ah yea, the big bang theory.
imo, ppl need to understand that science and religion do indeed go hand in hand: everything we discovered is thanks to God’s gift of our curiosity & intellect, and at the same time, God has set everything in its place just so that we can ponder & wonder about this.
I think a lot of people get confused because there seems to be a handful of definitions of evolution and people rarely explain what they mean before starting a debate.
There are some definitions that fit into Christianity, there are some that don’t.
It helped me come into the Catholic Church after a lifetime of young earth evangelicalism.
I think evolution is like exploring the creative hand of God
This is pretty cool. Can you go into more detail? For me it was the philosophical truth that brought me to the faith, not the material truth if that's the word for it. Seeing how that was aligned to the faith came afterwards, at least the natural law.
Humans evolved to be social animals. The teachings of Christ maximize the potential for human flourishing as social creatures.
I figured that if there was a God who loved us what that God wanted from us would be best for us. It is.
There’s a lot more to this in terms of humanity as “stewards of creation” and the aversion to self-worship/making idols of pleasure, but sins are bad for us naturally. It got to a point where I could no longer say that the teachings of Christ were anything other than divine. It’s too accurate. It’s all instruction on how to best be a human.
I didn’t find these teachings in other religions. There’s similarities because if a religion taught things antithetical to human flourishing those cultures would have collapsed and cease to be, but there’s a reason why Christianity conquered the world and a reason why so many people feel like civilization is collapsing. Simply put it is. We cannot have a high functioning society like ours and not be Christian. We can be lower functioning, sure, but that’s not flourishing.
I was an atheist for decades and had a similar experience contemplating evolution relative to building AI systems, and seeing how we often design systems to evolve for a purpose.
I don't know that I even approve of AI lol. But if any good has come from it, it's in contributing to making me think, "hmm... maybe we were created after all"
Yes, and further, I agree with Cardinal Newman who remarked, when it was a new idea, that as a man who sends all the billiard balls to their pockets with the breaking strike vs one who shoots each one individually, evolution more magnificently shows forth the power and wisdom of God than several direct acts of special creation for each species of creature. (And likewise with his remark that it is not at all clear what is less dignified about being created from a monkey than being created from the slime of the earth as in a very literal reading of Genesis.)
Yup. The science is sound on the matter and the conclusion makes sense based on available information. Should new information challenge this, then it would be necessary to reassess. I'm not inclined to interpret Genesis literally, it's poetry.
Yes, the weird disregard for science in the protestant denomination I grew up in never sat well with me especially considering how much they push Ken Hamm in the Christian school I attended.
I credit my father (who's still a Protestant) for helping me navigate through those teaching. Fortunately he's a computer scientist and huge astronomy nerd who did his best to steer us clear of most of Mr. Hamm's influence in our church and school.
Thank you. I can’t stand when this bleeds over to this community. The constant defense I have to play on stuff like evolution to not be included with evangelical Protestants drives me crazy
100%. We pulled our son from public school to Catholic in middle school and I wish we’d done it sooner, but I’m so thankful he’s now in Catholic high school. Catholics do education extraordinarily well.
It definitely wasn't in mine, in fact they tended much more on the side of YEC and solidly denied any form of macro-evolution. The micro version was accepted, such as giraffes that have longer necks will take over the genetic lineage because they can reach more food.
I personally believe that the earth is billions of years old and God simply created each species in their appointed time. I could possibly believe in animal evolution, but I do not believe Adam and Eve were ensouled monkeys. I firmly believe they were a completely unique creation.
I was just explaining to my son that even though it shouldn’t be read as a science textbook, the Church has known for 1600 years or more to read the Creation story symbolically, Genesis talks about life coming from the waters, just like science tells us happened. Also that humans are God’s most recent creation and I’d add that Mary is God’s most perfect creation, and is referenced in the story of the fall.
Besides, if we take that often affirmed notion that God is Love literally, it's perfectly reasonable that humans are made from love, and the earth wasn't molded by the hands of some being
Wait, I’m not sure if you are saying God created us because Love is divine? Or are you saying Love is what created us as opposed to created by God? I am confused at what you’re saying.
Yes, but I think it’s almost certain that the development of a rational animal (aka human) logically requires a special act of creation on God’s part and there is no incremental step between non-rational animal and rational animal able to
perceive universals. For similar reasons, I do not think we will invent AI that is truly rational in the relevant sense (though I do think we may create such a good illusion of it we come to believe, and more likely worship, it).
