Creationism and Evolutionism coexist.


#1

My belief is that there is a source, God. He started the Big Bang. That God has little influence on our world, that he let things evolve to the way things are now. And when he does have an influence it changes that persons life forever. So, God created everything, but he let everything evolve.

To me that makes sense.


#2

Meh. Join the club. BTW, do you know who first theorized the big bang? I think he agrees with you. ;)


#3

[quote="schnipdip, post:1, topic:307764"]
My belief is that there is a source, God. He started the Big Bang. That God has little influence on our world, that he let things evolve to the way things are now. And when he does have an influence it changes that persons life forever. So, God created everything, but he let everything evolve.

To me that makes sense.

[/quote]

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.
— Cardinal Ratzinger, I*n the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall *(Eerdmans, 1995), p. 50.

More Catholic Church quotes here: sites.google.com/site/juliamaesite/home/evolution-and-the-church


#4

This used to make sense to me too, until I comprehended the deep, deep disconnect between the personal, interested God of Christianity and the established facts of evolution by natural selection. The most you can suppose, if you accept the naturalistic account, is a deistic god that is as detached and indifferent as the natural processes over which it presides.


#5

You know, someday you should actually read something about this.

  1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. … But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

You set out a cake to draw ants at a picnic. The exact paths of the ants, the number of species, the travails and wars they have on the journey, are all part of getting to the cake. But you don’t control that, or you may intervene from time to time, but in the end, your purpose is served: your cake is covered with ants.


#6

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

Even granting that this word salad actually means something, the process of reconciling an intelligently designing god with the facts of nature requires the abandonment of at least some of the supposed characteristics of the theistic god. Even Epicurus, some hundreds of years before the advent of Christianity, understood this -

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent; is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”


#7

From Post 3.
“And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.”

Source: — Cardinal Ratzinger, I*n the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall *(Eerdmans, 1995), p. 50.


Words in bold refer to the material/physical domain of natural science. While it is true that evolution cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of faith is very clear that all “human persons” descended from two sole founders.

As one can ascertain from the context of Pope Benedict’s teachings, there are two complementary realities. TWO is the operative word. As has been the constant teaching of Catholicism, when the *two *realities of science and faith intersect, it is Catholic doctrines which have precedence.

In order for science and faith to arrive at Truth – Science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.


#8

[quote="Julia_Mae, post:5, topic:307764"]

You set out a cake to draw ants at a picnic. The exact paths of the ants, the number of species, the travails and wars they have on the journey, are all part of getting to the cake. But you don't control that, or you may intervene from time to time, but in the end, your purpose is served: your cake is covered with ants.

[/quote]

The analogy fails because I am not a purportedly omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly benevolent deity.


#9

Why must there be a “project” of human persons? Isn’t it just hubris to suppose that we were planned with some cosmic destiny in mind? Why could not we just be?


#10

[quote="Sair, post:4, topic:307764"]
This used to make sense to me too, until I comprehended the deep, deep disconnect between the personal, interested God of Christianity and the established facts of evolution by natural selection. The most you can suppose, if you accept the naturalistic account, is a deistic god that is as detached and indifferent as the natural processes over which it presides.

[/quote]

"Established facts" covers a multitude of individual theories or explanations for the activities of living organisms (decomposing anatomies) in the material/physical domain of natural science.

The real issue of "creationism" -- as I see it when it is applied to natural science -- is the question "Is human nature a unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. Obviously, I am aware that different folks have different answers.


#11

The established facts I had in mind are the necessity that some organisms die horribly because, for whatever reason, they are not adapted sufficiently to their environment to survive and reproduce. Even some of those that do reproduce die horribly after having done so - salmon are a good example. If there is a god designing and watching all this, said god must be a sadist of the first order.

What basis is there for thinking that humans have any access to a ‘spiritual’ world, or that such a world even exists?


#12

[quote="Sair, post:9, topic:307764"]
Why must there be a "project" of human persons? Isn't it just hubris to suppose that we were planned with some cosmic destiny in mind? Why could not we just be?

[/quote]

The "project" of human persons is in the quote found in post 3. Personally, I would not use that expression. I like to think of humans in terms of blood and guts formed by a spiritual principle known as a rational spiritual soul.

Better yet, is CCC 365 -- The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.:D


#13

[quote="Sair, post:9, topic:307764"]
Why must there be a "project" of human persons? Isn't it just hubris to suppose that we were planned with some cosmic destiny in mind? Why could not we just be?

[/quote]

Is it hubris on the part of your shoes to think that you picked them out of all others on the store shelves? Perhaps. But that is not an argument against the fact that you actually did pick them out of all others off the store shelves.

Think about it Sair. How could the reality of who you are come about without you? You came to be! You!
Why didn't you come about in some other body? In some other world? Why here? Why now? You, man! You! Think about it! Aargh!

We can't seem to see the most amazing, unbelievable possibility for what it is! Most unbelievably amazing!


