What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[Steve_Andersen]

DarrenNZ:

Evolution is the biggest scandal in the Catholic Church today is allowing the Godless theory of evolution to be taught in our Catholic schools as if it is a fact! …
Darren NZ

Evolution is a fact.
It is probably one of the best demonstrated scientific theories around and is the basis for all modern biology

It is in no way in conflict with Christianity
Religion tells us THAT God created the universe
Science merely tells us HOW he did it
the former seems far more important in the grand scheme of things

The particulars of cosmology, geology, and biology are unimportant to the creation story and frankly would have been lost on the Bronze Age minds that originally recited the Genesis stories

The Church learned its lesson about pronouncing opinions on matters of science after that Galileo incident

AFAIK we have a duty to know the world and to use the minds that God gave us

 

[PhilVaz]

SteveAnderson << AFAIK we have a duty to know the world and to use the minds that God gave us >>

But young-earth creationism or “special creationism” or better “scientific creationism” makes it so easy to reconcile “science” with the Genesis account, the creation of Adam/Eve from dirt, the Fall, etc. We don’t want to go through the drudgery of actually reading TalkOrigins and learning that evolution is indeed a fact. Then we got problems…

I wish folks like Northwind and DarrenNZ would hang around a bit. It’s always fun watching such folks get beat up by the scientific evidence. It’s not pretty. I smell a post or two or 10 million from HECD2 coming…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

And I’ll throw in this link…

I transcribed the whole 1997 Firing Line debate between leading evolutionists and creationists (or Intelligent Design advocates).

CreationEvolutionDebate.com

Also includes Real Audio if you’ve never seen or heard this on PBS. Too good of a debate not to have online. I asked permission from the folks who hold the copyright to this.

Phil P

 

[Chris_W]

I keep seeing people post replies on these threads telling Christians there is nothing to worry about with evolution because really there is no conflict between the two. People keep quoting the Pope, who merely said scientific study is a good thing and to look into these matters is a worthwhile endeavor, as if the Pope approves of Evolution.

But no one ever actually explains how Christianity and Evolution are compatible. Herein lies the problem: If the two cannot be explained as compatible, as has yet to happen, then evolution cannot be true, because Christianity is true and, as others have stated, truth cannot contradict truth.

It frustrates me that so many people argue that creationists like myself are being ignorant of “the facts”, when this is not the case at all. It is completely logical for me to say that I believe first and foremost in Chrisianity. And anything that contradicts that truth must therefore be false. It is therefore quite logical to conclude that if evolution and Christianity are not compatible, then evolution is false.

How can the “thiestic evolutionist” argue with that logic? If you want to convince me (and others who feel the same way I do) then take the time, and do the research required to enable yourself to explain the claimed non-contradiction. Until then, you can keep pounding your heads against the wall in frustration because logic prevents me (and others) from accepting your theory…regardless of the “evidence” you provide supporting your fanciful notion of evolution.

 

[Chris_W]

I’ll narrow down my challenge to those who wish to convince Christians of the “fact” of evolution. Here’s where I see the contradiction between Christianity and Evolution:

We must believe in Adam and Eve as real persons, the parents of all mankind, in whom God created a soul. Now, evolution would have us believe that man descended from other life forms. (perhaps from the lineage of an ape at some point in history). The problem with this idea is this: If man descended from an ape like creature, is there any scientific evidence to indicate that at some point in time there existed exactly two creatures, one male and one female who were distinct from other creatures, who would have eventually became human beings?

If there is any evidence in the fossil record of man decending from some other creature wouldn’t the very existence of that fossil record suggest that there were many more of the same type of creature than just two? For evolutionists often fall back on the idea that the fossil record is very scarce (usually when explaining the lack of evidence) because so very little of any species actually became fossilized. It seems to me that if so very little actually became fossilized, then how could we have any fossil record of the first humans, if it started with two beings, as is required by Christian faith? The probability of any fossil record indicating the existence of two creatures distinct from all other species, would be astronomical.