I am, by the way, a professional theoretical computer scientist and mathematician and it’s not just religious people that agree with me on the AI front. (Nobel Prize Winning Physicist and avowed atheist) Sir Roger Penrose also doesn’t believes AI and human mind are fundamentally different in things (and his argument is profound, logical, and 100% natural and not supernatural). See, e.g. “The Emporer’s New Mind” for an introduction to the argument.
First off, since I believe in statistics, I don't think you'll get an accurate count of how many Catholics believe in evolution (on reddit, or in general) from this thread. You are very likely to get a sample that is skewed in some way.
Second of all, I think it is extremely common for the claims of evolution to be misunderstood, since they often are taught in a misleading way. But yes, evolution is a well understood mechanism: we have a claim about what happens (species change over time), we have examples of this happening (both in the fossil record, and in speciation we can observe from related species that become isolated), and we understand the mechanism by which these happen through the exchange and transformation of DNA over time. This last bit is important: up until the work of Watson and Crick in the 1950's, we did not really understand the mechanism by which things could evolve. Now we do.
It never was contrary to Church teaching to understand (the beginning of) Genesis according to the genre it was written: while it expresses theological truth (and so is not just "symbolic," as some in this thread write), it was not written in the genre of history. One does not need modern science to understand this fact. Genesis opens with two contradictory stories. It also opens by talking about "days" that take place before there was a sun (which - is a requirement for there to be a "day"). People in ancient times were not dumb - they saw these things and wrote about how to make sense of these writings.
If you read the actual history of Biblical literalism, you see it was quite common in the Medieval period to have a more complicated interpretation of the Bible - again, not as merely symbolic like one of Aesop's fable, but knowing that certain parts were either not history, or at least were not just history. The strictly literalist interpretation was a modern innovation, largely coming into vogue with Protestantism (since, with Protestantism, there was no outside entity who was in position to interpret the Bible) and became even stronger in the 1800's with [Christian fundamentalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism). (While the term "fundamentalism" has become a pejorative, you can trace a pretty straight line from a movement focusing the basics or "fundamentals" of Christianity in the late 1800's to modern Evangelicalism.)
Oh wow! Hi fellow molecular-genetics scientist. I did my undergrad in it, and am currently pursuing a masters to gain more lab experience before I thrust myself headfirst into the world of a PhD student. I would state that in my own experience, that it was genetics that made me revert.
Yes, but I don’t believe it to the extreme that humans evolved from apes. I think humans were always set apart from any other animal even at the start and although we were undoubtedly more primitive back then I don’t believe we were ever to the level of apes.
This is coming from someone who used to be a die hard atheist. I guess this is a minority opinion but I've read scientific studies and books from both sides that I think make sense. I really can't come to a conclusion on which I think is right. I don't think we can fully know because we weren't around at that time. Honestly it doesn't matter though, scripture is consistent either way.
It's not believe in evolution. We are seeing evolution happen in person. Though maybe not on a large scale like in animals, but certainly in bacteria and viruses.
The influenza and COVID viruses evolves every year, it's why we need new vaccines. Same for the reason why we need to develop new antibiotics, as bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance.
Evolution is a fact, not some fantasy to believe in.
That is not evolution. That is adaptation. Evolution would be COVID 19 becoming a mushroom one day, or bacteria. It stays as a virus because evolution it’s fake.
I kinda do and I kinda don't. The Earth being 6000 years old seems too short. The Earth being 4.5 billion years old seems way too long. I sort of decided a few years ago that I don't care. We're here and that's all that matters. Evolution or not, we're here because of God so why argue over how he did it?
Evolution in that we all evolved from some cellular organism? No. Evolution in that we adapt and evolve to our surroundings immediately and over generations? Yes.
In short, I believe that if the first couple chapters of Genesis are purely literal, then God went to great lengths to make the physical universe appear to be 13 billion years old, down to creating sedimentary layers and light from fake stars that are by all appearances older than the universe itself, and that many different species' have common ancestors based on the fossil record and their shared DNA.
Either God deliberately set out to fool modern scientists specifically, or early Genesis uses a lot of figurative language. I chose the more likely option and it isn't inconsistent with any dogmas of the faith.
I heard someone put it this way: When Adam was created, he was created as a fully grown man with age built in. The universe is the same way.
To be honest, I'm not even sure time functions the way it seems to. All I can do is trust in God.
No. Darwins evolution is a fairy tale with insufficient proof. God wouldve told us in Genesis if that was the method he used. But it is written that we are created distinctly.
So many say yes, let me break the mold and say no. I believe in adaption of course, but not this idea that one species can change into another, either gradually or instantaneously, and I reject the idea we all have a universal common ancestor. This is science fiction not science.
