What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[marciadietrich]

Philthy:

Chris -
JP ll spoke to this in 1996 - I was reading it today. And he basically said that the theory of evolution in general does not conflict with Catholic teaching and is valid. There are a couple of lines we can’t cross: We must affirm that Adam and Eve were the first two humans and that all humans descended from them; life did not spotaneously evolve from non-living matter, and one other that escapes me. YOu don’t seem to realize that you’ve created a barrier that need not exist. Don’t forget that what separates us from all other creation is that we were made in the image of God, we have a soul. one simple way to unify evolutionary theory with creationsism while remaining entirely Catholic is to view Adam and Eve as the first “beings” to recieve a human soul. That certainly allows for the evolution of our physical nature independent of our spiritual nature. It allows for all the observed realities of science without denying God’s Providence. Not until the evolved physical nature (natural phenomenon observable scientifically) had a human soul imparted to it (supernatural phenomena inaccessable to science) did humanity begin. I think I’m OK with that - how 'bout you?

Phil

Hello Philthy

Adam and Eve as first and only parents of all humanity directly contradicts evolution. Evolution says we came from at least an original population and not two individuals as a bottleneck - that is regardless of if those two individuals evolved. It is genetically impossible that we descend from a single couple, impossible that the population was ever down to just one male and one female.

According to evolution living matter did spontaneously evolve from non-living matter. The go-around there is to say that God made the living matter come from nothing and then evolve. On the other hand, we must believe God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) … but science is saying that may not be true as well.

The other item you are probably thinking of is that God creates our soul and that the soul has not evolved. But there are issues on the spiritual soul and its properties mentioned in some other posts that I don’t feel have been addressed yet.

Also, I think a good case that Eve literally being created from the side of Adam might be doctrinal, someone else gave a link on that earlier.

I had always accepted evolution before becoming Catholic, even contrary to my fundamentalist upbringing. I see conflicts between Catholic doctrine and evolution and the more I read the more conflicts that I see with no resolution. Some say don’t sweat it. Some deny there is a problem at all. The idea that God simply upped gave Adam a soul just does not make the conflicts go away. It is too simplistic and overlooks the problems.

Just because truth cannot contradict truth doesn’t mean that doctines of the faith cannot contradict current scientific thought. It just apparently means there might be aspects to this we can’t uncover ourselves. (or one or the other, the science or the doctrine/s, is simply wrong) Still, it is causing a lot of worry on my part …

Marcia

 

[wanerious]

marciadietrich:

Humans are not very diverse genetically.

Marcia

Thanks for the correction, Marcia. Things are usually more complicated than my uneducated guesses can account for.

 

[wanerious]

marciadietrich:

Sorry if that is disjointed. But scientists do believe that intellect is evolved and based on brain size … Catholic faith says intellect is the result of the spiritual soul and not other creature has a spiritual soul and there was not an evolution of the human soul.

Marcia

Yes, I don’t find a lot to disagree with here. I think I realized some time ago that I misunderstood ChrisW’s point with the above. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[ISABUS]

PhilVaz:

As the Thread Burns…

Isabus << you think that you have a better grip on Genesis then the head of the Vatican Observatory Fr. George V. Coyne >>

Well, Matt16 is just trying to figure out which category to place Fr. George in, whether liberal, modernist, heretic, or apostate. I like Matt16 though, he makes good points about me and you being modernists. Just kidding.

Oh Isabus is a chick, I didn’t realize. Well just arm wrestle then.

Condemned modernist proposition # 57 is

1. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

Nope, I’m definitely not a modernist. The Catechism paragraphs 159, and 283-284 again.

Phil P

Hi Phil,

So you aren’t a modernist. Liberal, modernist, heretic, or apostate, whatever the label who cares as long as you know who you are and “i” know I’m made in the image of I AM. These words wrapped up in meaning and perceptions filled with contradiction often baffle a praire minded person. As far as I’m concerned, I really don’t care for these traps known as categories nor will I ever allow myself to be for I’m simply a very complex poet who has spent far too many years behind this mind of mine in deep reflection to know that being human is no more than life
itself. As far as my relationship with Christ goes that’s another world that surpasses any expression of words and leaps beyond all definitions given to a religion.

I do agree with you, “Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” This makes me think about the relationship between science and faith and how they compliment each other while still maintaining their own identity. At times, it appears to be a slow walk hand in hand, whereas in the past they crawled alongside each other.