Conversly, if there* is* any fossil record indicating the decent of the human species, by the mere fact that such a record exists, it would indicate there would have to have been a great many creatures in that species, since fossilization is so rare. This begs the question, what happened to the rest of the species, if Christianity teaches all mankind decnded from two people (Adam and Eve)? Even if theories could be devised to explain this problem, the record should indicate that all mankind decended from an initial pair. Does it? What I’ve read on evolutionist sites, incuding talkorigins.com, seems to say that idea is not supported by the “evidence”.

So I still arrive at the place I started. Evolution and Christianity do not seem to be compatible. Therefore, since Christianity is true, Evolution must therefore be false.

 

[Chris_W]

Furthermore, (guessing that at some point in this thread evolutionists will start posting “evidence” of transitional life forms) why should I believe any fossil record would be evidence of a transitional life form as opposed to merely evidence of the existence of yet another species?

The evidence posted in other threads always seems to explain the evidence of transitional forms by way of explaining how two fossils are “directly comparable”. They describe how the skeleton of a certain species is directly comparable to the skeletin of another later fossil, thereby supposedly indicating that one decended from the other. Then the question is asked of the creationist, “How can you dispute this evidence?” To which I would reply, “cool, you’ve found two species that share similarities, or else you found evidence of an abnormal member of the same species”.

My sister has Spinal Bifida (not sure I spelled that correctly). She has seven vertebrae in her spine that are either altogether missing, or are only partially formed. Her spinal cord didn’t grow as she grew either, so it constantly pulled on her brain stem, affecting her posture. Miraculously (the doctors still don’t know why) she walks normally and has borne 5 children, both of which the doctors said was medically impossible.

I wonder what evolutionists would assert about my sister, if she had been fossilized way back when? I am confident they’d be pointing to her as evidence of a transitional life form. They’d say “Look, she walked erect like a human, yet her spine was not evolved like the later human species…see all these missing vertebrae…ah ha, all you creationists…here is proof that humans evolved!”

Rubbish I say! Fanciful theories that are entertaining at best.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I’ll narrow down my challenge to those who wish to convince Christians of the “fact” of evolution.

Hello, Chris. Let me start by saying that I have no desire to convince you of the fact of evolution. Your belief regarding how God made us is not an essential to your salvation, so it is not spiritually important. However, don’t make the mistake of concluding that I am not a Christian just because I accept the evidence of an old earth (I’m a geologist) and also agree that evolution is a fact.

Here’s where I see the contradiction between Christianity and Evolution:

We must believe in Adam and Eve as real persons, the parents of all mankind, in whom God created a soul. Now, evolution would have us believe that man descended from other life forms. (perhaps from the lineage of an ape at some point in history). The problem with this idea is this: If man descended from an ape like creature, is there any scientific evidence to indicate that at some point in time there existed exactly two creatures, one male and one female who were distinct from other creatures, who would have eventually became human beings?

God created everything. As you noted, the thing that makes us human is our souls. The physical shape of our bodies is not important. How God created that physical body is not important. What is important is the soul, which is what made Adam and Eve the parents of all mankind.

If there is any evidence in the fossil record of man decending from some other creature wouldn’t the very existence of that fossil record suggest that there were many more of the same type of creature than just two? For evolutionists often fall back on the idea that the fossil record is very scarce (usually when explaining the lack of evidence) because so very little of any species actually became fossilized. It seems to me that if so very little actually became fossilized, then how could we have any fossil record of the first humans, if it started with two beings, as is required by Christian faith? The probability of any fossil record indicating the existence of two creatures distinct from all other species, would be astronomical.

As I noted above, we are human because of our souls, not because of our bodies. Fossilization is a very dicey proposition, especially if the animal to be fossilized doesn’t live in an environment conducive of fossilization. That being said, I know of no environment that is conducive of soul fossilization!