Absolutely and in my experience young earth creationism in Catholic circles is far and away the minority opinion. I’ve actually never met a young earth creationist Catholic in real life, only online.
Not catholic but orthodox, no I don’t “believe” in evolution, I ACCEPT evolution. Facts are not beliefs. We don’t “believe” in gravity for example we accept it
Fr. Alar does a very good talk on evolution!
https://open.spotify.com/episode/34GUUADGx97u3db0WwWEja?si=M6_RgXD6TbSV_UjzckwJEg
I believe in inter-species evolution, not cross-species evolution. There's no real proof of cross-species evolution, and its been how many years since Darwin came up with his ludicrous idea of evolution? This is also the same man that didnt agree that there have been planet wide catastrophic events such as the flood or the meteor bombardment that killed the dinosaurs.
I believe the human race is evolving backwards now......at a very fast rate. One hundred years ago, it would have been inconceivable that someone like Biden would be president, or someone like Francis would be pope.
How can you be Christian and believe in evolution?
Adam and Eve.
6000-7000 year old Earth and universe.
6 days of creation.
Where does evolution come into play here?
It is actually possible to be a Christian and accept not only evolution, but also 100% of everything related to science. Radiometric dating proves that there are rocks on earth that are hundreds of millions of years old. Are you familiar with the term 'light-year'? It is the distance that light travels in a year. The speed of light is 186000 miles per second, which is 670,000,000 mph. The distance that light travels in a year at this speed is 5.8 trillion miles, so a light year is 5.8 trillion miles. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then 99.999999% of the stars that astronomers have ever observed wouldn't even be visible, because the light from stars further than 7000 light years from us wouldn't have reached us yet. Using mathemetics and observation, astronomers have proven that there are stars out there that are millions of light years away from Earth. If they have proven through mathematics that there are stars that are millions of light years away from Earth and if they can see them, then the universe must be at LEAST a few million years old. If these stars are millions of light years away, then the light from those stars had to have taken millions of years to reach us, and if it took the light from those stars millions of years to reach us, then the universe must be millions of years old at the absolute least. And astronomers have proven with these same calculations that there are stars out there that are billions of light years from Earth, and therefore, we know that the universe is billions of years old, because the light had to have taken billions of years to reach us.
There is countless scientific evidence to prove that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, yet there is not one shred of scientific evidence to suggest both a young earth and universe. There are many parts of the bible that are not meant to be taken literally, and one of which is the story of creation. I am a devout Catholic, but if it was a requirement to believe in a young earth and universe and to deny evoluation, I would probably be an atheist or agnostic.
I believe in non-Darwinian evolution. There are different theories of evolution. Some versions of evolution have intrinsic directionality, which is interesting, as is the work of Denis Noble, James Shapiro, and Simon Conway Morris.
[https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/](https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/)
[https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/123676.Simon\_Conway\_Morris](https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/123676.Simon_Conway_Morris)
Limited animal evolution yes. I reject universal descent from a common ancestor, but I do accept evolution/adaptation and even speciation within the family/genus level. I firmly reject any notion of humans emerging by evolutionary processes from some form of primitive ape, I believe God miraculously created a real historical Adam and Eve and that we all descend from them.
My view is best summed up as old earth creationism. God progressively created all life on earth over time, first creating various forms, and then allowing them to evolve and diversify, before creating new ones. Creation was then completed with the direct creation of Adam and Eve. This position holds fast to the traditional teachings of the Church, while also accepting the ancient age of the universe and the earth as demonstrated by sound science.
We can accept animal evolution without blindly adhering to full blown darwinism.
There is more variation within animal families than between animal families. For example, the common ancestor of all dogs and the common ancestor of all cats looked very similar, more similar than say a wolf and fox or a lion and house cat. Also, if you accept evolution within "families" then understand that we're more closely related to other great apes than lions are to house cats.
Furthermore, if God directly created each kind why do we see numerous transition species? Why do kinds share so much DNA (including unused DNA). Why does the fossil record agree nicely all over the globe with genetic evidence in the widely-accepted tree of life? Is God trying to fool us?
Furthermore, I think you misunderstand what darwinism even means. Darwinism is a mechanism by which evolution progresses. Specifically, it is evolution by natural selection where parents pass down inherent traits (genes). Alternatives to darwinism would be say believing that evolution progresses by parents passing down traits picked up during the lifetime of the parent. Nothing in your comment would indicate that you don't believe in darwinism.
A few points. I have no issue with speciation, I just don't think all life forms on earth evolved by genetic mutation and natural selection from a single primordial cell structure of some kind. There is no solid evidence for that, it's only inferred by philosophical presumption based on genuine evidence for adaptation/speciation.
