What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[Matt16_18]

marciadietrich:

1. that paradise was figurative terminology for an innocent state of the first human’s viewpoint before they became aware of sin and death and their mortality.

That interpretation seems to me to be nothing more than a radical altering of Catholic doctrine to support a belief in evolution, the kind of interpretation that many Catholics posting to this thread are rightly objecting to.

I agree the theology lines up best with no death at all pre-fall, that the Catechism does state God is not the author of death but rather Satan is the one who brought sin and death to the world … but it is certainly contrary to what scientists would say happened to say there was no sin and death until humans were on the scene.

Scientists can only study the fallen world. I don’t see any reason to think that this fallen world is the ONLY physical universe that can exist. Cosmologists increasingly are theorizing about parallel universes:Parallel Universes

Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.

(Click on multiverse.pdf to read Max Tegmark’s paper. Many thanks to hecd2 for first directing me to this article).

Is there another copy of you reading this article, deciding to put it aside without finishing this sentence while you are reading on? A person living on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets. The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect – until now, that is, when your decision to read on signals that your two lives are diverging.

You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction too. Yet it looks like we will just have to live with it, since the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that this person actually exists in a Galaxy about ~ meters from here. This does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations. Your alter ego is simply a prediction of the so-called concordance model of cosmology, which agrees with all current observational evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences. In contrast, alternatives such as a fractal universe, a closed universe and a multiply connected universe have been seriously challenged by observations.​

I see that this thread has “evolved” into the typical CAF thread about evolution. On the one side, are Catholics that accept Catholic doctrine about the Fall, but are defending that belief by attacking the science behind evolution. On the other side, there are Catholics that are defending the science behind evolution, but are not addressing the theological problems that exist in most attempts to reconcile evolution with Catholic doctrine.

I see no need to abandon reason to believe in Catholicism, so I am loathe to embrace the bad science of "creation science”. I think that we need is a fresh way to look at this problem. I think that a generation that has been brought up watching films like the Matrix, and studying parallel universes in their physics classes, will not find the idea that Paradise could still exist in a parallel universe to be a strange concept.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Could scientists be totally off base? Maybe. After a hundred-plus years of evidence and lots of really smart people, it’s not too likely that they’re totally off base, but probably inaccurate. The history of the theory shows that Darwin’s initial suppositions were, to 0th order, right. The level of our precision just gets better and better as the years pass and technology grows. Just like any other science, there will be future discoveries that will warrant revision, but probably not a total overturn, of the theory.

A fair response. Thank you.

I am still of the mindset that there is a real conflict between evolution and Catholicism, primarily with respect to the idea of common descent. I believe Adam and eve were the only two humans who existed at a period in time, and that all of mankind are descendents of those two persons. I think this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Theory of Evolution asserts that we descended from lower life forms (not sure if they use that terminology but I think you know what I mean). I consider myself a pretty logical person, but I cannot comprehend how the two are compatible.

Perhaps the theory will be revised in a way that makes sense to me, but until then I have to conclude the theory is false. Not to say there aren’t parts of it that are true, but the theory as a whole is false. Much like the Protestant denomiations teach a faith that is based on truths, but includes untruths, thereby making their faith as a whole, false.

I regard the Theory of Evolution as a house of cards, very carefully placed so that the house indeed stands. I think someday someone will bump the table though, and the house of cards will fall. My fear is that many people will lose their faith in the meantime by accepting the false theory that exists today (realizing that they need to choose between Christianity and Evolution). I would prefer people, perhaps wrongly, reject evolution than to see people wrongly reject Christianity because of it.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

I see that this thread has “evolved” into the typical CAF thread about evolution. On the one side, are Catholics that accept Catholic doctrine about the Fall, but are defending that belief by attacking the science behind evolution. On the other side, there are Catholics that are defending the science behind evolution, but are not addressing the theological problems that exist in most attempts to reconcile evolution with Catholic doctrine.

I see no need to abandon reason to believe in Catholicism, so I am loathe to embrace the bad science of "creation science”. I think that we need is a fresh way to look at this problem. I think that a generation that has been brought up watching films like the Matrix, and studying parallel universes in their physics classes, will not find the idea that Paradise could still exist in a parallel universe to be a strange concept.

I assume I am one of those people you describe defending belief in Catholic doctrine “by attacking the science behind evolution.” I would like to clarify something regarding that statement:

Rejecting the Theory of Evolution as a whole does not require an attack of the science of evolution, and I try to refrain from doing that because I believe it hurts my credibility regardless of whom I am addressing. Instead, what I intend to do (perhaps I have not) is to point out that Catholicism and the Theory of Evolution as it is described today, are not compatible. As a result, I reject evolution.

