studies, data, and actual knowledge? Do you honestly believe you can absolutely or even somewhat reasonably know that the claims you made are true? If so, then please explain. Your statement was totally circular reasoning based on wishful thinking.

How do you know that there actually is another person to respond to? Maybe the universe is infinite, and a random collection of atoms just ahppened to assemble themselves into something that resembles a human brain - as an infinite collection of atoms must do. That brain has the consciousness of reading this. But after that fleeting moment those atoms will disassemble.

You can’t live like that. Nor can we live with “Adam was a miracle”. We have to assume that he left normal genetic and other traces, unless forced into the opposite conclusion.

However what do we mean by a “man”? Unless you can firm that up, you cannot decide whether all men are descended form Adam or not.

 

[edwest2]

Well, one the one hand, we are some cosmic roll of the dice. A series of lottery wins that resulted in all this. But, for Catholics, we are the descendants of Adam and Eve.

I’m afraid I don’t see any middle ground on this one.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, one the one hand, we are some cosmic roll of the dice. A series of lottery wins that resulted in all this. But, for Catholics, we are the descendants of Adam and Eve.

I’m afraid I don’t see any middle ground on this one.

God knows how to load those dice.

 

[TMC]

A theistic evolution would have to be monogenism. The popular scientific views I have seen are polygenism, with “Eve” having multiple partners, with the need for a large gene pool. As Pope Pius explains polygenism is not what Catholics are free to believe.

I don’t see Catholics making this distinction between mongenism and polygenism, that Pope Pius XII warns against.

This has been discussed in excruciating detail on multiple threads. I think that Catholics do make the mongenism/polygenism distinction. Despite that distinction, many, probably most, Catholic theologians (and at least the last two Popes) accept that evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine and theology. Monogenism and evolution are not necessarily incompatible. Whether Pius’ teaching on mongenism was infallible, I don’t know. We will probably learn in the next few decades as Catholic theology on creation continues to develop.

 

[Orogeny]

But, you don’t come to be Catholic through science, and those must believes are only dogmatic beliefs likely forced on someone when they were a child. Those are all beliefs totally based on faith, claimed to be “mysteries” by the Church.

You are correct that we don’t come to the Church through science, but the rest of your statement is just as silly as Ed’s view that evolution is wrong because some athiests use it as a justification of their beliefs.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

What is it exactly? How does God fit into it? And, regardless of your answer, how do you know it is correct?

My position is there is no such thing due to the fact that atheists have taken whatever science there may be in evolutionary theory and are now using it to
A) Convince people that the only “rational” explanation for human beings is an entirely “natural” process that does not involve supernatural intervention in any way, shape or form.
B) Therefore, if you believe A) above, is rational, a belief in an invisible God must not be rational.
C) Therefore, atheism or just not believing in any invisible being is your only “rational” choice.

Atheists do indeed use evolution in their arguments against theism. Atheists also use the Bible in their arguments against Christianity. Are you going to reject the Bible, or at least those parts of it that atheists use, because atheists quote it in some of their arguments?

It seems to me that you are throwing out more than you need to. You want to refute the atheists arguments, that does not mean that you have to reject large parts of modern biology.

rossum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree with the above. But I can believe that the earth—indeed the universe—is part of an intelligent project, without tossing out evolutionary theory or the scientific method.

Science cannot make use of the idea of supernatural intervention without violating its own methodology. Of course it has to be naturalistic in its methods. But science is not the totality of knowledge, nor is the scientific method the only way of knowing. Most of the ways in which we know things everyday, acquiring knowledge through sense perception, and inductive or deductive reasoning, do not involve the scientific method. Infants don’t have to be taught the scientific method in order to be capable of knowledge.

There are three things, that according to Dinesh D’Souza, evolutionary theory cannot explain: the origin of life from non-life, consciousness and abstract reasoning, and morality. Now, science can keep working on naturalistic explanations for those things, but they may not find them.

Well said.

Thank you for your responses. I suspect there is more than evolutionary theory, but that is another topic. I will say this: politics is too much involved in what should be direct access to knowledge, but due to the fact that evolution is being used in a political fashion, it makes the science suspect to me for that reason also, especially, the provable, consistent, daily, propagandizing and promotion of the “theory.” It appears to be nothing more than laying the groundwork for an anti-God ideology.
God bless,
Ed

**That’s rich. The only thing i’ve seen “politicizing” science in regard to the evolutionary model is fundamentalists mostly unchurched who are intent on pushing religious explanations and demanding they sit along side scientific ones. It’s fairly late that Catholic Fundamentalists have joined in. **

This place is called Catholic Answers. I am presenting Catholic viewpoints. And none of them are new.

For anyone to suggest that somehow, now, today, that these viewpoints should be added to public political debate sort of ignores the fact that they have been part of public political debate since the founding of this country. The only thing I want to point out are those who want this to change.
God bless,
Ed

You are NOT presenting Catholic viewpoints. That remains always the problem. You start these threads again and again. In the end you just pout and call us all atheists, and start all over again. These are your opinions ED, not the Church’s. You’ve been shown that so many times it borders on the sinful that you keep putting forth what you KNOW not to be truth, only what you desperately it seems wish to be true.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Atheists do indeed use evolution in their arguments against theism. Atheists also use the Bible in their arguments against Christianity. Are you going to reject the Bible, or at least those parts of it that atheists use, because atheists quote it in some of their arguments?

It seems to me that you are throwing out more than you need to. You want to refute the atheists arguments, that does not mean that you have to reject large parts of modern biology.

rossum

Yep, he does this again and again. He ends up after being completely demolished after 4 weeks of arguing, to saying “you say just what the atheists say…go look.” Apparently atheists in total are folks who are incapable of having any correct opinions on anything since they have unfortunately one opinion that most of us disagree with. Now if that ain’t bias I don’t know what is.

 

[edwest2]

“one opinion that most of us disagree with.” Opinion? You call a way of life an opinion? You call a worldview an opinion?

The atheist commitment can be just as strong as the Christian commitment. Are you with me on this?

ATHEISM is a belief system. Everyone has a belief system. To think otherwise is false.

If you think your Christianity is based on anything more than a set of opinions and not a commitment, I would ask you to think about that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“one opinion that most of us disagree with.” Opinion? You call a way of life an opinion? You call a worldview an opinion?

The atheist commitment can be just as strong as the Christian commitment. Are you with me on this?

ATHEISM is a belief system. Everyone has a belief system. To think otherwise is false.

If you think your Christianity is based on anything more than a set of opinions and not a commitment, I would ask you to think about that.

God bless,
Ed

Assuming that to some atheists, atheism is a commitment, although to what I would wonder, so what? You apparently find some point here. I certainly don’t. I agree, everyone has a belief system. Atheists have one, I have one, you have one, so?

It is my opinion that God exists. If I could prove it Ed, I’d probably be richer than Gates. I think perhaps you better explain what this commitment actually is that you claim both atheists and Christians share, albeit to different things. What exactly does that mean to you? Apparently something quite sinister…tell us more.