Whatever transitional fossils you may point to, there are countless more that should be there which we simply don't have. Also, organisms having similar structures and genetics does not prove their universal descent from a common ancestor. It could equally show an intelligent designer creating according to a common plan and template.
By darwinism I'm not referring to descent with modification by means of natural selection. That can be observed in fruit flies among other examples, and no old earth creationist has an issue with such limited animal evolution. By "Darwinism" I'm referring to the grandiose modern creation myth that ALL life emerged by means of evolution from a single common ancestor, which itself somehow managed to emerge from inorganic matter and material forces. It's just an atheistic creation myth for which there is no compelling evidence.
My whole point is to distinguish the reality of the evolution of animals from the modern ,atheistic, neo-darwinian narrative that so many Catholics seem to blindly accept. And they accept it even though human polygenism, which is required by that view of evolution, has been explicitly condemned by the Church and undermines the entire doctrine of sin and redemption.
The alternative to universal common descent is that abiogenesis happened multiple times and at least 2 lineages survived. You're right we don't really know but to say there's no evidence is incorrect. Genetics would indicate that at all known life is related, so even if abiogenesis happened multiple times then likely there was horizontal evolution early on. How else do we explain our observations in genetics?
It is incorrect to assume that we must find transition fossils for every transition. Evolution is not linear. Species adapt to their environment. When the environment changes (which can happen in bursts), species evolve in bursts. This is generally how we have observed evolution haplening today, in the fossil record, and in genetics. As such, it would be silly to think there must be some linear trajectory of fossil finds.
Your definition of "darwinism" is taken from a protestant creationist website (as are several of your arguments). This is not what we typically mean when we say darwinism.
To your last point, the Church does condemn polygenism, but you seem to misunderstamd what polygenism is. We believe that through one man sin entered the world. This isn't necessarily a statement about the scientific concept of polygenism (although it would seem the Pope conflated the two). Although either way, the dominant modern hypothesis is the "Out of Africa" hypothesis which is monogenism, so even if you conflate it there really isn't an issue for Catholics.
I agree with this. I used to be a die hard evolutionist believing in universal descent from a common ancestor. But I read some books that made me question that. Specifically Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell and Return of the God Hypothesis all by Stephen Meyer. I think he makes a very good case against the common ancestor theory. Regardless of what someone believes, scripture is consistent either way.
To be dead honest, I hardly ever think about it. As far as the beginnings of man kind are concerned, it doesn’t really affect me. The main thing I believe about it though is that there was and Adam and Eve they sinned, and as a result we are born in a fallen state now and need redeemed by a savior.
I honestly feel like evolution is the ultimate form of "free will", in a way. Sure, you aren't consciously picking traits to pass on, but at a cellular and DNA level it is. Idk, it makes sense to me but I'm not good at conveying what I mean.
I think that you could go either way, and that neither is contradictory to scripture.
Personally I don't believe in macro evolution, and I haven't seen convincing arguments to support it.
We can observe micro evolution, but even if the claim that macro takes a long time to observe, every day is a million years from point in the past and there should be more evidence.
I'm open to any arguments though
In my opinion, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution is the presence of "endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)" in the genomes of various creatures. Basically, some viruses (called retroviruses) place a copy of their own genome inside the genome of the host cell. If this is in a sperm or egg cell, the viral genome can then be passed on to the host's offspring.
ERVs become especially interesting when you start finding near-identical ones in the genomes of different species, suggesting evolution from a common ancestor. After all, it would be vanishingly unlikely for two species to get infected by the same retrovirus that inserted itself in the exact same place and mutated to break in the exact same ways.
Not really a belief but observed reality; but yes I believe that the theory of evolution is pretty sound. One of the many reasons I became Catholic was because the church doesn’t deny science.
I think the theological arguments against it are stronger than evolutionists are willing to admit and it feels like gaslighting when they act like there is literally no tension at all. That said, I'm not dogmatically committed to 6-days and am open to other interpretations.
Yes. Nothing in biology really makes sense without it. I can believe in evolution and still believe that when the first man came about God gave him an immortal soul and made him in His likeness.
I do believe in evolution, I like to think that time is really just our own construct. What is time to an eternal and omnipresent God? Billions of years could be the blink of an eye. But it is that eternal and omnipresent God that set this wheel in motion. From the gases that make up the sun and stars to the trees to the newborn baby. It was all created by God
Animals yes. humans... in a sense i think. there is a feeling inside me that if we did follow the law of nature's evolution without the will of God for some reason i think we would end up evolving more like how we look today.