That is not to say I reject the science behind evolution, necessarily. Rather, I try to point out limitations or short comings in the science, thereby giving a rational reason to reject the theory as a whole, so that I am not accused of being “hostile to reason” as you indicated in an earlier post.

Like you, I do not think we need to abandon reason to accept Catholicism. I do however think one needs to abandon reason to a certain extent (or at least to ignore problems) to accept the Theory of Evolution. I prefer to evaluate man’s scientific conclusions in light of God’s revealed Truth, rather than to evaluate God’s revealed Truth in light of man’s scientific conclusions.

I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[Matt16_18]

Chris W:

Like you, I do not think we need to abandon reason to accept Catholicism. I do however think one needs to abandon reason to a certain extent (or at least to ignore problems) to accept the Theory of Evolution.

I totally disagree with the idea that Catholics need to abandon reason “to a certain extent” so that science behind evolution and Catholic doctrine can be reconciled. I think that Catholic theologians can rise to the challenge that is before without having to abandon reason to any extent.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

I totally disagree with the idea that Catholics need to abandon reason “to a certain extent” so that science behind evolution and Catholic doctrine can be reconciled. I think that Catholic theologians can rise to the challenge that is before without having to abandon reason to any extent.

And you do so with your parallel universe concept. I can respect that. At least you are trying to reconcile the two. Most don’t. Your theory may or may not work, logically and Biblically. With all due respect, I find it rather far fetched, but I am reading your posts and those who reply to you trying to decide that. If there is no logical or Biblical objections as you test your idea on others, then perhaps you will have found a way to reconcile the two. If you do, you will likely start a trend, with evolutionists far and wide quoting you . But it’s too soon to tell, in my opinion, so I am still convinced the two are not compatible, while reserving judgment on your theory.

I do not mean to offend you Matt. You pose an interesting theory.

 

[Paul.T]

Here’s the bottom line Guys (and Gals!)

If Genesis is really just myth then:

1. Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden never existed.
2. This pair never really ate of the forbidden fruit and therefore sinned.
3. If Adam & Eve never sinned, then there is no such thing as original sin, and we are not sinners (actually we are getting better thanks to the ongoing effects of evolution… more intelligent, technologically advanced etc)
4. If we are not sinners then there was absolutely no reason for God to make Jesus die on the cross to save us from an original ‘sin’ that never even really happened in the first place.
5. The Blessed Virgin Mary is not “the second Eve” (if the first one was a myth what does that make the second ??)
   And you have just basically destroyed the very foundations of the Christian Gospel, a fact most evolutionists and atheists understand much better than most Catholics and Christians generally (sadly), hence the constant attacks on the foundation of the Holy Bible, the book of Genesis.

Time to stop compromising with these unbelievers and check out Answers in Genesis website: www.answersingenesis.org/

There you will find sensible, scriptural AND scientific answers to these questions, and by the way Creationists DO NOT believe that God created each species individually, if your going to have a shot a Creationists, why not at least have the basic integrity to check out their side of the story from THEIR publications instead of recycling hoary old ‘straw man’ arguments from their opponents.

 

[carol_marie]

Paul T,



That’s what I’ve been asking all along… why is Mary the 2nd Eve if there was no first Eve? Also, no need for Jesus, the 2nd Adam.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Oh !
I can’t believe that supposedly rational people are still repeating this ……stuff.

This is the 21st century. I thought that only the Proddies had these problems nowadays.

Oh Lord, make me a companionate, charitable, and understanding man….but not just yet

3Nails:

Oregeny,

No, the Theory of Evolution has not been proven. You cannot run an experiment that is verifiable, reproducible, consistent, nor can a control and intervention group be used to prove the ToE. If someone can’t do an experiment over and over that does what a theory says happens, it cannot be proven.

It is one of the most proven theories of science.
Ask anyone who has an antibiotic resistant infection

Numerous studies have been done
IIRC about 25 years ago one of the pop-science magazines had an evolution kit you could order through the mail. It was basically for school science classes in which you could selectively breed certain microbial strains. It was quite ingenious really.

3Nails:

Math was not my favorite subject, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things tend toward lower potential energy and homogenous state. The ToE states that organisms evolve, i.e. get more complex (amoeba to human). Why can’t you see the conflict?

So is THAT what the 2nd law says?

Why can’t you see the conflict of using thermodynamics, which is a theory by the way proven which the same rigor as evolution, to support your claim?

Yes things will tend to a lower energy state…unless Work is done.
And in a closed system things will go to their lowest energy state…but the earth isn’t a closed system and we do work all the time.

How do you think an acorn becomes an oak tree?

PS thermodynamics is NOT Mathematics.

3Nails:

Mutations are not necessarily evolution, i.e. making more fit organisms. Species evolve, cells mutate. There is a difference.

