Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

[rossum]

I’m confused now, do you believe in such a thing as a Soul/Spirit ?

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”

No, I do not believe in souls. That is standard Buddhism. What you think is your soul, isn’t. You are misunderstanding the nature of yourself and of reality.

You think you see your soul, but all you are seeing is the water in a mirage or the value of a forged $100 note. What you think is there actually isn’t.

rossum

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’ve read too many posts from others trying to convince Christians that evolution, as taught in schools, does not deny God’s involvement. It does. I’m also not for adding God to textbooks but the implication is that something living came from nonliving matter. The end.

What if all matter is living? It would certainly stretch our understanding of life. But remember, all we perceive is a recreation within our minds. No one knows the depths of reality. But we do believe is is all of God.

 

[edwest2]

What if all matter is living? It would certainly stretch our understanding of life. But remember, all we perceive is a recreation within our minds. No one knows the depths of reality. But we do believe is is all of God.

A rock is not alive.

Ed

 

[inocente]

Inanimate compounds became life? That is not a scientific statement. It’s not reproducible in the lab.

It’s reproduced everywhere every day. Every plant turns inanimate compounds into life. Living things are not animated by magic spirits or magic substances as some once thought, but by plain old chemistry called metabolism.

But evolution isn’t about how those chemical processes began, it’s about how species descended from earlier forms. The alternative to evolution, the belief that the species formed without decent, is called spontaneous generation.

In which case giraffes one day just appeared, fully formed, out of the blue. Some people used to believe mice were created magically out of grain, without need of parents, and Father E C Messenger believed scripture says it used to happen. But even without magic, if instead it was God’s command, there’s no evidence for spontaneous generation and for many of us it strains credibility far beyond breaking point.

 

[cfauster]

I’ve read too many posts from others trying to convince Christians that evolution, as taught in schools, does not deny God’s involvement …

A statement from the National Academy of Sciences on a subject that is clearly outside the realm of science - "Compatibility of Science and Religion - “Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding …”

The first sentence is totally incompatible with some statements made here, which illustrates the problem.
Ed

Hard to say it better than JPIII.
See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14455479&postcount=43

 

[cfauster]

" … Pope John Paul II’s view regarding evolution involving both a physical continuity and an ontological leap is reasonable. His defending the essentials of Catholic teaching on original sin is in line with good biblical scholarship, sound Christian theology, and human experience and nature correctly understood. It can also be harmonized with evolution and human origins properly understood. There indeed is a unity of truth, as he affirms. What we have learned and are still learning about evolution and human origins, from the perspective of the natural sciences, can be seen as complementary to the solid conclusions of philosophy, including metaphysics, Christian faith, and a balanced theology."

See:
EVOLUTION, THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN PERSONS, AND ORIGINAL SIN: PHYSICAL CONTINUITY WITH AN ONTOLOGICAL LEAP
PAUL J. P. FLAMAN
St. Joseph’s College University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Heythrop Journal May 2016

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

John Henry Newman believed in “theistic evolution”, as also did everyone I knew in my young day.

I’m coming back soon to pursue other interesting matters raised in the web site cited, and in this thread, not specifically evolution related but connected with Scripture, history and the sciences generally (my session is timing out).

 

[PNEUMA]

Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

Because they don’t check the facts, and believe one kind of animal can transform into another kind of animal, given enough time. This because all animals, to some degree can change in appearance, but not become completely different animals, as the theory of evolution suggests.

 

[rossum]

Because they don’t check the facts, and believe one kind of animal can transform into another kind of animal, given enough time. This because all animals, to some degree can change in appearance, but not become completely different animals, as the theory of evolution suggests.

Evolution conforms to the facts. Depending on your definition of “kind of animal” (or plant, bacteria, arche etc.) then you are correct. Eukaryotes only ever evolve into other eukaryotes. Tetrapods only ever evolve into other tetrapods. Mammals only ever evolve into other mammals.

Whales are mammals, and they evolved from other, earlier mammals which lived partly on land. Both species, before and after, were mammals. Is that transformation forbidden or is a mammal-to-mammal change allowed? And why?

rossum

 

[goout]

Because they don’t check the facts, and believe one kind of animal can transform into another kind of animal, given enough time. This because all animals, to some degree can change in appearance, but not become completely different animals, as the theory of evolution suggests.

Depends what you mean by “completely different”.
Look around you. There bazillions of genetically distinct creatures roaming the earth that can be classified down to “species”. Surely you are not claiming they appeared intact at “the beginning”?

 

[edwest2]

" … Pope John Paul II’s view regarding evolution involving both a physical continuity and an ontological leap is reasonable. His defending the essentials of Catholic teaching on original sin is in line with good biblical scholarship, sound Christian theology, and human experience and nature correctly understood. It can also be harmonized with evolution and human origins properly understood. There indeed is a unity of truth, as he affirms. What we have learned and are still learning about evolution and human origins, from the perspective of the natural sciences, can be seen as complementary to the solid conclusions of philosophy, including metaphysics, Christian faith, and a balanced theology."

See:
EVOLUTION, THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN PERSONS, AND ORIGINAL SIN: PHYSICAL CONTINUITY WITH AN ONTOLOGICAL LEAP
PAUL J. P. FLAMAN
St. Joseph’s College University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Heythrop Journal May 2016

Thanks, but this information is incomplete.

Ed

 

[goout]

Thanks, but this information is incomplete.