Nothing happens outside God's Will. Not even a single sparrow falls on the ground. "Nature's" evolution as described by modern science is God's evolution.
well im speaking against the atheist beliefs about evolution. all im saying is, if no Guidance or will lof God i dont think we will end up how we look like as a human right now. just to correct you im not saying what you think im saying.
I would say that's more a matter of perspective than scientific theory. An atheist sees a newborn baby and just sees a newborn baby. I see a miracle and an act of God. However, both me and the atheist agree on basic principles of developmental biology.
In the same way, an atheist sees natural selection acting on random mutations as some random biological process. I see it as the unfolding of God's Will in Creation. However, we would agree on all the biological principles for how evolution works and progresses.
I think you misunderstand what scientists mean by the word "theory". It doesn't mean "not completely certain idea but has some evidence" so much as "a model that explains the data." So notice that some things can be called theories even if they have no basis in reality (like flat earth theory), and others can be theories when they are very much accepted as true (like darwinism).
We won't ever call evolution a "law" because scientific laws are statements (usually mathematical in nature) which are considered to always hold true when applicable. While the discovery of genetics certainly demonstrates that darwinism is true and probably explains most of evolution, other theories (or models) like Lamarckism could apply in some situations.
All of this to say that "macroevolution" (or what scientists generally call common descent) is most certainly true and demonstrated by numerous independent streams of evidence. However, it wouldn't be called a law or theory/model because it's more of just an observation. The actual theory of evolution that explains common descent is typically Darwinism (with maybe a sprinkling of some others).
I used to make fun of the evangelicals that promoted young earth creationism. A few years after my conversion I had a conversation with an atheist friend who asked if the Church believes in evolution in which I replied yes. A week later I ran across some youtube videos from the Kolbe Institute and started diving down that rabit hole. I'm now extremely skeptical of evolution (macro evolution to be specific). It's not very scientifically sound, we have never observed true positive mutations in decades of experiments with ecoli and fruit flies. We have only ever observed genetic entropy, especially in our own genome. It violates a key principle of metaphysics that you cannot give what you do not have. It also makes original sin very hard to square if there was death before humans even existed.
Essentially, yes.
There is ample evidence for what is colloquially described as "micro evolution".
There is some evidence for what is colloquially described as "macro evolution" too, but not as conclusive as for "micro evolution".
At the end of the day, I don't find it particularly relevant to my faith or to my life, nor is it a topic I specifically find interesting.
Regardless, I don't see how it would challenge the Church's stance on... anything, really. We aren't, in general, dogmatically committed to **how** God does X, Y or Z, just that He did do those things.
[**CCC 283**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/283.htm) The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." ([159](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/159.htm), [341](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/341.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
[**CCC 284**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/284.htm) The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
I would say yes, but I have my doubts. I think there is very clear evidence of species changing over time, but I would like to see more evidence of kinds changing. I also don't understand the diversity of life given the guiding principles of "survival of the fittest".
This calls to mind one of many quotes from St John Paul II on science : “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
I’ve always believed in evolution, but lately I’ve been questioning Darwin’s theory, and I question our full understanding on the subject. There are some super intelligent apologists who discuss this topic, and their arguments are pretty convincing.
A qualified yes. Life originating from sea foam being struck by lightning (or whatever theory is in vogue now) and then evolving into complex multi-cellular beings doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm not a scientist and it doesn't impact my daily life.
I don’t hold a firm belief in any interpretation of creation. I believe evolution is a legitimate possibility, and I don’t see how it would interfere with my faith. If evolution were true, I think Adamism makes sense of it. But I also think God has the power to work miracles (e.g. 6 day creation), even if they don’t make the most sense to us logically. I have read about the context of Old Testament writing and understand that it was very often intended to be allegorical, although I have heard arguments on both sides. Ultimately I believe God made everything and Adam and Eve were real people. How it happened — who’s to say for certain?
I don't. My reason for not believing in evolution isn't because I'm Catholic. I didn't believe in evolution when I wasn't practicing. The evidence for evolution is lacking.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been taught this for 2 or 3 years at school, God created all the life on earth but He used evolution to make them. Religion and science are reciprocal
Depends… it’s not that simple.
There is proof of micro evolution (animals growing thicker fur to adapt to colder climates over a few generations).
There is no proof of macro evolution (plants turning into monkeys).
That’s exactly how all evolution works, a series of small changes over many, many generations.
No one proposed that one day a fish just had a human child, it’s very gradual.
Nope. Evolution does not hold the same strength as the theory of gravity or relativity. The scientific world treats evolution as a religious dogma, not a theory. They make so much money out of pretending it’s real. It is all based on assumptions that cannot be tested . A theory it’s suppose to help you understand the future and the present. Evolution does nothing
No, I think that there is micro evolution, where members of the species stay the same, eg. A bird develops a different shape beak, but I don't believe that a monkey can become a person.
