two questions about evolution as I consider leaving the church

[TEX]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

 

[awfulthings9]

Hi Tex,

I have had the same struggles. I am within five pages of finishing Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller, a Catholic Biologist, a believer in evolution. It is a great read and will go a long way toward answering your questions. All but the question on original sin are addressed in his book. Since you are bordering such a life-chaning decision, I think this one title would be a good investment of your time.

 

[jmcrae]

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

I have the same questions as you. Fortunately for us, Catholics are not required to believe in evolutionary theory. The Scriptures and the Holy Tradition don’t really address questions of science, so we are free to speculate on these matters, as long as we hold to the essential truths that God created all that is and ever has been, and that Adam and Eve were one unique man and one unique woman, the first of their kind in the world, and that all human beings who have ever lived are descended from those two - we are one human family.

 

[Newbie2]

True, we are not required to believe in evolution. The teaching is that evolution and creation are compatable. How? One of the mysteries.

At some point, though, if the Almighty did create Adam through evolution, there was an infusion of grace and human-ness at some point in time, where he “became” human.

Don’t let this be a “faith-breaker” for you. There’s many things God does that we don’t or never will understand. That’s why they call it faith.

 

[jmcrae]

True, we are not required to believe in evolution. The teaching is that evolution and creation are compatable. How? One of the mysteries.

I thought the phrase was “could be.” Depending on which form of the evolutionary theory we are talking about, along with a host of other factors.

At some point, though, if the Almighty did create Adam through evolution, there was an infusion of grace and human-ness at some point in time, where he “became” human.

That’s right where I get stuck. Isn’t the body the form of the soul? So how could God give Adam a different kind of soul than other animals of the same kind?

Don’t let this be a “faith-breaker” for you. There’s many things God does that we don’t or never will understand. That’s why they call it faith.

 

[Contarini]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?

Because the “randomness” of evolution is purely a scientific matter–it means that there is no scientifically ascertainable cause. Or to get a bit deeper, St. Thomas Aquinas says that God moves all things according to their nature. He causes necessary causes to act necessarily, and He causes contingent causes to act contingently. To put it bluntly, you have an inadequate doctrine of Divine Providence. This is one of the things that concerns me about the “intelligent design” movement–people confuse the kind of “design” Dembski and Behe are talking about with Divine Providence.

1. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene.

God is outside of time, so God doesn’t “wait.” A second, a billion years–it’s all the same to God!

This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings?

Theologically, we “evolve” into glorified human beings through sanctification. Any biological changes we undergo will not change our nature. Furthermore, evolution happens extremely slowly. Most likely it won’t be an issue unless humans force it by biotechnology. In fact, once we have rational souls a case can be made that we can’t “evolve” without meaning to.

Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event

You need to explain yourself more clearly here.

A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

This is a non sequitur. The Fall is something that happened once we “evolved” into human beings. According to St. Augustine, one consequence of the Fall was that our animal nature reasserted itself in rebellion to our rational soul, just as our rational soul had rebelled against God. This makes sense and harmonizes well with evolution. I think you are reading metaphysical consequences into biological evolution that aren’t there.

I don’t mean to treat your concerns lightly. The question of future evolution and of the relationship of sin to evolution are very serious ones. The above are my best responses at this point. Perhaps others have better ones.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Isn’t the body the form of the soul?

No, the soul is the form of the body. “Form” in scholasticism doesn’t mean “physical shape.”

Edwin

 

[BlaineTog]

1. … My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?

Because evolution is not random, though it may appear that way. Think of life like a really cool card trick: it looks like the cards have been shuffled really well, but really, that’s just because the magician is skilled, which is why he’s able to pull off such unlikely draws so consistently.

2) … This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next?

More humans. “Human” isn’t simply defined as “46 chromosomes with such-and-such similarities.” It’s to do with reason and the soul. What comes next might simply be a different kind of human.

(As for the 14 billion years before humans came, think of that like the beginning to a great piece of music, or the first couple moments of a movie as the camera pans across the forest before zooming in on our hero, or the rough pencil-sketch on the canvas the artist makes before breaking out the oil paints. It was preparation, and it was a beautiful preparation at that! Dinosaurs!)

Alternately, it’s possible that humans won’t evolve anymore; self-consciousness might hamstring natural selection. I’m no scientist, though, so that’s just an uninformed guess.

A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

The same where there could be separation from God if we were created out of dust and the breath of God: freely willed choice.

 

[JonW]

Evolution is not a random process. Natural selection is not random. The mutations are the random changes that natural selection, by necessity, takes advantage of. And mutations are not evolution. They are a naturally occurring random process that non-random evolutionary events, .e.g., natural selection, latch on to. There are many other naturally occurring random processes.

God Bless

Jon

 

[mschrank]

Yes, you got some good responses on here.

Evolution as we know it is comprised of three main things:

1. Natural Selection
2. Common Descent
3. Neodarwinian (ND) Random Mutation

1 and 2 are facts. 1 is actually a tautology, and 2 is genetically sound.