Ed

JP2’s thought is easily available.

 

[Vonsalza]

Evolution conforms to the facts. Depending on your definition of “kind of animal” (or plant, bacteria, arche etc.) then you are correct. Eukaryotes only ever evolve into other eukaryotes. Tetrapods only ever evolve into other tetrapods. Mammals only ever evolve into other mammals.

Whales are mammals, and they evolved from other, earlier mammals which lived partly on land. Both species, before and after, were mammals. Is that transformation forbidden or is a mammal-to-mammal change allowed? And why?

rossum

sigh

But they DO become different animals. In accordance with the theory, there was absolutely a time on the earth where mammals did not exist. There was also a time on the earth where land-dwelling animals did not exist, either.

A class of species can absolutely evolve into another class of species. Some form of reptilia eventually evolved into mammalia. This doesn’t mean a lizard laid a mouse-egg one day. The process is/was the very definition of gradual. In fact, it is never-ceasing. Evolution is never “complete”. The only “end” to it is when a species goes extinct due to external pressure.

As to “why” this occurs? Maximization of survivability!

Camels and llamas have the same ancestor, but their ancestor’s gradual evolutionary changes led to two animals that were so different that they couldn’t successfully mate. This happened because the evolutionary changes occurred in different environments.

An older example is when animals began walking on land. A fish didn’t give birth to a horse! A fish that could forage the primitive flora on coastal reaches eventually evolved into amphibians and reptiles that could go further and further in-land in the search for food/avoidance of predators. Eventually they became so adapted to land life that they lost the ability to live perpetually in water.

All told, you are a mammal. Your “dad” was a reptile. Your grandad was an amphibian. Your great-grandad was a fish. Your great-great grandad was akin to a jelly-fish and your great-great-great grandad was the simple, single-celled organism from which all life evolved.

 

[edwest2]

sigh

But they DO become different animals. In accordance with the theory, there was absolutely a time on the earth where mammals did not exist. There was also a time on the earth where land-dwelling animals did not exist, either.

A class of species can absolutely evolve into another class of species. Some form of reptilia eventually evolved into mammalia. This doesn’t mean a lizard laid a mouse-egg one day. The process is/was the very definition of gradual. In fact, it is never-ceasing. Evolution is never “complete”. The only “end” to it is when a species goes extinct due to external pressure.

As to “why” this occurs? Maximization of survivability!

Camels and llamas have the same ancestor, but their ancestor’s gradual evolutionary changes led to two animals that were so different that they couldn’t successfully mate. This happened because the evolutionary changes occurred in different environments.

An older example is when animals began walking on land. A fish didn’t give birth to a horse! A fish that could forage the primitive flora on coastal reaches eventually evolved into amphibians and reptiles that could go further and further in-land in the search for food/avoidance of predators. Eventually they became so adapted to land life that they lost the ability to live perpetually in water.

All told, you are a mammal. Your “dad” was a reptile. Your grandad was an amphibian. Your great-grandad was a fish. Your great-great grandad was akin to a jelly-fish and your great-great-great grandad was the simple, single-celled organism from which all life evolved.

So, at one time, a water-dwelling creature gained the ability to move on land and breathe? How did it know what was food?

Ed

 

[Techno2000]

sigh

All told, you are a mammal. Your “dad” was a reptile. Your grandad was an amphibian. Your great-grandad was a fish. Your great-great grandad was akin to a jelly-fish and your great-great-great grandad was the simple, single-celled organism from which all life evolved.

Don’t forget our beloved great 0000000000 grandad algae.

 

[Techno2000]

So, at one time, a water-dwelling creature gained the ability to move on land and breathe? How did it know what was food?

Ed

Darwin traveled back in time and told them.

 

[Usagi]

So, at one time, a water-dwelling creature gained the ability to move on land and breathe? How did it know what was food?

I don’t understand what you mean. How does a baby, or your pet, or any animal without others of its kind around, know what counts as food? Appearance, smell, movement (other creatures are food to meat-eaters) … how would it be any different for our hypothetical first land animal? (Remember that if he’s the very first, he’s probably just slightly better at surviving a little bit longer than his siblings and cousins, not a full-fledged lung-breather who can’t survive underwater any longer, so he probably starts out by looking for foods similar to those his kind have been enjoying underwater. Maybe there’s a scarcity of those for some reason, and he sees something green juuuuust outside of the water…)

 

[Usagi]

Don’t forget our beloved great 0000000000 grandad algae.

You really adore those zeroes and seem to think you are cleverly mocking us with them. But really, when you write down how long the world has been around or how old some life forms are, it happens to require a lot of zeroes in our decimal system. Should we be incredulous of Jesus or Moses because they lived 000s of years ago and we can only have personal memory of 0s or mayyyybe 00s of years?

 

[Vonsalza]

So, at one time, a water-dwelling creature gained the ability to move on land and breathe? How did it know what was food?

Ed

I thought your retort would be a little harder to dispel…

The same way we all independently decide something’s food.

Try a little. No sick tummy? Try some more. Still no sick tummy? Hmm… must be food.

 

[Vonsalza]

Don’t forget our beloved great 0000000000 grandad algae.

By the best estimation, algae followed a different evolutionary tree.

Respectfully, if you’re going to raise an objection, it would be best if it were done intelligently.

You and Ed are proof positive that you can show a man a blue sky, but there’s absolutely no way you can make him admit it’s blue.