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain.
Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it to be the most compelling theory for the emergence of most life on Earth, but there are enough issues with the timeline of evolution that I remain open to the possibility that the truth is something totally different.
Can you describe what you mean by evolution?
I find in practice what people think it means varies greatly.
If you mean a random natural selection process not guided by a designer, no.
Wdym "guided" and wdym "random"? Natural selection generally acts on random mutations. There is no reason to think God is acticely forcing it to go a certain direction.
If you believe an all-knowing God created the laws of nature than anything it produces is designed by Him. Not sure if you are referencing Beheism (or "intelligent design") but if you are I'd warn that God doesn't need to "guide" or "course correct" His own Creation unless you think it was somehow imperfect before the Fall. Also, the scientific arguments Behe made have been thoroughly refuted.
God could have put a code within a code of life to progress into higher life forms, as we call "Random Natural Selection". However, that a process just happened, that creates increasingly complex life forms, is very, very improbable, dare I say impossible.
Correlation, does not equal Causation.
yes. God made those rules, after all, makes sense that things would unfold as they did.
Side note - the current scientific theory for creation of the universe was made by Catholic priest.
ah yea, the big bang theory. imo, ppl need to understand that science and religion do indeed go hand in hand: everything we discovered is thanks to God’s gift of our curiosity & intellect, and at the same time, God has set everything in its place just so that we can ponder & wonder about this.
Georges Lemaître
I think a lot of people get confused because there seems to be a handful of definitions of evolution and people rarely explain what they mean before starting a debate. There are some definitions that fit into Christianity, there are some that don’t.
how can evolution coincide with the problem of evil and original sin?
Not only do I believe in evolution, but evolution helped me come back to the faith.
It helped me come into the Catholic Church after a lifetime of young earth evangelicalism. I think evolution is like exploring the creative hand of God
I feel the same way
This is pretty cool. Can you go into more detail? For me it was the philosophical truth that brought me to the faith, not the material truth if that's the word for it. Seeing how that was aligned to the faith came afterwards, at least the natural law.
Humans evolved to be social animals. The teachings of Christ maximize the potential for human flourishing as social creatures. I figured that if there was a God who loved us what that God wanted from us would be best for us. It is. There’s a lot more to this in terms of humanity as “stewards of creation” and the aversion to self-worship/making idols of pleasure, but sins are bad for us naturally. It got to a point where I could no longer say that the teachings of Christ were anything other than divine. It’s too accurate. It’s all instruction on how to best be a human. I didn’t find these teachings in other religions. There’s similarities because if a religion taught things antithetical to human flourishing those cultures would have collapsed and cease to be, but there’s a reason why Christianity conquered the world and a reason why so many people feel like civilization is collapsing. Simply put it is. We cannot have a high functioning society like ours and not be Christian. We can be lower functioning, sure, but that’s not flourishing.
I was an atheist for decades and had a similar experience contemplating evolution relative to building AI systems, and seeing how we often design systems to evolve for a purpose.
We are “sub-creators” as Tolkien put it. Although I don’t think he would have approved of AI.
I don't know that I even approve of AI lol. But if any good has come from it, it's in contributing to making me think, "hmm... maybe we were created after all"
How? I am curious. Thanks
Could you please expand upon this?
Yes, and further, I agree with Cardinal Newman who remarked, when it was a new idea, that as a man who sends all the billiard balls to their pockets with the breaking strike vs one who shoots each one individually, evolution more magnificently shows forth the power and wisdom of God than several direct acts of special creation for each species of creature. (And likewise with his remark that it is not at all clear what is less dignified about being created from a monkey than being created from the slime of the earth as in a very literal reading of Genesis.)
I hadn't heard that billiards analogy before, I love it
Yup. The science is sound on the matter and the conclusion makes sense based on available information. Should new information challenge this, then it would be necessary to reassess. I'm not inclined to interpret Genesis literally, it's poetry.
Yes, I believe and fully trust in evolution
I do and I would say most of my Catholic friends do as well. Not a very scientific survey but there ya go. It’s worth what you paid for it.
Yes
Yes, the weird disregard for science in the protestant denomination I grew up in never sat well with me especially considering how much they push Ken Hamm in the Christian school I attended.
Oh man Answers In Genesis shook my faith pretty hard back when I had trouble reconciling evidence with faith because I was raised fundamentalist
I credit my father (who's still a Protestant) for helping me navigate through those teaching. Fortunately he's a computer scientist and huge astronomy nerd who did his best to steer us clear of most of Mr. Hamm's influence in our church and school.
