Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

[TheAmazingGrace]

From reading posts on here and also from listening to Catholic Answers, it seems like a lot of Catholics simply accept that evolution is a fact and then try to make it fit with the Catholic faith. As someone coming to Catholicism from the Reformed perspective who is also a creationist, this troubles me.

Why do Catholics not seem to have encountered the myriad of books, articles and videos that show the major weaknesses of the evolution theory? Sites like Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research show that there are serious problems with evolutionary theory. There are books written by PhD scientists (including one from my alma mater, Victoria University of Wellington) that blow holes in evolution.

With such a myriad of resources at hand, why do so many Catholics try to make evolution fit with the Catholic faith when there really is no need to?

Also, are there any Catholic creationists (either young earth or old earth) on this board?

Do you have an alternative theory? Because it’s been proven that the world isn’t 6,000 years old.

 

[cfauster]

They’re not just harmful to humans; they’re harmful to any animal that they invade. You will have a lot of work to do if you plan on convincing me that these organisms come anywhere near “very good”.

Indeed, there are some human pathogens as you describe that can infect other animals too and that are pathogenic, as far as we know, in whatever host animal they reside.

But, there are lots of microbes sometimes pathogenic to us that are hardly ever, if ever, pathogenic in some of the other species of organisms they infect - and vice versa.

Also, looking just at human infections, the extent of pathology from a given organism can vary depending on the context - from benefiting us, to neither hurting nor helping us, to hurting us a little, to hurting us a lot.

For those interested, see:
healthguidance.org/entry/13179/1/Human-Parasites–Symbiotic-and-Parasitic-Relationships.html

 

[Techno2000]

If evolution is true then there should be millions of in-between skeletons leftover from one animal changing into a different animal.

 

[cfauster]

Given that this topic is banned here yet clearly of interest, I recommend two things:

1. Use other venues such as the Catholic apologetics site for dialogue with atheists called Strange Notions, or the Dominican friars’ site on the issue (emphasizing Thomas Aquinas, of course).
2. I teach biology at a Catholic university, and (if able) will respond to private messages.

 

[edwest2]

From reading posts on here and also from listening to Catholic Answers, it seems like a lot of Catholics simply accept that evolution is a fact and then try to make it fit with the Catholic faith. As someone coming to Catholicism from the Reformed perspective who is also a creationist, this troubles me.

Why do Catholics not seem to have encountered the myriad of books, articles and videos that show the major weaknesses of the evolution theory? Sites like Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research show that there are serious problems with evolutionary theory. There are books written by PhD scientists (including one from my alma mater, Victoria University of Wellington) that blow holes in evolution.

With such a myriad of resources at hand, why do so many Catholics try to make evolution fit with the Catholic faith when there really is no need to?

Also, are there any Catholic creationists (either young earth or old earth) on this board?

As someone who works in the media and has an understanding of how Biology is taught - it’s a given. And most people could care less. As long as they can read, write and do math, that’s it. Yes, learning how to use the computer is important but beyond that, we go into specialized education for whatever job we want to do as we get older, usually in University.

This topic has become a “stamp of legitimacy” for science. It denies its shortcomings and, speaking as a writer, invents correlations with “This should,” “this must,” etc. “have happened.” In practical terms, it is useless, scientifically. But there are those who post here like clockwork, insinuating their ideas to ensure “full compliance” is eventually reached. The consequence for not believing is something bad and very vague will happen.

However, it’s only practical value is to deny God. To deny things God actually did. The Catechism tells us: "295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: “For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and “The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.”

By excluding God, we are left open to the idea that we were made by nothing and our end is nothing, so we can do whatever we want. No “higher being” is allowed. You see?

Ed

 

[edwest2]

There are even more problems with young earth creationism. But evolution is a scientific theory. Not a religious belief. It presents a framework for understanding observations in nature. It is THE most accepted and workable theory in biology and anthropology.

It has no practical scientific use.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is a fact – as far as any scientific theory can be considered a fact.

How far can a scientific theory be considered a fact? It depends.

On one hand you have the Theory of Gravity. On the other, String Theory.

But no posts here encouraging all to believe in Quantum Entanglement, just this.

Ed

 

[Techno2000]

As someone who works in the media and has an understanding of how Biology is taught - it’s a given. And most people could care less. As long as they can read, write and do math, that’s it. Yes, learning how to use the computer is important but beyond that, we go into specialized education for whatever job we want to do as we get older, usually in University.

This topic has become a “stamp of legitimacy” for science. It denies its shortcomings and, speaking as a writer, invents correlations with “This should,” “this must,” etc. “have happened.” In practical terms, it is useless, scientifically. But there are those who post here like clockwork, insinuating their ideas to ensure “full compliance” is eventually reached. The consequence for not believing is something bad and very vague will happen.

However, it’s only practical value is to deny God. To deny things God actually did. The Catechism tells us: "295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: “For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and “The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.”

By excluding God, we are left open to the idea that we were made by nothing and our end is nothing, so we can do whatever we want. No “higher being” is allowed. You see?

Ed

Right, it’s something for the Atheists to hang their hat on.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think we need to delve into the banned topic in order to answer the OP’s fundamental question.

Most people don’t have the desire to delve into the scientific debates and minutia of evolutionary theory. All they know is that the theory of evolution is the predominant view amongst scientists.

