Catholics on Evolution (Ecumenical)

Beggars All - Reformation and Apologetics ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2008 | Carrie at Beggars All

[Ottofire]

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Catholics on Evolution

From Catholic News:

"Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

…Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design."

Creationism is not theological?

"…Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.

He reiterated that evolutionary theory 'is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message.'"

Try reading Genesis again without the need to conform to the world.

"…Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly."

Actually, the last thing the evolution debate needs is to be confused by Catholic worldliness posing as a thoughtful biblical position.

"…While there has been Catholic commentary on the compatibility of faith and evolutionary theories, there is no definitive written source to which people can refer to learn the church's position, he said."

Sounds like a blueprint for anarchy!

Posted by Carrie at 3:11 PM

[Ottofire]

I will join my Catholic friends in a communal "AUIGH!" Duct tape will be handed out at the door.

I hope there is a letter campaign to correct these people, lest it be thought that all Catholics believe this. Vatican sponsored?!? Um... Mr. Pope sir, may I suggest that you stomp this materialistic apostasy out, lest your church go the way of the liberal Anglicans...

And if anyone says the church has always taught this for the two thousand years that it has been around, the resident Catholic Freepers get the first shot at you, out of courtesy, but I get the next piece.

[Paradox]

The Catholic Church now believes that Evolution was the means by which God created Man, but not man's soul.

That's just how it is my friend.

[gracesdad]

Creationism is certainly theology, but it sure as heck isn’t science.

[DManA]

I can’t quite place you. Are you a creationist?

[wideawake]

The Catholic Church now believes

You don't have the authority or the knowledge to define Catholic belief.

Nothing presented here - especially not the opinions of the individuals quoted - has any doctrinal authority whatsoever.

It's people talking.

[Paradox]

You don't have the authority or the knowledge to define Catholic belief.

Look it up yourself. Its not quite as clear cut as I stated, but I was attempting to be brief. Basically, however, the Church believes in evolution now. It is not certain how much of a role and at what points they believe God had a hand in it, because they dont make that clear. One could argue that the Church believes in Theistic evolution. Check it out, it ain't your granddaddies church anymore..

[OpusatFR]

Something happened to corrupt man. He was given a choice and he chose sin. Whether this happened in a garden, or it happened when God gave him the gift of reason and will, who knows?

That God did create man in his image is not a incompatibility with evolution.

I chose to believe two people were created by God and were given preternatural gifts and chose evil. Whether they arrived in their state as homo sapiens sapiens, or Australopithecus or Peking man is not a contradiction for me.

God created the Universe. How He did it is His knowledge and perhaps one day, I might ask and be given an answer in heaven.

The Genesis narrative is what it is. I believe it, but in God’s terms whatever they may be.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to read later

[xzins]

Why didn’t they just say they wanted a conference of “theistic evolutionists.” They don’t want creationists, designists, or materialists.

What’s that leave?

In any case, this is a stupid time for this debate in America. For the most part, creationists, designists, and theistic evolutionists are on the same side of Life and Liberty.

[Liberty1970]

Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said

Some "evolution debate" if you ban all critics of the topic being debated!

It is possible to be sloppy and make mistakes in ID and creation modeling. But it is also possible to do the same in evolution. You can find both good and bad work within all the major origins worldviews. Blind and ignorant evolutionists who bash all creation/ID are simply stupid and anti-intellectual, and need to be called out as such.

[Claud]

The Catholic Church now believes that Evolution was the means by which God created Man, but not man's soul.

That's not accurate. On the matter of the creation of man's body, you are allowed to believe in evolution or special (instantaneous) creation as you see fit. The Church has not, and probably will never, make a definitive statement endorsing evolution because that is a historical/scientific matter, not a theological one.

Ottofire, I have to take strong exception with the blogger here (Carrie, is it?). Dr. Sloan is right...the evolution debate has suffered tremendously in this country from an absence of Catholic presence because it's been wrongly characterized by on the one hand various ad hoc exegeses that are completely divorced from Christian tradition, and on the other hand by secularist/atheistic nonsense.

The theological aspect of the question is that God created man from the slime of the earth. Period. Genesis must be accepted literally and absolutely. But, contrary to what some evangelicals are out there promoting, that still leaves a great deal of theorizing on *how* man was created from the slime of the earth. Genesis simply is not very specific on it. Read St. Augustine's "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis"...which was written 1500 years before there was any notion of evolution. He said himself that his book was bound to disappoint people because it asked more questions than it answered and that his analyses were in some cases quite speculative and could well be superseded.