Did you notice the year was 1907 when Pius X wrote Lamentabili Sane? ** Almost a century ago!** And your point is he writes "The Church’? Are are sending me a secret coded message that Matt is almost a 100 years old! ? You see how important it is for us spiritual beings to move forward in thought. We can’t let the mishaps of yesteryear be repeated and hold us back any longer otherwise we’ll loose the real truth behind the living WORD.

As far as our companion Matt goes, he’s growing on me like sprig on a tree. It’s always a challege to mix karate and ballet. Let’s stick to the mat with tad of arm wresting .

May God continue to bless you with laughter ~

Isabus

 

[Matt16_18]

marciadietrich:

Just because truth cannot contradict truth doesn’t mean that doctines of the faith cannot contradict current scientific thought.

Well said!

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz

This is from the THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM , given by His Holiness St. Pius X.
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
Would you be willing to swear an oath that affirms the above?

Do you think that any of the evolutionists that you favor would swear such an oath?

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt16 quoting Pius X << Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. >>

Of course we’re talking two different kinds of evolution. One is what Pius X condemns, the evolution of “dogmas.” Dogmas don’t change. For example, the Trinity as defined in the 4th and 5th century Church Councils remains true today. There is a development of doctrine (e.g. Cardinal Newman) but not an essential “change” or evolution of dogma.

Pius X wasn’t talking about descent with modification of course (biological evolution) nor did he reject that. Condemned proposition #57 which I quoted seems more relevant since Pius X clearly says the Church does not reject modern science (for him modern was 1907, of course its 2004 now).

Someday I’ll check out those Genesis commentaries, and what the Church allows with regard to evolution and Adam/Eve. The John Haught book I mentioned earlier is a good start. I’m really looking for a single book that lays out all that the Church believes on the subject, along with at least a summary of all we know from the scientific data, and how to reconcile both.

Phil P

 

[space_ghost]

seems to evolve (the churches teaching that is) over time…

 

[Joan1969]

Dear Phil,

I really am sorry to see that our exchange doesn’t seem to have progressed, because I think I made an important point that was not well understood.

When I asked “how” God might create what I was asking was not what He might have done in particular, but just how He might conceivably fit into Darwinism, a life-history model that does not allow for intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind, under any circumstances. All I can say is I still have the same question. I guess we must let it go at that.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

I’m really looking for a single book that lays out all that the Church believes on the subject …

That would be the Bible.

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

This is from the THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM , given by His Holiness St. Pius X.

“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
Would you be willing to swear an oath that affirms the above?

Do you think that any of the evolutionists that you favor would swear such an oath?

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Alec

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]**
847** This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[338]

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

 

[PhilVaz]

Joan << but just how He might conceivably fit into Darwinism, a life-history model that does not allow for intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind, under any circumstances. >>

I’ll answer this, thought I already did. God fits into “Darwinism” by faith. “Darwinism” is not atheism, but is “descent with modification by natural selection as the major mechanism.” Darwinism = evolution. I accept by faith that God used evolution, but I do not think God can be “detected” by biology. Nor do most biologists (theist, Catholic or otherwise). That is the classic theistic evolutionist position.

More sophisticated theistic evolutionist positions are those of Kenneth Miller and Denis Lamoureux (“evolutionary creationism”).

Intelligent design says God created certain things and we can detect those certain things by scientific priniciples from the “design” we see. Theist evolutionist scientists (what you call “Darwinists”) would accept God can and could intervene in nature, but that science can’t detect that. That’s the difference as I see it.

If you accept creationism or Intelligent Design, where do you think God intervened? (Besides the creation of the soul of man, which would not be a problem). Would you limit it to the first cell or the “irreducibly complex” systems as Behe does, or something larger like the walking-whale Ambulocetus, or maybe all the “kinds” of Genesis like young-earthers do?

And did God directly and specially create the recently discovered 3 foot tall Homo Hobbitus of Indonesia or was that evolution? I say it was evolution.

Phil P

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

Dogmas don’t change. For example, the Trinity as defined in the 4th and 5th century Church Councils remains true today. There is a development of doctrine (e.g. Cardinal Newman) but not an essential “change” or evolution of dogma.

Is it possible for the Church to evolve her doctrine to the point that she will begin to teach that all of mankind are NOT direct descendents of Adam and Eve?

Someday I’ll check out those Genesis commentaries, and what the Church allows with regard to evolution and Adam/Eve.

Would you please list the doctrines of the Church that you think need to be verified that are germane to a discussion about evolution? That is, after all, the topic of this thread.

