Evolution

[Vincent Vega]

Hey everyone,
I've heard varying viewpoints, and I'd like to hear your views.
Do you think evolution is compatible with the Church's teachings? Why or why not?
PAX,
Mitch

[Farsight one]

My approach is probably different from everyone else's here.

Ok. I know two things.

1. Church teaching is right. If it were ever found to be wrong, then we would have to conclude that Catholicism is false - not something I'm willing to do.
2. Evolution happens. It is directly observable in several species and reproducible in a lab. Even humans have evolved in the last 1000 years. (and yes, even mAcro evoltuion is observable)

Since evolution is fact(and theory), Church teachings cannot call it false, lest the Church itself be false. Therefore, Church teaching MUST be compatible with evolution.

[dairygirl4u2c]

links for things on traisitional fossils

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url]

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05[/url]

[url="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Exti...ans-62131.shtml"]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Exti...ans-62131.shtml[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29[/url]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1615494' date='Aug 1 2008, 08:37 PM']Since evolution is fact(and theory), Church teachings cannot call it false, lest the Church itself be false. Therefore, Church teaching MUST be compatible with evolution.[/quote]
Interesting approach...
So, I take it that you're of the persuasion that, no, we didn't all morph from primordial ooze, but yes, evolution by way of say, natural selection, has indeed occur, and continues to occur?

[TeresaBenedicta]

I don't really think it matters much, either way. I am of the belief that micro-evolution is scientifically proven, so I say it's true and in line with the Church.

As for macro-evolution?

I don't know. I haven't been convinced of its truth. Nor do I care. If humans did evolve from chimps, it doesn't have any impact on my belief in God. Because there still had to be a point in which the soul was infused into the animal, making us human.

So, in a sense, I don't really speculate, but yes I do believe it's compatible?

[CatherineM]

I can't think of a better way for an ancient scribe who has been given a revelation of the Big Bang to describe it other than, "and God said let there be light." I think when man finally evolved sufficiently to be worthy of souls, God put his hand upon us.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1615514' date='Aug 1 2008, 09:00 PM']I can't think of a better way for an ancient scribe who has been given a revelation of the Big Bang to describe it other than, "and God said let there be light." I think when man finally evolved sufficiently to be worthy of souls, God put his hand upon us.[/quote]
So you, Miss Catherine, are of the persuasion that Adam was the first fully human ancestor?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Heidelberg_Man.gif"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Heidelberg_Man.gif[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Java_Man.jpg"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Java_Man.jpg[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peking_Man.jpg"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peking_Man.jpg[/url]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1615520' date='Aug 1 2008, 09:07 PM']So you, Miss Catherine, are of the persuasion that Adam was the first fully human ancestor?[/quote]

Yep. There is a painting in the city hall here called Genesis, that shows a primitive man walking across the savanna in the distance, and the clouds above him remind me of the ones in Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel. That is exactly how I visualize it. One man, becoming self aware, having God reach out and give him a soul. Then the Father selected an Eve for him. Geneticists have traced the human race back to one Eve at a time when humans were just about wiped out.

I think the "7 days of creation" was like the 7 days of visions given to Joseph. The ancient scribe was given a revelation of God's creation over 7 nights, and he interpreted them to mean that God created everything in 7 days, and did the best he could to take something incomprehensible and put it on paper. I would never presume to tell God how long a day to him should be.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1615511' date='Aug 1 2008, 09:56 PM']Interesting approach...
So, I take it that you're of the persuasion that, no, we didn't all morph from primordial ooze, but yes, evolution by way of say, natural selection, has indeed occur, and continues to occur?[/quote]I'm sorry, but I honestly fail to see the difference there.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1615595' date='Aug 1 2008, 11:18 PM']I'm sorry, but I honestly fail to see the difference there.[/quote]
I suppose I do as well...I don't know what I was really thinking when I wrote that...
Moving forward, then.

[mortify]

I don't have a problem with a literal understanding of genesis, but who knows.

Evolution that doesn't have God guiding it is against Church teaching.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='mortify' post='1615610' date='Aug 2 2008, 12:12 AM']Evolution that doesn't have God guiding it is against Church teaching.[/quote]
Naturally, yes. But in question, at least as I originally intended, is whether or not the basic premise, in its own right, was against teaching.