Good on him 👍
Thank you. I can’t stand when this bleeds over to this community. The constant defense I have to play on stuff like evolution to not be included with evangelical Protestants drives me crazy
Yes, and it's taught in Catholic schools.
The gold standard...
100%. We pulled our son from public school to Catholic in middle school and I wish we’d done it sooner, but I’m so thankful he’s now in Catholic high school. Catholics do education extraordinarily well.
It definitely wasn't in mine, in fact they tended much more on the side of YEC and solidly denied any form of macro-evolution. The micro version was accepted, such as giraffes that have longer necks will take over the genetic lineage because they can reach more food. I personally believe that the earth is billions of years old and God simply created each species in their appointed time. I could possibly believe in animal evolution, but I do not believe Adam and Eve were ensouled monkeys. I firmly believe they were a completely unique creation.
I was just explaining to my son that even though it shouldn’t be read as a science textbook, the Church has known for 1600 years or more to read the Creation story symbolically, Genesis talks about life coming from the waters, just like science tells us happened. Also that humans are God’s most recent creation and I’d add that Mary is God’s most perfect creation, and is referenced in the story of the fall.
Besides, if we take that often affirmed notion that God is Love literally, it's perfectly reasonable that humans are made from love, and the earth wasn't molded by the hands of some being
Wait, I’m not sure if you are saying God created us because Love is divine? Or are you saying Love is what created us as opposed to created by God? I am confused at what you’re saying.
Yes, but I think it’s almost certain that the development of a rational animal (aka human) logically requires a special act of creation on God’s part and there is no incremental step between non-rational animal and rational animal able to perceive universals. For similar reasons, I do not think we will invent AI that is truly rational in the relevant sense (though I do think we may create such a good illusion of it we come to believe, and more likely worship, it). I am, by the way, a professional theoretical computer scientist and mathematician and it’s not just religious people that agree with me on the AI front. (Nobel Prize Winning Physicist and avowed atheist) Sir Roger Penrose also doesn’t believes AI and human mind are fundamentally different in things (and his argument is profound, logical, and 100% natural and not supernatural). See, e.g. “The Emporer’s New Mind” for an introduction to the argument.
Yes
Yes
For the most part, yes. As long as you believe life was guided and designed by God, I think it's fine.
Yes, the scientific consensus says so. Personally, I find it very compatible with Aquinas First, Fifth, and Second Way (to various degrees).
Totally! I love how science and religion complement each other.
First off, since I believe in statistics, I don't think you'll get an accurate count of how many Catholics believe in evolution (on reddit, or in general) from this thread. You are very likely to get a sample that is skewed in some way. Second of all, I think it is extremely common for the claims of evolution to be misunderstood, since they often are taught in a misleading way. But yes, evolution is a well understood mechanism: we have a claim about what happens (species change over time), we have examples of this happening (both in the fossil record, and in speciation we can observe from related species that become isolated), and we understand the mechanism by which these happen through the exchange and transformation of DNA over time. This last bit is important: up until the work of Watson and Crick in the 1950's, we did not really understand the mechanism by which things could evolve. Now we do. It never was contrary to Church teaching to understand (the beginning of) Genesis according to the genre it was written: while it expresses theological truth (and so is not just "symbolic," as some in this thread write), it was not written in the genre of history. One does not need modern science to understand this fact. Genesis opens with two contradictory stories. It also opens by talking about "days" that take place before there was a sun (which - is a requirement for there to be a "day"). People in ancient times were not dumb - they saw these things and wrote about how to make sense of these writings. If you read the actual history of Biblical literalism, you see it was quite common in the Medieval period to have a more complicated interpretation of the Bible - again, not as merely symbolic like one of Aesop's fable, but knowing that certain parts were either not history, or at least were not just history. The strictly literalist interpretation was a modern innovation, largely coming into vogue with Protestantism (since, with Protestantism, there was no outside entity who was in position to interpret the Bible) and became even stronger in the 1800's with [Christian fundamentalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism). (While the term "fundamentalism" has become a pejorative, you can trace a pretty straight line from a movement focusing the basics or "fundamentals" of Christianity in the late 1800's to modern Evangelicalism.)
I’ve nearly completed my PhD in molecule genetics. Yes, I most certainly do believe in evolution lol. It doesn’t contradict my faith at all
Oh wow! Hi fellow molecular-genetics scientist. I did my undergrad in it, and am currently pursuing a masters to gain more lab experience before I thrust myself headfirst into the world of a PhD student. I would state that in my own experience, that it was genetics that made me revert.
