In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome

**Ok,

So after long hard thinking and through much prayer, I’m beginning to accept the Evolution theory in that the Creator did evolve mankind, and that we are still “evolving” into what God planned for us from the beginning, to be like unto Him, perfect and holy.

Some great saints reached that highest point of evolution in their lives, which is why they are now great saints and venerated.

For the rest of us, it’ll take thousands of years and personally for many of us, many years in purgatory to be fully evolved into images of God.

Little by little, it is beginning to make sense, so my humble apologies to all those whom I rudely lashed out at in previous evolution threads.

Here is something in the New York Times I read today which all will be interested in reading…

nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html**

God Bless and thank you for educating me on this very controversial topic!

Try this on for size. Darwinism rejects the fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth. Which condradicts the catechism. The New York times holds as much credibility as the Ren and Stimpy show. For they have long history of fraud reporting.

Pope warns against excluding God from science

I couldn’t agree more about the NYT. Especially when the article takes a characteristic shot at the church in saying “But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican…”. More anti-Church garbage. They were honest about one thing though when they said “The article was not presented as an official church position.” and therefore it means nothing.

[quote=bones_IV]Try this on for size. Darwinism rejects the fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth.
[/quote]

And modern cosmology rejects the conclusion that God created the Earth ~6,000 years ago in six days. No big deal. One does not have to accept every assertion in the Bible as literal fact to preserve its theological position. AFAIK, there’s nothing in Catholic dogma that prevents a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible where necessary to maintain consistency with scientific truth.

The New York times holds as much credibility as the Ren and Stimpy show.

I think the NYT rises at least a little above R&S in the credibility department. Regardless, it’s unclear whether you’re disputing any facts presented in the article. Presumably the referenced article does actually exist in L’Osservatore.

Pope warns against excluding God from science

Science by itself does not logically exclude a God. It can merely discover how God chose to do what He did.

Darwin and/or neo-Darwinism are rejected by Rome. They are not compatible with the truth of Catholicism.

It’s important to understand that the pseudoscientific theory of Intelligent Design, as presented by its proponents such as the Discovery Institute, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and others, is not simply a theological interpretation of well-accepted scientific theories.

ID is, rather, the denial of the scientific correctness of modern theories of Evolution in favor of an alternative theory which is claiimed, by its proponents, to be scientific. However, the speculations of ID proponents does not fulfill any basic features of scientific methodology. To call it “science” is simply dishonest. The attempt to teach ID in science classrooms is an attempt to give government imprimatur to a specific religion in clear violation of the First Amendment. See Kitzmiller v. Dover (PDF) for a scathing indictment of Intelligent Design by a conservative, Christian Republican Judge.

[quote=buffalo]Darwin and/or neo-Darwinism are rejected by Rome. They are not compatible with the truth of Catholicism.
[/quote]

Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that, as a descriptive scientific theory, scientific theories of Evolution are indeed accepted by the Church.

[quote=2shelbys]“The article was not presented as an official church position.” and therefore it means nothing.
[/quote]

It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church is a somewhat conservative (in the sense of being resistant to change) organization. Any refinement of dogma would thus require decades, if not centuries of debate.

While obviously not authoritative, one would expect that the opinions of Church-accredited scholars would have *some *weight to practicing Catholics.

[quote=PLP]Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that, as a descriptive scientific theory, scientific theories of Evolution are indeed accepted by the Church.
[/quote]

Not Darwinism.

This will help explain it.

The Death of Darwinism

[quote=PLP]It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church is a somewhat conservative (in the sense of being resistant to change) organization. Any refinement of dogma would thus require decades, if not centuries of debate.

While obviously not authoritative, one would expect that the opinions of Church-accredited scholars would have *some *weight to practicing Catholics.
[/quote]

Why? I look to the Church for matters of faith and morals. I turn to the Church for devotion, discipline, doctrine and dogma. I turn to science for an answer to scientific questions. Evolution is a scientific theory that is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence. It is not a theological dogma of which the Church has authority over. Furthermore, Catholics are not free to just interpret Scripture “metaphorically” wherever they think Scripture “contradicts” science. Genesis is best understood literally, however that these literal truths were communicated in a Hebraic poetic form. Scripture is not a historical or scientific document. Though it has true history and true science in it, the intent of Scripture is to show us truth for our SALVATION. Thus, Catholics must believe certain things of Genesis to be literally true, while realizing that these truths may have been communicated in a poetic form.

CindyGia << So after long hard thinking and through much prayer, I’m beginning to accept the Evolution theory in that the Creator did evolve mankind, and that we are still “evolving” into what God planned for us from the beginning, to be like unto Him, perfect and holy. >>

Ah ha, now we’re getting somewhere. I see Cindy evolving from young-earther to theistic evolutionist before my very eyes…a complete change of species. PROOF of evolution. :smiley:

Now she, myself, Steve Anderson, Orogeny, zian, rossum, Hecd2, and the rest of us all know Jack! Jack is a nice man, not a bad person after all. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the NY Times article link.

Phil P

.

However, the speculations of ID proponents does not fulfill any basic features of scientific methodology.

Let’s be specific here. Please give examples of the speculations of which you are speaking.

bones << Try this on for size. Darwinism rejects the fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth. >>

Try this on too. Darwinism does not speak to that. So says Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. 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, In The Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, 1986, 1995)

Get Origin of the Human Species by Catholic philosopher Dennis Bonnette. He also says Darwinism (or what normal people call “evolutionary science”) cannot speak to Adam and Eve:

“Further, evolutionary science sees the broad picture of human origins taking place over a time-frame measured in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. It cannot focus on events affecting a single pair of humans at a given point in time. Anthropological data and theories are so general that they cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve, unless even the broad trends of such data are shown to oppose such particulars’ possibilities. Speculation based upon present data can, at best, indicate the nature and activities of early humans, pointing to largely undefined populations and imprecise time periods. It cannot address with precision the conditions of existence of a single pair of humans at a particular, distant-past time. It cannot exclude, a priori, the possibility of miraculous divine intervention whose reality falls entirely outside the fossil record.”

A paraphrase of his information on the topic. Very good book on theological and philosophical issues.

Finally, Mike Behe the main Intelligent Designer and Catholic himself has no problem with Catholic teaching and natural selection (or the mechanism of “Darwinism”):

“Although I think my arguments [on intelligent design] are nothing short of compelling, some other Catholic academics have disagreed with me and have published other views. Brown University biology professor Ken Miller describes himself as ‘an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist.’ In his 1999 book ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ Miller defends the standard view that, despite the unexpected complexity uncovered at the molecular level, natural selection is the best explanation for life. While admitting that Darwinian explanations currently don’t exist for many molecular systems, he expresses confidence that explanations will be forthcoming as science progresses…”

“The point I’m trying to drive home here by discussing my own work as well as the work of [Ken] Miller and [John] Haught, is that a very wide range of views about the mechanism of evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching, from the natural selection defended by Miller, to the intelligent design I have proposed, to the animated, information-suffused universe that John Haught sees. Those mechanisms are all proposed by persons who attach the same bottom-line philosophy to their ideas that Pope John Paul described: that ‘it is the God of Israel who acts’ and that ‘it is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint.” (Michael Behe, from “A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing edited by William Dembski [2004], page 143-144)

So both Ken Miller and Mike Behe agree that “Darwinism” (i.e. natural selection) doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching.

Phil P

[quote=buffalo]The Death of Darwinism
[/quote]

Bad science. Very bad science. It’s full of inaccuracies ripped straight from Answers in Genesis. And the author appears to have absolutely no official accreditation with the Church, so I don’t see how it speaks at all to official Church policy, even peripherally.

[quote=Redbandito]Why? I look to the Church for matters of faith and morals. I turn to the Church for devotion, discipline, doctrine and dogma. I turn to science for an answer to scientific questions. Evolution is a scientific theory that is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence. It is not a theological dogma of which the Church has authority over.
[/quote]

The question I was addressing was the theological implications of the science. I’m no expert in Catholic dogma, but presumably the Church is wrestling in its own inimitable way with how to properly interpret the story of Adam and Eve in light of the findings of science.

Furthermore, Catholics are not free to just interpret Scripture “metaphorically” wherever they think Scripture “contradicts” science.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church does indeed have the authority to decide when to interpret Scripture literally or metaphorically.

Genesis is best understood literally, however that these literal truths were communicated in a Hebraic poetic form.

With all due respect, I suspect you’re confusing “literal” with “truthful”. If I were to say, “It was raining cats and dogs”, I might be truthful in that it was indeed raining very heavily, but my words would not be literally correct in that actual dogs and cats would not be falling from the sky. There’s simply no question in my mind that the Church is going to find scripture always truthful. However, some of it will end up being metaphorically truthful rather than literally truthful.

[quote=bear06]Let’s be specific here. Please give examples of the speculations of which you are speaking.
[/quote]

ID proponents say that features of modern organisms are the result of an intelligent agent guiding the appearance of their features. This is really the only only claim that ID makes. I suppose I must admit to a bit of hyperbole in using the plural of “speculation”.

Why? How do you tell the difference between the result of an intelligent agent and the result of natural processes? How does the intelligent agent actually guide the morphology or genetics of life forms? How is this speculation falsifiable, per Popper? How does it lead to a fruitful research program, per Lakatos? I’ve been following ID for several years now, and I’ve never seen specifics. Where’s the beef?

[quote=PhilVaz]Anthropological data and theories are so general that they cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve, unless even the broad trends of such data are shown to oppose such particulars’ possibilities.
[/quote]

A perfectly literal reading of Genesis puts Adam and Eve created without ancestry (except for mud) at the center of a special creation ~6,000 years ago. I just don’t see how you can reconcile even the possibility of the literal truth of those particular facts with the broad trends of scientific data.

To those who delve deep enough. Evolution will never be a satisfactory answer.

To those who have created and sustained the theory, it will always be the answer.

It is so tiring to see every argument of the creationists explained away as “bad science” etc…

There are some very ignorant people out there who claim things which are obviously in contradiction to science, or that dont represent things properly.

What we fail to do is give those who do use proper science a chance because of this.

In Christ.

Andre.

What we fail to do is give those who do use proper science a chance because of this.That’s assuming there are such people.

Peace

Tim

[quote=Magicsilence]To those who delve deep enough. Evolution will never be a satisfactory answer.
[/quote]

There’s nothing stopping anyone from delving deeper than science, into metaphysics and religion.

To those who have created and sustained the theory, it will always be the answer.

Science is about answering the questions: What is this universe? How does it work? If that’s what you’re trying to find out (and there does seem some value in doing so), science will give you the answers. If you want to ask, “Why?” then science isn’t going to tell you.

It is so tiring to see every argument of the creationists explained away as “bad science” etc…

Well, with all due respect, every creationist argument (save those who have God creating the universe at the fundamental level of natural law and at the mystical level of the soul) is bad science. It’s tiring to have to refute bad science.

And please understand: I don’t just “dismiss” creationist arguments as bad science, I can argue most points in considerable depth. Most points, though, can be quickly refuted by a quick peek at Talk.Origins.

If I want to discuss theology, it’s simple respect to read the Bible and have familiarized myself with at least the basis of theological discourse. It’s very discouraging when creationists do not do the same with regard to evolutionary science.

There are some very ignorant people out there who claim things which are obviously in contradiction to science, or that dont represent things properly.

Yes, yes there are.

What we fail to do is give those who do use proper science a chance because of this.

Not me. If someone has an actual scientific position, I’m willing to consider it on its own merits. Professional scientists have paid considerable attention to those who are making some attempt to at least use a little scientific terminology (e.g. Behe and Dembski); their ideas have received considerable attention and reasoned argument.

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.