3 is more controversial. The concept that random, unguided, purposeless mutation can account for the complexity in life, as well as the tendency towards more ordered and complex forms is not at all a proven fact. The thing that a lot of NDers do not really account for, is that complexity is not always better for survival. Look at viruses, which are (most scientists believe) reverse-evolved from other lifeforms. They survived by just getting simpler until whether or not they are even alive is debatable.

Sure, random ND mutation can happen, and has been proven to happen. However, just because it happens in the “edges” of evolutionary development does not mean it can account for everything- that is the big fallacy.

I believe, based upon what I know as fact, that there is an unexplained, tendency towards not only order but increasing complexity in nature- a kind of natural aesthetic of life which cannot be reduced down. Please do not confuse this with ID, which I do not believe in because I don’t think God has to pop in and intervene in nature. I believe nature itself is endowed with a inherent potential, whose actual working out appears to be neccessary cause affecting necessary cause. The question really is, why did this random atomic event happen instead of another random atomic event?

 

[buffalo]

As a Catholic I would give it more time.

 

[Feanaro]

Just wanted to add one more thing. This is a question I have struggled with as well, and the responses you’ve already received are excellent ones.

The only other thing i wanted to add was this, and it concerns original sin. Many atheists have asserted that: 1) Evolution dispels Adam and Eve
2) If no Adam and Eve then no original sin
3) Therefore no original sin, no need for Christ
and his Church.

This seems pretty logical except that there is no overwhelming evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist despite evolution. Or that Adam and Eve are maybe metaphors for first humans, through which original sin entered.

However, there is overwhelming evidence that Christ lived, died, and was risen from the dead for our salvation. Therefore, we can reason backwards from the effect to the cause. I’m not saying that original sin is the cause of God, that’s ridiculous. Rather a cause of him taking human form and attaining salvation for us.

I hope that made sense, sometimes things make sense in my mind but don’t translate well to words.:whacky:

 

[crowonsnow]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

Yes, why does a designer act so randomly? Why build a universe and then wait 13.999 billion years to build humans? Why even build a universe at all, you might ask.

This is simply the syncretistic nature of religion. It is always incorporating new knowledge, branching off, evolving. In religious parlance I suppose this is referred to as divine revelation, the designer is choosing to reveal its methods for some purpose.

People say that the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, but the big bang continues to this day. If a designer, albeit a deistic one, initiated the big bang, when exactly did the designer remove its influence? When did it walk away? At what millisecond? After what precise event? When the first galaxies appeared? Later perhaps, when the first heavier elements were fused? Never?

You can have your own answer to all these things and still be a religious person.

 

[rwoehmke]

Since these questions seem to be the “last straw” in your decision to leave the Church, I am curious as to what are some of the preceding “straws” that have brought you to this point. I have a several sons who have left the Church and it continues to strike me that the final reasons for leaving really had little to do with their arrival at that decision point.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?

First of all, I’d like to ask how you know that evolution is random? That’s what scientists assume because they can’t find a scientific, physical argument for order. This is very much an assumption on their part, though. The Christian explanation is that order of the universe comes from God, and God is Spirit. Since God is Spirit, it is logical that scientists can’t reach him by physical experiments. Since they can’t prove or disprove him through the scientific method, they won’t assume his interaction, and so they look for alternative explanations. Chance is the only material explanation they’ve got so far.

Also, let’s say that they’re right and from all that humans can see, the world and the universe looks like the product of chance. Lots of people would disagree with this assumption, feeling as though the universe to them does not look at all like the product of chance but rather the stunningly glorious painting of a master artist, one consumed with symbolic meaning that points to the existence and nature of God. But let’s assume that they’re just interpreting things into creation that are in their heads, and nature actually does not reflect the glory of God. Let’s assume instead that it looks like chance, and that all the evidence points to it being chance.

Now, I could give you a series of 8 billion numbers that look entirely random. Even 80 billion. And they look random. Does that mean they are random, in your view?

In fact, they aren’t. The number pi has been calculated to over a trillion digits. However, the order of it that scientists know exists has not yet been found. They don’t know if they’ll ever be able to find the order of pi, but order in pi plainly does exist. Pi is the necessary number in countless calculations.

So random vs. order cannot always be clearly proven mathematically. And evolution does not require chance. It might look like things depend on chance from a human perspective, but our perspective is unbelievably limited. Compared to God, we are less than ants. A microbe might be wriggling about on a thread of a magnificent tapestry, and be unable to see any order. It would be obscenely conceited, though, for that microbe to therefore conclude, “there is no color but red, and the universe is nothing but one thread, and it looks like chance to me. I have no proof otherwise.”