Conversly, if there* is* any fossil record indicating the decent of the human species, by the mere fact that such a record exists, it would indicate there would have to have been a great many creatures in that species, since fossilization is so rare. This begs the question, what happened to the rest of the species, if Christianity teaches all mankind decnded from two people (Adam and Eve)?

Who did Cain marry?

I don’t know the answer to that question or your question regarding the fate of the rest of the species. Perhaps God gave souls to each of them after the fall. I don’t know. That doesn’t falsify evolution.

Even if theories could be devised to explain this problem, the record should indicate that all mankind decended from an initial pair. Does it? What I’ve read on evolutionist sites, incuding talkorigins.com, seems to say that idea is not supported by the “evidence”.

Well, it would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required. I don’t know that that is the case.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Furthermore, (guessing that at some point in this thread evolutionists will start posting “evidence” of transitional life forms) why should I believe any fossil record would be evidence of a transitional life form as opposed to merely evidence of the existence of yet another species?

Could you then define transitional?

The evidence posted in other threads always seems to explain the evidence of transitional forms by way of explaining how two fossils are “directly comparable”. They describe how the skeleton of a certain species is directly comparable to the skeletin of another later fossil, thereby supposedly indicating that one decended from the other. Then the question is asked of the creationist, “How can you dispute this evidence?” To which I would reply, “cool, you’ve found two species that share similarities, or else you found evidence of an abnormal member of the same species”.

You need to do a little research into how different species are determined.

My sister has Spinal Bifida (not sure I spelled that correctly). She has seven vertebrae in her spine that are either altogether missing, or are only partially formed. Her spinal cord didn’t grow as she grew either, so it constantly pulled on her brain stem, affecting her posture. Miraculously (the doctors still don’t know why) she walks normally and has borne 5 children, both of which the doctors said was medically impossible.

I wonder what evolutionists would assert about my sister, if she had been fossilized way back when? I am confident they’d be pointing to her as evidence of a transitional life form. They’d say “Look, she walked erect like a human, yet her spine was not evolved like the later human species…see all these missing vertebrae…ah ha, all you creationists…here is proof that humans evolved!”

Nope. I again recommend that you do some research into how species are identified.

Rubbish I say! Fanciful theories that are entertaining at best.

So much for your claim to have looked at the evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[Matt16_18]

Chris W:

I keep seeing people post replies on these threads telling Christians there is nothing to worry about with evolution because really there is no conflict between the two. People keep quoting the Pope, who merely said scientific study is a good thing and to look into these matters is a worthwhile endeavor, as if the Pope approves of Evolution.

But no one ever actually explains how Christianity and Evolution are compatible. Herein lies the problem: If the two cannot be explained as compatible, as has yet to happen, then evolution cannot be true, because Christianity is true and, as others have stated, truth cannot contradict truth.

You are making a good point. For PhilVaz and Steve Andersen to be faithful Catholics, they must show how they can reconcile their belief in evolution with Catholic doctrine. Neither have shown that they can do that. But this works both ways. One cannot simply deny the scientific evidence that supports evolution either. If one asserts that the earth is literally only 6000 years old, and that God created the earth with fossils in the ground, then one is asserting something about God, namely that God is a trickster that would confuse humans by planting fake evidence for evolution, and that God is hostile to human reason. IMO, that is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.1870 VATICAN COUNCIL
 Faith and Reason (e.g. the findings of true science) cannot be in real opposition: Truth is One.

Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?
by Anthony Nevard

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Matt16_18:

You are making a good point. For PhilVaz and Steve Andersen to be faithful Catholics, they must show how they can reconcile their belief in evolution with Catholic doctrine.

Must I?
Matt16-18:

Neither have shown that they can do that.

I really don’t see a contradiction between the two

Genesis like most of the Bible has allegorical features to it.