And though I think it would be a stretch to make him a believer in evolution (especially given his theory that the 6 days were actually revelations to the angels of a spontaneous creation) Augustine even postulated that some animals could have been created *potentially* in the first 6 days but actually appeared later. He mentions this specifically in the context of, if I remember right, flies which according to the biology of the time were generated by rotting meat. Redi and Spallanzani disproved abiogenesis a millenium later, but Augustine recognized the possibility that God could set potentialities in motion that would only be actualized later. Which has obvious import for evolutionary theory.

I think, as an internal Catholic matter, excluding the rabid secularists and the creation scientists for a moment and simply concentrating laser-like on what paleontology actually tells us is enormously valuable.

[wideawake]

Look it up yourself.

There is no magisterial document to "look up" that decrees Darwinism to be Church dogma.

Its not quite as clear cut as I stated, but I was attempting to be brief.

Insofar as thinmgs that do not exist are not "clear cut."

Basically, however, the Church believes in evolution now.

No, it doesn't. If it did, it would say so definitively.

But it never has, in any way.

It is not certain how much of a role and at what points they believe God had a hand in it, because they dont make that clear.

The Church teaches and has always taught that man is created by God. You can definitely look that up.

One could argue that the Church believes in Theistic evolution.

If by "argue" you mean "make stuff up without a shred of magisterial evidence."

Check it out, it ain't your granddaddies church anymore..

It is indeed.

You don't understand the Church now, clearly, so how would you have any idea what the Church was like in my grandfather's day?

[wideawake]

Why didn’t they just say they wanted a conference of “theistic evolutionists.”

Because specifying it as "theistic" would exclude the Jesuits from their own conference.

[Paradox]

I followed the change in the church's opinion on evolution. My grandfathers church would not have agreed with today's church on the topic, but that's OK, I like that about the church, it is continually asking questions.

I have read debates since the change, and because the official position has been left up in the air (except that pertaining to the soul), both sides claim that the Church now supports their position.

BTW, no, the church does not believe in Darwinism, where does it (or I) say that anywhere?

[Alex Murphy]

Catholic universities plan scientific examination of evolutionary theory
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution
How a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory

[Claud]

Let’s say I’m a criminal investigator putting together a case. I need to interview eyewitnesses A B and C to try to reconstruct what happened. I need to treat these three people as *independent* lines of evidence in order to make my case. If I find out eyewitness B modified his story to fit with what he read in the paper the next day, then his testimony is suddenly much less valuable.

This is the whole problem with creation science. Science *must* be done independently and must not be done by relying on a pre-existing exegesis on a Biblical passage. Or else it’s not an independent witness, it becomes a lackey of theology, and any value it might have had of demonstrating the infallibility of the Bible is completely destroyed.

If you want to prove that a wheel rolls downhill, you have to let it go without any restraint, and take a chance on it rolling up. If you build walls around it so that it can’t do anything *but* roll downhill, then you haven’t proved anything.

The Biblical text must be allowed to present its own case, and paleontology must be allowed to present its own case. If they make the same case, and I absolutely believe they will, then we know we’ve arrived at the truth.

[Claud]

Because specifying it as "theistic" would exclude the Jesuits from their own conference.

LOL....zing!

[DManA]

People get so hung up about times (i.e. six days). Time is as much a part of God’s creation as anything else. How could the writer(s?) of Genesis be expected to express the truth revealed by Einstein with the vocabulary of a bronze age shepherd?

[Claud]

Right! The Church Fathers and the rabbinic scholars, who had no clue of evolution, looked at that “yom”, that “day” and puzzled over it. How can you have three days elapse when the sun hasn’t even appeared yet? They knew something was fishy about it, and some of them even speculated things like all the ages of the world were in those days. They were not accomodating Darwin or their own science, they were just dealing with the text.

I look at Genesis 1 and I see pretty the same progression I learned as a bio student. First the formation of the earth and gathering of the waters. The plants. The appearance of the sun and moon (which could signify the photosynthesis-driven transition from a thick reducing atmosphere to a clear one). The appearance of fish in the water. Birds and reptiles coming out of the water (ex aquis) onto land. Then the mammals.

[xzins]

LOL!