Not quite sure what you mean there
True an environmental change can select for certain existing traits rather than new ones arising through mutations

3Nails:

Other species may parallel, but the underlying theme of the evolutionary theory is “the most fit for survival”. Insects are it. More than a few evolutionists hold humans as the highest life form.

No. Every organism alive today is by definition the most fit for its environmental niche. Every organism at every point in time was most fit for its environment. BUT then the environment changed so the organism had to too or else.

Humans are superior in cognitive ability and of course we have souls
But in a dark wood a bear may be superior

As for insects…I scrape those off my windshield

3Nails:

There seems to be a trend toward an evolutionary model being feasible, but there is no solid experimental proof. Inferences made from observations is not solid experimental proof.

Nonsense.
A theory is accepted when it is the best fit to observable data.

3Nails:

Your equating the ToE with the Holy Spirit just highlights my point, the ToE is a belief. You are in agreement with, it appears. I have personal witness and “proof” of the Holy Spirit working in my life. Regarding evolution, I’m an agnostic.

Maybe one day you will see the light

as for the HS being the TOE why that is just plain silly.

 

[clmowry]

Steve Andersen:

It is one of the most proven theories of science.

Hmmm…maybe you could point me to that fossil of the Cat-Dog. or the Fish-Bird. I’d think there would have been millions of such creatures.

Chuck

 

[Orogeny]

clmowry:

Hmmm…maybe you could point me to that fossil of the Cat-Dog. or the Fish-Bird. I’d think there would have been millions of such creatures.

Chuck

LOL! Don’t know much about evolution, do you?

Peace

Tim

 

[WBB]

carol marie:

I am a Christian fundamentalist who is currently enrolled in RCIA. On Sunday I asked the Priest if Catholics believe the Genesis account is true - that God created Adam & Eve and that they sinned and were cast out of the garden. He said no. He went on to say that the Church doesn’t take a stand either way really … it’s OK to believe in evolution, that we crawled out of the swamp & up onto the shore, so long as you believe that God made it all happen. Several sponsors in the class agreed that’s just what they believe - the story of Adam & Eve was just one of the many “myths” floating around when the book of Genesis was written and it’s not to be taken literally. I raised my hand and asked if I could be Catholic AND believe that God DID create Adam & Eve. The Priest sort of smiled and said, “Oh sure… if you want… go ahead…” It sounded very similar to the tone I use when my kids ask if Santa is true… why sure it is sweetie… wink wink. So here’s my beef. If Eve never existed why the heck is Mary called the 2nd Eve??

 

[Matt16_18]

Chris W:

And you do so with your parallel universe concept. I can respect that. At least you are trying to reconcile the two. Most don’t. Your theory may or may not work, logically and Biblically. With all due respect, I find it rather far fetched …

St. Hildegarde said Paradise still exists, and she is hardly the only saint that believed that Paradise still exists. In fact, Genesis says that Paradise was NOT destroyed by Adam’s sin, so St. Hildegarde is anything but unorthodox in her beliefs. So how do you deal with that? Do you think that Paradise still exists, and if so, where?

I do not mean to offend you Matt. You pose an interesting theory.

No offense taken, but I would appreciate an honest answer to the question I just raised.

 

[clmowry]

Orogeny:

LOL! Don’t know much about evolution, do you?

Peace

Tim

Just real interested to see the evidence of this well proven theory.

I’ve seen plenty of evidence that you can get different varieties of roses through cross polination. That you can breed dogs and get new breeds.

Just haven’t seen any evidence that one species changes into another.

I was hoping those of you with such great interest in the subject might show me some evidence of such transitions.

I don’t really have a big enough imagination to understand how a virus became an elephant.

Chuck

 

[WBB]

carol marie:

I am a Christian fundamentalist who is currently enrolled in RCIA. On Sunday I asked the Priest if Catholics believe the Genesis account is true - that God created Adam & Eve and that they sinned and were cast out of the garden. He said no. He went on to say that the Church doesn’t take a stand either way really … it’s OK to believe in evolution, that we crawled out of the swamp & up onto the shore, so long as you believe that God made it all happen. Several sponsors in the class agreed that’s just what they believe - the story of Adam & Eve was just one of the many “myths” floating around when the book of Genesis was written and it’s not to be taken literally. I raised my hand and asked if I could be Catholic AND believe that God DID create Adam & Eve. The Priest sort of smiled and said, “Oh sure… if you want… go ahead…” It sounded very similar to the tone I use when my kids ask if Santa is true… why sure it is sweetie… wink wink. So here’s my beef. If Eve never existed why the heck is Mary called the 2nd Eve??