Jesus told parables about a man who had a vineyard or two sons or whatever
There is no reason to believe that there were literally such men nor does that make the parables any less “True”

It is Truth with a Capital “T”
Rather than the more mundane, prosaic truths of science

God created the universe and it is humans own innate weakness and choices that lead us to suffer.

That is one of the main points of the Creation story
Trying to figure out dates and times is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Matt16-18:

But this works both ways. One cannot simply deny the scientific evidence that supports evolution either. If one asserts that the earth is literally only 6000 years old, and that God created the earth with fossils in the ground, then one is asserting something about God, namely that God is a trickster that would confuse humans by planting fake evidence for evolution, and that God is hostile to human reason. IMO, that is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.1870 VATICAN COUNCIL
• Faith and Reason (e.g. the findings of true science) cannot be in real opposition: Truth is One.

Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?
by Anthony Nevard

I thought that the papacy deal with this fairly clearly over the past 150 years

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

Well, it would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required. I don’t know that that is the case.

What does this mean? “it would…if physical descent is what is required”.

Does the evidence supporting evolution change based on the desires of the scientist? Hmmmm. That’s kinda been my impression too!

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

What does this mean? “it would…if physical descent is what is required”.

As you and I both noted previously, we are human because of our souls, not because of our human bodies.

Does the evidence supporting evolution change based on the desires of the scientist? Hmmmm. That’s kinda been my impression too!

I’m not sure where you got this from my post, but the evidence supporting evolution has not changed regardless of your impressions.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

Steve Andersen:

Must I [reconcile evolution with catholic belief]?

Nope. Just realize that there are many people, like me, who cannot accept evolutionary claims of truth because they seem to contradict the truths of Catholicism. I need my beliefs to fit together in a way that is understandable.

Evolution doesn’t fit into what else I know, and it appears anti-God to me. I know, I know, evolutionists always say evolution doesn’t seek to disprove God, but it does. Evolutionary Biologists claim evolution is only concerned with living organisms. Meanwhile scientist pursue the theory of abiogenesis (which “theistic evolutionists” run from saying it’s not the same thing) but which isthe same dang thing and does in fact seek to explain how life occurred by natural means (i.e. without a Creator).

Perhaps if evolutionists could explain a rational way how to reconcile evolution and Christianity, it would end many debates. That is to say, I could give credence to the concept of evolution, if I didn’t believe it underminds Christianity.

But instead, evolutionists keep telling Christians there’s no conflict (although they personally can’t explain it) and then get all frustrated at having to argue about it “4 billion times” (I think that’s the number PhilVaz gave) in these forums.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

I’m not sure where you got this from my post, but the evidence supporting evolution has not changed regardless of your impressions.

Tim

I asked if the evidence supported mankinds common descent from an itial pair of parents. You answered saying, “it would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required.”

I then asked you what you mean by that statement. It sounds like you are saying the evidence would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required. Oh wait, I just quoted you again. Okay, worded differently, it sounds like you’re saying, if physcial descent is what is required, then the evidence would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair.

Either way it sounds like the evidence is open to subjective interpretation, which is the very position I maintain.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Nope. Just realize that there are many people, like me, who cannot accept evolutionary claims of truth because they seem to contradict the truths of Catholicism. I need my beliefs to fit together in a way that is understandable.

I, for one, don’t have a problem with you believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Evolution doesn’t fit into what else I know, and it appears anti-God to me. I know, I know, evolutionists always say evolution doesn’t seek to disprove God, but it does.

Evolution is science, and science is not about determining if God exists or not. Now, it is certainly true that many, probably most, scientists don’t believe in God. That, however, does not mean that science seeks to disprove God.

Evolutionary Biologists claim evolution is only concerned with living organisms.

I don’t think that evolutionary biologists would necessarily agree with that. Evolutionary biologists are concerned with the way life has evolved through time.

Meanwhile scientist pursue the theory of abiogenesis (which “theistic evolutionists” run from saying it’s not the same thing) but which isthe same dang thing and does in fact seek to explain how life occurred by natural means (i.e. without a Creator).