From the perspective of a Catholic apologist, our job is to remove obstacles for people in accepting the faith. It is a common view that evolution is fact. And it is a common view that evolution contradicts Scripture and Christian teaching. Therefore, many Catholic apologists like to point out that evolutionary theory (understood correctly) does not contradict Scripture (understood correctly).

This is a useful thing for them to point out in order to remove what is a stumbling block to many.

Now, you make the case that it is unnecessary to reconcile the two as there are problems with evolutionary theory. That may or may not be true, but it is a matter of debate. The path of least resistance is to show a questioning would-be-Christian that evolution need not be in contradiction with Catholic teaching. Evolution explains the how while Scripture explains the who and the why. That makes sense to most people and helps them move past this issue.

Otherwise, we generally find ourselves in threads like the many that led to this topic being banned. People start hurling quotes back and forth from their favorite PhDs, no one’s opinion is changed, and the would-be-Christian is left with the impression that evolution and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other.

If an individual wants to debate the merits of evolution, that’s fine. But that’s not what most people are looking for. Most people just want to know that there isn’t a contradiction in order that they may move forward with Christian belief.

So we should hang banners on Churches like “Come on in! We accept Evolution!” That’s nonsense. “there isn’t a contradiction” means there is nothing to debate. No other option.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Catholics have encountered the “myriad” of fundamentalist works on creation, but Catholics are not fundamentalists. Catholics don’t need to “try to make it [evolution] fit” with Catholicism - it fits perfectly well and the last several Popes have all accepted evolution.

You will find a few YEC/OEC Catholics here, just as you can find a lively thread on flat earth theory going on right now, and we have the occasional geocentrism thread. But most Catholics accept that the science of evolution is not contrary to the faith.

Who cares what any Pope has said about any purely scientific matter? And no, they haven’t.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Do you have an alternative theory? Because it’s been proven that the world isn’t 6,000 years old.

From a Catholic Answers tract:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Ed

 

[JanetF]

I think the opening premise is off a little bit. It would be more appropriate to say many Catholics accept the theory of evolution as one of many possible theories and that it doesn’t necessarily contradict Church teaching.

Additionally, it doesn’t really matter where we came from. We should be more concerned with where we are going

 

[edwest2]

I think the opening premise is off a little bit. It would be more appropriate to say many Catholics accept the theory of evolution as one of many possible theories and that it doesn’t necessarily contradict Church teaching.

Additionally, it doesn’t really matter where we came from. We should be more concerned with where we are going

There is a God who made us or there isn’t. That is what really matters.

Ed

 

[Wesrock]

Is it starting to get a little hot in here?

 

[Della]

There is a God who made us or there isn’t. That is what really matters.

Ed

Indeed. Any explorations into the physical world are only going to get us just so far in determining our origins. Certainly primitive man had no notion that we came from lower species–not that I’ve ever heard of, anyway. Ancient religions assumed a divine origin for creation and that man was a special creation. If there is no divine power, why would they have bothered with making up stories about man being created in the first place?

Science isn’t religion, nor should it try to be. Unfortunately in our modern times people are looking for alternatives to religion–the reasons why are varied, but it boils down to man wanting to have complete control over his destiny and all there is. It’s much easier to have that idea if man is merely a talking animal–then he can do whatever he wants with impunity.

So, science (not real science but scientism) has become the tool many use to wrest control of their fate from God’s hands–as if that’s even possible. Of course, it’s just another way to sin and to excuse sin–as C. S. Lewis once put it.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think we need to delve into the banned topic in order to answer the OP’s fundamental question.

Most people don’t have the desire to delve into the scientific debates and minutia of evolutionary theory. All they know is that the theory of evolution is the predominant view amongst scientists.

From the perspective of a Catholic apologist, our job is to remove obstacles for people in accepting the faith. It is a common view that evolution is fact. And it is a common view that evolution contradicts Scripture and Christian teaching. Therefore, many Catholic apologists like to point out that evolutionary theory (understood correctly) does not contradict Scripture (understood correctly).

This is a useful thing for them to point out in order to remove what is a stumbling block to many.

Now, you make the case that it is unnecessary to reconcile the two as there are problems with evolutionary theory. That may or may not be true, but it is a matter of debate. The path of least resistance is to show a questioning would-be-Christian that evolution need not be in contradiction with Catholic teaching. Evolution explains the how while Scripture explains the who and the why. That makes sense to most people and helps them move past this issue.

Otherwise, we generally find ourselves in threads like the many that led to this topic being banned. People start hurling quotes back and forth from their favorite PhDs, no one’s opinion is changed, and the would-be-Christian is left with the impression that evolution and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other.

If an individual wants to debate the merits of evolution, that’s fine. But that’s not what most people are looking for. Most people just want to know that there isn’t a contradiction in order that they may move forward with Christian belief.

They should add this to the sticky that says that it’s a banned topic. Is there a Post Of The Week award? This gets my vote.

 

[TMC]

Who cares what any Pope has said about any purely scientific matter? And no, they haven’t.

Ed

The Popes were not opinion on science, but on theology. And yes, they have.

 

[Techno2000]

Most people just want to know that there isn’t a contradiction in order that they may move forward with Christian belief.

If man evolving from Apes isn’t huge contradiction I don’t know what is.

 

[Bradski]

If man evolving from Apes isn’t huge contradiction I don’t know what is.

And another excellent reason why it is a banned subject: Not many people understand it and, for example, think we are descended from apes.

 

[edwest2]

The Popes were not opinion on science, but on theology. And yes, they have.

Your evidence?

Ed