I don’t know what to say! First, the theory of evolution says nothing about us crawling up on land from a swamp! I think your priest was absolutely wrong to tell you what he did. The Church has reaffirmed that a truly historical event occurred with Adam and Eve and their fall from grace in the distant past which was not recorded at the time. It is historical but written in mythic language in the bible. The point of the story of the creation in Genesis is not to give a scientific explanation of how we got here, but to give a philosophical and theological reason of why we are here and what is our purpose. The problem comes because we live in a time of great scientific advances, which I believe are a gift from God, however, scientists often have taken this gift and misused it–the sin of pride. I have discovered that a lot of scientists are just “reverse fundamentalists” themselves, for what else could they be since they say, “See, this disproves the bible!” as if it was meant to be a scientific document in the first place. Anyway, you are perfectly correct to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, because it has a literal meaning. However, you must not abandon its metaphorical meaning or its allegorical meaning in the process. The literal meaning of the creation story is that God created the heavens and earth, and that Adam and Eve were real people. But the greater meaning in the story is the God ordered creation in time and that the creation is good.

 

[marciadietrich]

Chris W:

**My question is, does evolution address the cause of man’s intellect? **And wouldn’t man’s intellect affect how man needs to adapt to his surroundings, and therefore affect the supposed evolution of man? If so, wouldn’t man’s intellect potentially be the cause of that supposed split way back when between man and apes?

If this is possible, then it seems that we could say man is not the result of mere biological evolution because the intellect, which cannot be attributed to mere biology, would be the cause of man’s development.

I haven’t entirely developed my thoughts on this , so I’m looking for an evolutionist response.

Don’t know if anyone else responded Chris, but I would guess that evolution (strict, scientific) would say our intellect is an evolved feature and that there is a progress -an evolution- in intellect (and brain to body size ratio, which houses that intellect) from other mammals, to apes, various hominid forerunners to us … each being more intelligent than the former. Cranial capacity = intellect.

Catholicism says that the intellect is due to the spiritual soul.
To me there is a bit of conflict there, unless we say that the brain size is determined more by our soul - our spiritual soul as the form of the human body- than it is by the material aspects such as DNA (since other creatures share a lot of the same DNA).

On the face of it conflict with what science proposes. Evolution (pure science) even posits that our belief in God is an evolved feature, along with everything else about us that we attribute to being made in the image of God. We can’t accept the atheistic evolution, but to me it is difficult to sort out conclusions like these from the theory without it seeming pick and choose on the science. Then same on the doctrines which seem to be sometimes overlooked if they don’t fit what people think on the science. I’m not certain that many Catholics realize that according to Catholic teaching the intellect is a product of the spiritual soul rather than the physical brain and cranial capacity that is taught in science classes.

God bless

Marcia

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

A fair response. Thank you.

I am still of the mindset that there is a real conflict between evolution and Catholicism, primarily with respect to the idea of common descent. I believe Adam and eve were the only two humans who existed at a period in time, and that all of mankind are descendents of those two persons. I think this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Well, here’s how I think about it. The Church holds as valid the possibility of the evolution of the human body, but not the soul. There were, at one time, many erect hominids scurrying around, but all “mere” animals. God then breathed into two of them the capability of full personhood. From these two sprung descendant lines of people. For me, Genesis describes the right relationship between God, Man, and the remainder of His creation. The spiritual truth of the book is much more powerful for me than any literal truth or historicity.

 

[wanerious]

clmowry:

Just real interested to see the evidence of this well proven theory.

I’ve seen plenty of evidence that you can get different varieties of roses through cross polination. That you can breed dogs and get new breeds.

Just haven’t seen any evidence that one species changes into another.

I was hoping those of you with such great interest in the subject might show me some evidence of such transitions.

I don’t really have a big enough imagination to understand how a virus became an elephant.

Chuck

Ok, if you’re really interested in learning about the theory, and not just being argumentative, here’s the standard link:

Talk.origins archive

This site is regularly updated with the latest evolutionary arguments, as well as addressing common misconceptions.
For example, you might be relieved to learn that evolutionary theory does not predict a cat-dog or a fish-bird, nor a virus changing into an elephant.

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

Well, here’s how I think about it. The Church holds as valid the possibility of the evolution of the human body, but not the soul. There were, at one time, many erect hominids scurrying around, but all “mere” animals. God then breathed into two of them the capability of full personhood.

Do you believe that these two persons possessed the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality?

 

[wanerious]

Paul.T:

Time to stop compromising with these unbelievers and check out Answers in Genesis website: www.answersingenesis.org/

There you will find sensible, scriptural AND scientific answers to these questions.

Ew. Construct your own fragile theology if you must, but please don’t recommend the above site as scientific. They even reference articles from the ICR, for heaven’s sake. At least they have a link to creationist arguments that should no longer be used.

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

Do you believe that these two persons possessed the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality?

Sorry, you’ll have to be a little more pedestrian and help me out with the language. Can you explain the 3 qualities above?