Nope, it is not the same thing. Just as the Big Bang or a 4.6 billion year old earth are not the same as evolution. Abiogenesis is, without a question in my mind, athiestic, but is a separate subject than evolution. Is abiogenesis and evolution ever combined? Sure, but they are still separate things.

Perhaps if evolutionists could explain a rational way how to reconcile evolution and Christianity, it would end many debates. That is to say, I could give credence to the concept of evolution, if I didn’t believe it underminds Christianity.

But instead, evolutionists keep telling Christians there’s no conflict (although they personally can’t explain it) and then get all frustrated at having to argue about it “4 billion times” (I think that’s the number PhilVaz gave) in these forums.

You use the term “evolutionist” in the same context as you use Christian, as if it were a faith. I am a Christian. I have looked at the evidence and I agree that evolution is a fact. I am not an “evolutionist” in the same sense as I am a Christian. Evolution is science. Faith is, well, faith.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

As you and I both noted previously, we are human because of our souls, not because of our human bodies.

Actually, I don’t recall saying that (I think what makes us human is both the body and the soul), but I’ll go with your point and ask a question (this is an honest question here, as I don’t know what the evolutionists answer would be):

How does evolution account for man? What I mean is, could you describe for me in simple terms (I’m a simple guy) how man came about according to the theory of evolution? To be more specific, I think I understand (though I don’t personally believe) the idea that a life form would have become more and more advanced throughout time as it needed to in order to survive. At some point man and apes would have split from each other for various reasons if I understand correctly. In any case the idea is that man and apes share a common ancestor, so a split would have to have occurred at some point in history. So from that point how would you describe the continued progression of man? Does the evidence suggest there were many beings at the stages prior to homosapien, or what? It seems like there would have to have been at least two (male and female) in order to reproduce.

But it seems to me that there are two chioces here.

1)Either man split off from apes somewhere back when before they resembled man, and from that time he evolved over a very long period of time into the very distinctly different being of today. The problem I see with this possibility is that if it occurred over a long period of time, then there would be far more than two persons at the time they completed the evolution into what we call man (not that the evolution has ended mind you…I don’t want to upset anyone here).

or

1. Man was essentially human at the time of the split and there were exactly two persons in that new species, Adam and Eve, at which time God gave them souls.

Actually, I guess there is one more possibility. One could argue that God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve before they were beings we could call human, but this seems absurd to me.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

Evolution is science, and science is not about determining if God exists or not. Now, it is certainly true that many, probably most, scientists don’t believe in God. That, however, does not mean that science seeks to disprove God.

I disagree completely. Many scientists cannot accept that there is no answer other than creation. World Book Encyclopedia says that while Pasteur’s Law (Law of Biogenesis) “remains officially unchallenged by modern scientists…A revised theory of spontaneous generation now has great favor…our earth, as it was formed, was certainly lifeless – yet life appeared. Consequently, the present theory is that life did appear from non-living matter, over a period of perhaps a billion years.” (World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Vol 25, Pg. 528).

Don’t tell me modern scientists aren’t concerned with the phylosophical consequences of their endeavors.

Pasteur knew this would happen, and so he cautioned would be scientists, when he said; “The question is purely one of fact. I approached it without preconceived ideas, as ready to admit, should experience compel me, that spontaneous generation existed, as I am now persuaded that those who believe in it have blindfolded themselves…science should never seek to foresee the philosophical consequences of its investigations…so much the worse for those whose doctrines are at odds with the truth of the facts of nature” (Louis Pasteur, Hilaire Cunny, Page 89).

Orogeny:

Nope, it is not the same thing. Just as the Big Bang or a 4.6 billion year old earth are not the same as evolution. Abiogenesis is, without a question in my mind, athiestic, but is a separate subject than evolution. Is abiogenesis and evolution ever combined? Sure, but they are still separate things.

