How exactly can we reconcile evoltution and natural law? It seems to me (in my colloquial understanding) that evolution puts forth the idea that our actions and our need for a certain body part precedes the existence of a body part and how it is ordered (for example, we have ears because we needed ears for survival, which would then result to us evolving to get ears) , while natural law tells us that how a body part is ordered should determine our actions (so for example, we should use our ears for hearing because our ears are ordered to hearing)
So (assuming evolution is true) how do we reconcile these 2 realities? And also if you hold that they aren’t reconcilable, why do you think so?
PS: I am NOT an expert in either biology or philosophy, if I had made an error in reasoning please tell me.
I’m not sure that I understand where you perceive the conflict to lie. Natural law is derived from our experience of the natural order (from observing nature). So, for example, the only way that we know that what it is to be a thriving human subject is to be a hearing human subject is simply derived from our observation of nature.
The biologist and the natural law theorist are basing their theories on what is observed in the natural order of things, as Aristotle did. Can you re-phrase the question to help us see where the conflict arises. They seem to me to go hand-in-hand.
It actually goes the other way. Evolution says that we have X because X made it easier to survive and reproduce. Since X made it easier to survive and reproduce, those with X gradually outnumbered those without X until those without X either became the extreme minority or non-existent. However, there was no obligation to have X, just that it happened. That’s the very simplistic way of looking at it.
Evolution does not, however, say that X is right or wrong or that this is proper or improper use of it. It merely says why X is something we have. Anything more is something left up to other fields, like philosophy and medicine.
There are changes that are either beneficial or, more likely, detrimental. If a beneficial change give an organism a better chance of survival, then that benefit is passed on to future generations. But it’s not a ‘need’ that is filled. It’s simply a change that fits the environment.
For example, playing with genetic algorithms should show you that existence of some parameters found using genetic algorithms does not prove that there was no programmer. By analogy, evolution does not disprove existence of God.
Likewise, existence of some parameters found using genetic algorithms does not prove that there was some goal that had to be achieved by those parameters. By analogy, evolution does not disprove teleology.
And likewise, existence of some parameters found using genetic algorithms does not prove that some actions (or something) are not better or worse for something. By analogy, evolution does not disprove natural law.
The laws in nature are power and will of God which becoming manifest and act orderly so we call natural laws. There is no any action out of power and will of God. Evolution between species is not true and valid. Every alive is being from a seed or ovum. Even a very simple body does not com into existence by chances. There is no place for random actions in universe. Everything is in a miraculous and great order. Every evolution and action is by power and will of God. Development of species are by God’s law.
Force, energy and matter have not knowledge, will, feeling, seeing, hearing etc to be cause of body and soul. Force and energy are power of God which becoming manifest in order.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.