 

[hecd2]

PhilVaz:

And did God directly and specially create the recently discovered 3 foot tall Homo Hobbitus of Indonesia or was that evolution? I say it was evolution.

Phil P

Phil, No-one but you and I seem to care about Homo floriensis. This is a wonderful discovery and very exciting. Have you read the two Nature papers - they are both readable and both fascinating. Wouldn’t it be something if we found that they weren’t extinct? What moral stance would we take to another species of extant Homo? I’m sad to say that what it should be is very different from what it would be.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Philthy]

marciadietrich:

Hello Philthy

Adam and Eve as first and only parents of all humanity directly contradicts evolution. Evolution says we came from at least an original population and not two individuals as a bottleneck - that is regardless of if those two individuals evolved. It is genetically impossible that we descend from a single couple, impossible that the population was ever down to just one male and one female.

According to evolution living matter did spontaneously evolve from non-living matter. The go-around there is to say that God made the living matter come from nothing and then evolve. On the other hand, we must believe God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) … but science is saying that may not be true as well.

Marcia

Thanks Marcia for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I don’t think you fully understand what I stated in my original post so I’ll try and re-explain. What if there was an established population of pre-human life forms with mixed genetic make up through multiple generations. Then God steps in and gives a male a human soul and a female is also given a human soul. And all humans descend from these two. Is that irreconcilable with the scientific evidence? And BTW, I saw a PBS documentary on the origin of human life which followed specific charateristics of human blood DNA analysis which did implicate that all current human populations could be traced back to Africa - is there something indicating that no, we came from a variety of continents?

As for the second contention that life arose spontaneously from non-life: sounds to me like science has hit a brick wall. The word spontaneous doesn’t truly belong in the realm of science. When a scientist says something is spontaneous, that means that science is unable to access the knowledge that is required for understanding it. If the process that produced life is inaccessible to science, how will science describe the process? By using a word like “spontaneous” - what does it even mean when you think about it? I’m equally comfortable saying God did it.

Phil

 

[amarischuk]

I would like to intergect for a moment.

Marcia and Phil (and others) you have raised a number of important points concerning evolution and especially the implications of evolution for such doctrines as original sin, papal infallibility and the inerrancy of scripture.

I speak here as a former seminarian with a deep love of the Church and as a person who has been able to improve many people’s perception of the Church. I am no scientist (my educational background is in Medieval History and Philosophy) but my uncle was professor of Bio-chemistry at the University of Ottawa and one of my best friends is professor in the the neurology department at the University of British Columbia.

We have frequently discussed these issues (my uncle being Catholic and my friend presently entering the Jesuits) and there is a simple solution.

The solution is not the fundamentalist style abandonment of science which we find the characteristics of the advent of American fundamentalism, neo-Jansenism and ultramontainism.

The simple solution is the radical reduction in the understanding of infallibility whithin the Church in general. This posses no intellectual problems and is furthermore able to compensate for many other problems such as Noah’s arc, the Ban in the OT and Abraham’s willingness to commit an objective evil in blind obedience to God, a position contrary to Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory (many months ago I had a lengthy discussion on this point).

By radically reducing the scope of infallibility, a Catholic who cannot abandon the dictates of his scientific knowledge, can still remain intellectually coherent and a Catholic, though perhaps many more conservative Catholics will reply that you are ‘chosing’ what you believe.

Let there be no doubt that we are not choosing. The will, in Thomistic philosophy, is barely entering the equation. A man with knowledge (in the Aristotelian sense) cannot choose to ignore that knowledge and accept some unsupported and (by the definition of faith) unprovable hypothesis.

I believe that there are two possible courses for the church. One is to sink into oblivion, isolating itself from the scientific, historical, philosophical and anthropological community thus becoming in essence merely a denomination in the American-fundamentalist vein. The other option is the gradual vindication and reconciliation of the Church with science.

This is a call to arms for all the liberal Catholics out there to take the brave leap out of the infancy of faith into the painstaking realm of knowledge.

Read Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dom David Knowles, R.W. Southern, Frederick Copleston, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Lord Acton etc.

Look into Abelards Sic et Non and don’t settle for mediocrity.

Adam

 

[Matt16_18]

amarischuk:

… The simple solution is the radical reduction in the understanding of infallibility whithin the Church in general. … This is a call to arms for all the liberal Catholics out there to take the brave leap out of the infancy of faith into the painstaking realm of knowledge.

We already have an example of this option - the Episcopalian shipwreck.

The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

 

[ISABUS]

amarischuk:

I would like to intergect for a moment.