[aalpha1989]

Micro-evolution is compatible with Church teaching. Macro-evolution is not, as long as by macro-evolution you are referring to the idea that man evolved from some "lower" primate. The Church teaches that man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence. Man was always the Lord of Creation, and Genesis teaches that God created man in His image. C.S. Lewis also argues (I forget whether its in Mere Christianity or Miracles; I think it is in Miracles) that order cannot come from chaos. Our reason did not evolve into reason from animal instincts, because it is impossible for that lower form of reasoning (instincts) could evolve into higher reasoning (morality, etc.).

[Resurrexi]

There's also the problem that if man evolved from irrational animals, death would have already entered into the world, while in fact death could not have existed until after the fall.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1615628' date='Aug 2 2008, 02:58 AM']There's also the problem that if man evolved from irrational animals, death would have already entered into the world, while in fact death could not have existed until after the fall.[/quote]

Did all death enter the world, or only man's death? Did pre-fall humans eat meat, or did their need for sustinence come because of the fall? I think that only man's death entered the world because of the fall, we were the lords of creation and were to use the Earth's resources from the beginning, which implies the death of something, even if it is only plants.

I'm not trying to argue with you, your post just made me start thinking. It's nice to see you up late again.


POST NUMBER 2,000!!! YAY!

Edited August 2, 2008 by aalpha1989

[Resurrexi]

You're right. I just looked it up in my dogmatic theology book. The donum immortalitatis (gift of immortality) was only conferred on man, not on the rest of creation. Just thinking logically, if it were, that would mean that not only animals, but plants also would never die, which hardly seems plausible.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1615627' date='Aug 2 2008, 02:55 AM']Micro-evolution is compatible with Church teaching. Macro-evolution is not, as long as by macro-evolution you are referring to the idea that man evolved from some "lower" primate. The Church teaches that man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence.[/quote] Wait...I don't follow your logic here. If man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence, how does that mean we couldn't have evolved from apes (or more accurately, an ancestor we share with apes)? The apes don't have to have had the same dignity. Couldn't it have "appeared" when we did?

[quote]Man was always the Lord of Creation, and Genesis teaches that God created man in His image. C.S. Lewis also argues (I forget whether its in Mere Christianity or Miracles; I think it is in Miracles) that order cannot come from chaos.[/quote]He may argue for it, but order comes from what seems to be chaos all the time.

[quote]Our reason did not evolve into reason from animal instincts, because it is impossible for that lower form of reasoning (instincts) could evolve into higher reasoning (morality, etc.).[/quote] I don't know about that one. Chimps are starting to learn how to count, apes express emotion through sign language.

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

I say that evolution is compatible with Church teaching.

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1615627' date='Aug 2 2008, 08:55 AM']Micro-evolution is compatible with Church teaching. Macro-evolution is not, as long as by macro-evolution you are referring to the idea that man evolved from some "lower" primate. The Church teaches that man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence. Man was always the Lord of Creation, and Genesis teaches that God created man in His image. C.S. Lewis also argues (I forget whether its in Mere Christianity or Miracles; I think it is in Miracles) that order cannot come from chaos. Our reason did not evolve into reason from animal instincts, because it is impossible for that lower form of reasoning (instincts) could evolve into higher reasoning (morality, etc.).[/quote]

I fail to see why this is an argument against macro-evolution. Certainly man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence - but surely that starts with the evolutionary step that was utterly different from all that had gone before - ie God's infusion of a soul - the creation of His image within Creation. Genesis says that man was created from the dust of the earth, but I don't see why there might not have been some intermediate steps that were omitted from Genesis. (Lol - I guess that has some bearing on the comment about primordial ooze .... but anyway.)

So long as we recognise that there is an inherent difference between man and animals that must have started at some point then I don't think there is a problem with us evolving from lower primates. (I make no comment on the scientific evidence for macro-evolution, I don't know enough biology so I give biologists the benefit of the doubt since most do seem to think it a serious possibility. I would say that I therefore agree with Farsight One's reasoning in his/her first post in this thread. [b]Edit:[/b] and it seems we wrote very similar posts at the same time.)

I try to avoid speaking of God intervening in evolution to infuse the soul into man, because since God holds all creation in being I think it is misleading to think of Him being anything other than intimately involved in all the stages of creation, evolutionary or otherwise. Rather I think it is better to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the infusion of the soul and all other steps.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire