Catholics and evolution

[August]

Hi,

Here is an interesting article about a Catholic view on evolution. It is a compromise of sorts, with a couple of pretty bold statements, like the Catholic church needs to accept evolution to stay relevant. He also seems to somewhat misunderstand the 1996 Papal speech. The Pope spoke of several theories of evolution, and did not say he accepted neo-Darwinism. The Pope was more concerned about holding a close relationship with science.

Here is a link to the 2004 document mentioned:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ip_en.html

It clearly states that neo-Darwinism is not accepted, and an unguided process falls outside the scope of Godly creation.

This article seems to misconstrue both. Comments?

A

Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

By Catholic News Service

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Catholic educators need better teaching programs about evolution "to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up" from the general society, according to a U.S. bishops' official involved in dialogue with scientists for 20 years.

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, "Catholicism may begin to seem less and less 'realistic' to more and more thoughtful people," said David Byers, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003.

"That dynamic is a far greater obstacle to religious assent than evolution," he said in a bylined article in the Feb. 7 issue of America, a weekly magazine published in New York by the Jesuits. The article discussed the value of the dialogues with scientists organized by the bishops' committee.

"Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time," he said without mentioning specific controversies in the United States.

In recent years, conflicts have arisen in several parts of the country questioning whether evolution should be taught in public schools as scientific fact. In January, the public school board in Cobb County, Ga., voted to appeal a federal judge's order to remove stickers on science textbooks which said that "evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Byers said, "The official church sees little danger in evolution." He cited a 1996 speech by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Science and a 2004 document, "Communion and Stewardship" by the Vatican's International Theological Commission.

The 2004 document "properly recognizes evolutionary theory as firmly grounded in fact," he said.

But "our educational leadership has been very slow to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up from prominent elements in contemporary culture," he said.

Byers complained that sermons and religious education materials "routinely describe Adam and Eve as if they were an essentially modern couple," although "it is reasonable to suppose that the first humans, whatever their stature in the eyes of God, looked and lived like other hominids of their time," he added.

The Genesis creation stories should not be read literally because "they are stories, after all," he said. They are meant to express "deeper truths" about God's intent in creating humans, said Byers.

"It is wise to encourage an understanding of Scripture consistent with what we know (or think we know) in the 21st century," he said.

Byers, currently executive director of the bishops' Committee on the Home Missions, called evolution "one of the hottest battlegrounds between science and religion."

Evolutionary theory by itself "does not necessarily support any philosophical or theological generalizations," he said. "Arguments that evolution disproves God's existence or humanity's spiritual dimension are simply wrongheaded."

Debating the implications of evolution with scientists "is a healthy exercise in aligning science and religion, however the discussion turns out," he said.

Byers said church dialogue with scientists is a way of showing the scientific community that the church has important values to contribute to issues raised by their research and the applications of their knowledge.

Although most scientists are not Catholics and are skeptical at first about the value of dialogue, their attitudes often change, he said.

"While few accepted the Catholic position on the moral status of the early embryo, for example, most found the church's insistence on respecting human life at every stage serious and substantive," said Byers.

Dialogue also helps evangelization because of U.S. society's strong belief "that science offers an accurate, if limited, account of the way things are," he said.

Many Catholics question whether their religion is as in touch with reality as science is, he said.

"Dialogue between religion and science can help assuage their doubts, clearing away obstacles to a vital faith," he said.

"It can also make that faith more reasonable for those who may be considering joining the church," he said.

[Shirtless]

I think once evolution is finally proven wrong, the Pope is going to look quite flushed.

[Mastermind]

I don't think he'll live that long.

[Shirtless]

You pessimistic bastard.

[Deborah]

Don't you just feel the love

[Mastermind]

Oh well. He is a good man.

[Shirtless]

What?! You gotta problem *****?!!

...oh, that was a complement. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't the Catholic church adopt ID. Also if we could just push for ID to be taught along with Evolution then we can slowly diminish the exaggerated version of natural selection that scientists are promoting.

The Catholic church i think has made a big mistake here because we need to push for our viewpoint all the way so that a compromise can be made in schools where it counts.

I believe mr. Johnson the law professor is going to court to put ID in schools and Dover is also facing some challenges in trying to implement ID. Anyone here more about this?

[August]

Vvart, if you read the background material, it is a veiled acceptance of some sort of ID, and full-scale condemnation of naturalistic evolution. The person quoted in this article misconstrues the original material somewhat to make it sound as if the CC accepts neo-Darwinism. My understanding is that the CC is really scared of coming across as young-earth, which they are not.

[Anonymous]

that makes sense, yeah i read what the pope said, but i wasn't sure cause this quote did push me off track.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge

That statement makes me laugh so much (it's sad really...but I laugh at a lot of things). Scientific "knowledge?" Oh I love that...I've never heard of scientific "knowledge" that supports evolution. And excuses and theories don't count as knowledge. Evolution takes away man's uniqueness by equating him to a less hairy chimp.

[sandy_mcd]

Why doesn't the Catholic church adopt ID. Also if we could just push for ID to be taught along with Evolution then we can slowly diminish the exaggerated version of natural selection that scientists are promoting.
...

Not trying to be presumptuous, my impression is that the Catholic church is not a proponent of ID. Obviously the Church does believe in a "designer" but it does not follow that proof of the design can be found in nature. [There wouldn't be much need for faith if a powerful enough microscope could examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God".] The Pope's statement at the beginning of this thread makes it clear that the Catholic church has no problem with theistic evolution. Certainly individual Catholics are free not to believe in evolution (my brother is pretty fundamentalist in his views in that regard).

I suspect that the Church is in part motivated by the words of St Augustine ( http://www.holycross.edu/departments/re ... enesis.htm This excerpt is taken from St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” "

Sandy

[Anonymous]

I am currently enrolled at a Catholic high school and in a class where we've had this very discussion.

The Catholic stance, which can be found in several recognized sources, is that the evolution of the physical aspect of man may be accepted with proper evidence. However, the soul of man (which is held to be eternal) was created at an exact point by God. We also accept the evolution of other natural occurences that Darwin supported.

I support evolution, just to put it out there. My father is a biology professor (one of deep faith, mind), and we've discussed this time and time again. I have yet to find evidence of creationism that was not somehow skewed or biased and was easily disproved, but then again, I'm only 18.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I think good evidence for creationism is....a lack of evidence for the other side. And, haven't you realized that evidence for evolution is skewed and biased? Everyone has a bias...and may consciously or unconsciously skew evidence.

[Dan]

I think good evidence for creationism is....a lack of evidence for the other side. And, haven't you realized that evidence for evolution is skewed and biased? Everyone has a bias...and may consciously or unconsciously skew evidence.

The same can be said about Intelligent Design.

I'm a proponent of ID if you didn't know.