Marcia and Phil (and others) you have raised a number of important points concerning evolution and especially the implications of evolution for such doctrines as original sin, papal infallibility and the inerrancy of scripture.

I speak here as a former seminarian with a deep love of the Church and as a person who has been able to improve many people’s perception of the Church. I am no scientist (my educational background is in Medieval History and Philosophy) but my uncle was professor of Bio-chemistry at the University of Ottawa and one of my best friends is professor in the the neurology department at the University of British Columbia.

We have frequently discussed these issues (my uncle being Catholic and my friend presently entering the Jesuits) and there is a simple solution.

The solution is not the fundamentalist style abandonment of science which we find the characteristics of the advent of American fundamentalism, neo-Jansenism and ultramontainism.

The simple solution is the radical reduction in the understanding of infallibility whithin the Church in general. This posses no intellectual problems and is furthermore able to compensate for many other problems such as Noah’s arc, the Ban in the OT and Abraham’s willingness to commit an objective evil in blind obedience to God, a position contrary to Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory (many months ago I had a lengthy discussion on this point).

By radically reducing the scope of infallibility, a Catholic who cannot abandon the dictates of his scientific knowledge, can still remain intellectually coherent and a Catholic, though perhaps many more conservative Catholics will reply that you are ‘chosing’ what you believe.

Let there be no doubt that we are not choosing. The will, in Thomistic philosophy, is barely entering the equation. A man with knowledge (in the Aristotelian sense) cannot choose to ignore that knowledge and accept some unsupported and (by the definition of faith) unprovable hypothesis.

I believe that there are two possible courses for the church. One is to sink into oblivion, isolating itself from the scientific, historical, philosophical and anthropological community thus becoming in essence merely a denomination in the American-fundamentalist vein. The other option is the gradual vindication and reconciliation of the Church with science.

This is a call to arms for all the liberal Catholics out there to take the brave leap out of the infancy of faith into the painstaking realm of knowledge.

Read Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dom David Knowles, R.W. Southern, Frederick Copleston, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Lord Acton etc.

Look into Abelards Sic et Non and don’t settle for mediocrity.

Adam

Hello Adam,

Welcome! I love Father Teilhard! I’ve spent the last two years doing extensive research on him and have read most of his books. He was a Jesuit paleontologist who was present at the discovery of Peking Man. Teilhard and Father Lubac were great friends. They had a significant impact on Vatican II.

Thanks for joining in this discussion ~

Isabus

 

[marciadietrich]

Philthy:

And BTW, I saw a PBS documentary on the origin of human life which followed specific charateristics of human blood DNA analysis which did implicate that all current human populations could be traced back to Africa - is there something indicating that no, we came from a variety of continents?

Hi Phil,

The problem is that at no time were there just two people from which all people today descend. The mitochondrial “Eve” and Y-chromosome “Adam” are sort of mathmatical backtracking based on looking at certain features in cells/chromosomes of people today and backtracking. But these were not Adam and Eve of the Bible. The M-Eve and Y-Adam did not live at the same time, they lived tens of thousands of years apart (I think it might be 80,000 years apart, would have to check).

Also, they would both been part of a greater population and their ancestor would also be ancestors to us all. We all also descend from M-Eve’s mom and grandmother and Y-Adam’s dad and grandfather, etc. so as populations shift the M-Eve and Y-Adam could be different people, in the past it might have been Y-Adam’s grandfather.

Alec has said no evidence for a bottleneck of 2 people, that it may have been thousands of people and never down to 2 people . Evolution and genetics says we do NOT descend from a single couple but from a population and evolution occurs in populations over time. Evolution says no way we descend from one couple, not unless (and maybe not even then) if we go back before what would be modern type hominids. Creatures we clearly would not deem as being people either by appearance or any other standard.

As for the second contention that life arose spontaneously from non-life: sounds to me like science has hit a brick wall. The word spontaneous doesn’t truly belong in the realm of science.
Your underline was stated better, I said from life spontaneously arose from “nothing” according to science when I meant from non-life. Thanks for stating that correctly for me.

There have been experiments done which attempt to recreate the primordial atmosphere, throw in some electric shock and you get chemicals to put out some amino acids which are the building blocks of life. But no real way to explain even if that is true how you get from there to life, because amino acids are simply the sub parts of proteins. So I drink them in my protein shake in the morning and I don’t expect it would be easy to make that organize into a living being.

There are other points I’ve mentioned in this and other threads. There definately are points of conflict.

Marcia