The big difference between Big Bang, etc. and abiogenesis, is that they do not describe a process of unguided evolution as does abiogenesis. The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is made primarily if not exclusively by theistic evolutionists, in my experience, who want to believe evolution and theism are compatible.

Orogeny:

You use the term “evolutionist” in the same context as you use Christian, as if it were a faith. I am a Christian. I have looked at the evidence and I agree that evolution is a fact. I am not an “evolutionist” in the same sense as I am a Christian. Evolution is science. Faith is, well, faith.

Whatever. With science you have evaluated the evidence and you have reached the conclusion evolution is true. That is exactly the same process people go through with religious belief. They evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion as to what is true and what is not. Evolution is not self evident. It requires a person to evaluate evidences and make a decision based on those evidences. Evolution is every bit as much faith as any other faith…though you can call it what you want.

I do find it interesting you call evolution fact and you call your Christian faith, faith. It gives the impression you are more convinced of evolution…man’s declaration of truth elevated above God’s declaration of truth.

 

[Matt16_18]

Steve Andersen:

I really don’t see a contradiction between the two. Genesis like most of the Bible has allegorical features to it.

I agree that Genesis has allegorical features to it. But Genesis is also teaching history, albeit a history that is told using “figurative language”. I have seen many Catholics that believe in evolution allegorize Genesis to the point that they end up denying Catholic doctrine. In the end, they have embraced the heresy of Modernism in an their attempt to reconcile their evolutionary beliefs with Catholicism.

You say that you “don’t see a contradiction” between your allegorical interpretation of Genesis, and your belief in evolution. But I think that Chris W is making a valid point, i.e. many Catholics make this claim, but few actually reconcile their belief in evolution without denying at least some points of Catholic doctrine.

I am not saying that evolution and Catholic doctrine cannot be reconciled, I would just like to see how you have managed to do that.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I asked if the evidence supported mankinds common descent from an itial pair of parents. You answered saying, “it would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required.”

I then asked you what you mean by that statement. It sounds like you are saying the evidence would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair if physical descent is what is required. Oh wait, I just quoted you again. Okay, worded differently, it sounds like you’re saying, if physcial descent is what is required, then the evidence would indicate that mankind physically descended from an initial pair.

Either way it sounds like the evidence is open to subjective interpretation, which is the very position I maintain.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer with my post. You originally stated that the scientific evidence should point to a single couple (Adam and Eve) as the source of all humans. To be specific, you are correct, the genetic evidence does not indicate that one set of parents are ancestral to all humans.

If you assume that Adam and Eve, as the first humans, were our only physical ancestors, the genetic evidence should show that. I think that you and I agree that what makes us human is our souls, not our bodies. If that is the case, perhaps there were more than one set of ancestors in a physical sense, but only one set from a spiritual sense.

I do not know the answer. I firmly believe, as the Church teaches, that we, along with everything else, were created by God. The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific story, rather it is a spiritual story, the story of our beginning.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

You are making a good point. For PhilVaz and Steve Andersen to be faithful Catholics, they must show how they can reconcile their belief in evolution with Catholic doctrine. Neither have shown that they can do that. But this works both ways. One cannot simply deny the scientific evidence that supports evolution either. If one asserts that the earth is literally only 6000 years old, and that God created the earth with fossils in the ground, then one is asserting something about God, namely that God is a trickster that would confuse humans by planting fake evidence for evolution, and that God is hostile to human reason. IMO, that is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

I agree it works both ways. I do not claim the earth is 6000 years old, although I do tend to lean toward a young earth position. But I am open about it. I also do not dispute many of the evidences presented by evolutionists as scientific evidence though I do reject some of it. What I dispute primarily is the claim that the evidence is unquestionable and that there is only one way to interpret the evidence (the way evolutionists interpret it). I look at the conclusions drawn from the evidences. If the conclusion seems to contradict Christian truths then I conclude that either the conslusion was in error, or the evidence is flawed. My process is simple and consistent, I think.