#14

None of this makes any argument in favour of a designing god with a plan for our ultimate destiny. Even leaving aside the fundamentally flawed shoe analogy, I agree that it’s amazing that any of us even exist at all, as particular individuals. We won the lottery of life, and we are here, now. It takes a giant leap of arrogance to suppose this was more than biological happenstance. Why didn’t I come about in some other body? Because I didn’t. It happened to be my particular parents, with their particular gametes, who produced me - after they had been produced by their particular parents’ gametes, and so on back through the generations. That’s amazing in itself, certainly, but not in the way you imply here. The odds of winning a monetary lottery are astronomical, but it still happens to individuals - the of you and I existing as individuals are perhaps even longer than that, yet here we are…


#15

[quote="Sair, post:11, topic:307764"]
The established facts I had in mind are the necessity that some organisms die horribly because, for whatever reason, they are not adapted sufficiently to their environment to survive and reproduce. Even some of those that do reproduce die horribly after having done so - salmon are a good example. If there is a god designing and watching all this, said god must be a sadist of the first order.

What basis is there for thinking that humans have any access to a 'spiritual' world, or that such a world even exists?

[/quote]

The fact that I exist to take it all in and it makes perfect sense to me. Whatever I am, I know that I am me. How did that come about? Sure all those things "out there" could have evolved and have occurred as science supposes, but all of that could have happened unbeknown to me. It could have "just happened" and I would have been none the wiser. So why me? Why now? That little anomaly is a huge hole in the theory of everything. Yet, everything hangs on it, cause everything would be nothing without it.

I am "watching all this" and I don't see sadist at all. I see wonder and awe. I guess perspective makes a huge difference.


#16

[quote="Sair, post:14, topic:307764"]
... It takes a giant leap of arrogance to suppose this was more than biological happenstance....

[/quote]

If God made it happen, why is that arrogance on my part?

It seems arrogant to presume that it couldn't be more than biological happenstance. Why do you think you are properly capable of assessing the creative possibilities or desires of anyone or anything beyond your capacities? Why should your "knowledge" be the cap that determines the creative potential that could exist outside of you? You have no idea what exists outside your brain's capacity to take reality in. It would seem arrogant for that capacity to delimit what is beyond it.

It seems to me arrogant to presume in either direction, in fact arrogant to even think any possibility to be arrogant, simply because any possibility, is indeed, possible.

To rephrase a known quip, "Arrogant is as arrogant thinks."


#17

[quote="schnipdip, post:1, topic:307764"]
My belief is that there is a source, God. He started the Big Bang. That God has little influence on our world, that he let things evolve to the way things are now. And when he does have an influence it changes that persons life forever. So, God created everything, but he let everything evolve.

To me that makes sense.

[/quote]

I sometimes use the analogy of a snooker/pool player taking a shot. The player knows exactly what is going to happen before he takes the shot: what cushions the cue ball will hit, what other balls it will hit, which pocket the red is going to roll into. Everything is planned in advance, so there is no need to intervene during the course of the shot.

Some versions of God have the player nudging the cue ball during the course of the shot because things aren't going quite right. I see those versions of God as inferior.

rossum


#18

It made sense to Isaiah too but it’s not consumer-friendly, people want a go-getter God with a great brand image, this is the now generation.


#19

[quote="inocente, post:18, topic:307764"]
It made sense to Isaiah too but it’s not consumer-friendly, people want a go-getter God with a great brand image, this is the now generation.

[/quote]

Not only that! But it is obvious that some people want a god made in the image of themselves and their particular take on life. In addition, when people are not happy in the way they expect, then they dismiss god or rather they return the "spiritual" god to the image factory and look for another factory in the material "scienific" world. (sorry for the rant)


#20

[quote="Peter_Plato, post:15, topic:307764"]
The fact that I exist to take it all in and it makes perfect sense to me. Whatever I am, I know that I am me. How did that come about? Sure all those things "out there" could have evolved and have occurred as science supposes, but all of that could have happened unbeknown to me. It could have "just happened" and I would have been none the wiser. So why me? Why now? That little anomaly is a huge hole in the theory of everything. Yet, everything hangs on it, cause everything would be nothing without it.

I am "watching all this" and I don't see sadist at all. I see wonder and awe. I guess perspective makes a huge difference.

[/quote]

Hmmm, I think therefore I am! (to quote Descartes)
Surely, you could be saying 'why me, why now?' whatever lifeform or planet or timeframe you were in/on as long as you'd evolved enough to be self aware!!!
I guess it's too easy to make 'GOD' too simple. It's certainly true that out in nature it's one long battle with suffering all the way so it's easy to see how people say 'there can be no benevolent god getting involved'. Sorry to sound a miseryguts - actually I get a tremendous uplift when I stride out on the hills and look at the amazing world...but I am not blinded to the amount of suffering in the natural world either. I have the luxury of seeing it's beauty while being relatively sheltered from it's cruelty.


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.