Perspective is very important in this. Human perspective is obscenely limited. We cannot discern the order of pi, despite decades of work and the use of many supercomputers and powerful companies. We know that there is order, but we cannot find it. How can we then look at something as vast at the universe and suggest that someone marvelously omnipotent and omniscient, and have the nerve to say that because we can’t see any order, there isn’t any?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Tex, my answer to your first question is the last post of the previous page . Just making sure it doesn’t get lost!

1. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next?

My belief is that the world’s life will be wiped out by a combination of nuclear holocaust and environmental catastrophes. That seems to me both a Biblically logical point of view, as well as one supported by modern technologies, human nature, the course humanity seems now set on, and the currently developing worldwide environmental disasters.

Maybe some tiny creatures, microbes and such, will survive and evolve into somewhat more complex beings after all of this. The Bible doesn’t seem to have much to say on that. But it is clear enough that humans will have an end (from an earthly perspective). Though humans will also be resurrected and made glorious in the Lord, and they will come to live in the New Heaven and New Earth. One could see that transformation as symbolically paralleled by the evolutionary processes that changed soup to humanity.

What happens after the apocalypse on Earth isn’t all that important to me, personally. If life survives in any form, it would probably have to start over, or maybe there will be complex enough beings to create some miserable new form of existence, or a very small scale bacteria one, or something. I personally think the world will be too busted up after all is said and done to create new complex life forms. And you know that the Earth is going to end up being consumed in the sun eventually. Peter said that this Heaven and Earth are destined for fire. So one could see that as the final end to our present Earth.

I don’t know why this question about the future would harm your faith .

A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

Well . . . why not? If we evolved from animals, how would that stop us from having been originally innocent? We could have evolved, originally evolved innocent, but through choice have Fallen, and hence Original Sin.

I hope these answers help. If there is anything more, or if you have any problems with parts of these responses, please ask .

 

[Ramalama]

I don’t really have a problem with this, leaving it simply as one of those things I don’t understand. When I force my limited view to wrap around things that have happened, especially divine things, I get headaches. When I consider God operates outside of time, anything seems possible.

God bless you and I hope your journey goes well.

 

[fhansen]

I have two questions about evolution that I need answered, and my future in the Church depends on how they are answered.

1. If we accept evolution as many Catholics do, then how is it possible for God to create through evolution when evolution is a “random” process? Artificial selection (the breeding of plants and animals) works because farmers and breeders control whom each animal mates with and thus with types of offspring are created. Natural selection is random, God does not choose mates for animals in nature or for humans, and God (at least I have never heard that he does) does not shuffle human genes during the sex/fertilization act to produce the different alelle frequencies of offspring. My problem is: if evolution is random…and God is not random…then how do the two mix exactly?
2. If we accept that humans evolved through lower animals from the ultimate source of pond scum, then that means God simply waited for 14 billion years for us to arrive on the scene. This raises some interesting questions the main one I have is what does God intend to evolve from human beings? Once evolution is accepted it cannot remain a past event…what next? A secondary question as to the reality of original sin enters here as well. How can there be separation from God; i.e. original sin, if we are evolved animals?

I would appreciate any answers that address these two questions of mine because it seems to me that if evolution is true, then several things about God would have to be true, and the picture of God here seems to be a different one from the God I thought I knew in the Church.

Maybe we’re limiting God too much. If God knows the beginning from the end then nothing is truly random for Him. Its kind of like the CCs position on salvation-He foreknows the outcome and yet the outcome is influenced by mans’ freewill. Also, regardless of how God created-or got us to this point-He can certainly determine the characteristic which marks the difference between creatures who are responsible for their actions and those who aren’t. And time, whether 6000 years or 14 billion, has no relevance for a being who exists outside of time.

 

[JamesD]

Maybe we’re limiting God too much. If God knows the beginning from the end then nothing is truly random for Him. Its kind of like the CCs position on salvation-He foreknows the outcome and yet the outcome is influenced by mans’ freewill. Also, regardless of how God created-or got us to this point-He can certainly determine the characteristic which marks the difference between creatures who are responsible for their actions and those who aren’t. And time, whether 6000 years or 14 billion, has no relevance for a being who exists outside of time.

I agree.
I think that the problem with both the creationists rejection of common descent and the darwinists rejection of God is that there God is too small.

 

[JamesD]

Because the “randomness” of evolution is purely a scientific matter–it means that there is no scientifically ascertainable cause. Or to get a bit deeper, St. Thomas Aquinas says that God moves all things according to their nature. He causes necessary causes to act necessarily, and He causes contingent causes to act contingently. To put it bluntly, you have an inadequate doctrine of Divine Providence. This is one of the things that concerns me about the “intelligent design” movement–people confuse the kind of “design” Dembski and Behe are talking about with Divine Providence.
Edwin

Edwin,
Would you please explain this for me. What is the difference between contingent causes and necessary causes?
And,
Regarding confusing ID with divine providence:
Am I following you if I say; the probablility of non-reduceable complex features evovling without a designer, is too low to consider possible and therefor must be the result of Divine Providence? If so, I am also confused. Am I?

Thanks Edwin,

Jim