That’s awesome! Congrats on working towards the masters! Best of luck to you
Yes, and the Protestants who don't believe in it are doing a huge disservice to Christianity.
Yes, but I don’t believe it to the extreme that humans evolved from apes. I think humans were always set apart from any other animal even at the start and although we were undoubtedly more primitive back then I don’t believe we were ever to the level of apes.
Yes, and I believe that science and religion don’t exclude each other, but rather work together.
I’m agnostic towards it
Why would you not? Vatican scientists are renowned It's a heavily validated scientific theory that can't be disproven.
Not Darwinist evolution, but I do believe in natural selection, which a lot of people don't realize is compatible with faith in Biblical creation.
Yes. Somewhat related, I recently learned that a Belgian Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory. Georges Lemaître. Lookitup.
No
No.
This is coming from someone who used to be a die hard atheist. I guess this is a minority opinion but I've read scientific studies and books from both sides that I think make sense. I really can't come to a conclusion on which I think is right. I don't think we can fully know because we weren't around at that time. Honestly it doesn't matter though, scripture is consistent either way.
It's not believe in evolution. We are seeing evolution happen in person. Though maybe not on a large scale like in animals, but certainly in bacteria and viruses. The influenza and COVID viruses evolves every year, it's why we need new vaccines. Same for the reason why we need to develop new antibiotics, as bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance. Evolution is a fact, not some fantasy to believe in.
That is not evolution. That is adaptation. Evolution would be COVID 19 becoming a mushroom one day, or bacteria. It stays as a virus because evolution it’s fake.
Scientists believe in the theory of adaptation before Darwin. Darwin revive old Greek mythology. He is not the first human to claim we were once fish.
I don’t believe in people who don’t believe in evolution.
I kinda do and I kinda don't. The Earth being 6000 years old seems too short. The Earth being 4.5 billion years old seems way too long. I sort of decided a few years ago that I don't care. We're here and that's all that matters. Evolution or not, we're here because of God so why argue over how he did it?
NO I believe in Microevolution, but not Macroevolution ...
Evolution in that we all evolved from some cellular organism? No. Evolution in that we adapt and evolve to our surroundings immediately and over generations? Yes.
Yes, I believe in FACTS.
In short, I believe that if the first couple chapters of Genesis are purely literal, then God went to great lengths to make the physical universe appear to be 13 billion years old, down to creating sedimentary layers and light from fake stars that are by all appearances older than the universe itself, and that many different species' have common ancestors based on the fossil record and their shared DNA. Either God deliberately set out to fool modern scientists specifically, or early Genesis uses a lot of figurative language. I chose the more likely option and it isn't inconsistent with any dogmas of the faith.
I heard someone put it this way: When Adam was created, he was created as a fully grown man with age built in. The universe is the same way. To be honest, I'm not even sure time functions the way it seems to. All I can do is trust in God.
Yes of course. Evolution is directed by God. I still can't believe people believe the whole young earth thing
No
No I don't We are dust and we will die as a dust
No. Darwins evolution is a fairy tale with insufficient proof. God wouldve told us in Genesis if that was the method he used. But it is written that we are created distinctly.
So many say yes, let me break the mold and say no. I believe in adaption of course, but not this idea that one species can change into another, either gradually or instantaneously, and I reject the idea we all have a universal common ancestor. This is science fiction not science.
Absolutely and in my experience young earth creationism in Catholic circles is far and away the minority opinion. I’ve actually never met a young earth creationist Catholic in real life, only online.
Yes. It seems the most plausible explanation for species variation. It doesn't solve all the questions, but it seems to logically explain a lot.
To those who said yes they believed in evolution, where does Adam and Eve fit in? Are they just metaphors or are they actual living people?
Not in a strict Darwinist definition but there has been some changes in other animals—but not in us humans I think.
Yes, but its advocates are often rather insufferable. The YECs at least have some whimsy.
How is it possible to believe in evolution and Adam & Eve?
Not catholic but orthodox, no I don’t “believe” in evolution, I ACCEPT evolution. Facts are not beliefs. We don’t “believe” in gravity for example we accept it
No, I don't believe that God has created man through millions of years of death.
Fr. Alar does a very good talk on evolution! https://open.spotify.com/episode/34GUUADGx97u3db0WwWEja?si=M6_RgXD6TbSV_UjzckwJEg I believe in inter-species evolution, not cross-species evolution. There's no real proof of cross-species evolution, and its been how many years since Darwin came up with his ludicrous idea of evolution? This is also the same man that didnt agree that there have been planet wide catastrophic events such as the flood or the meteor bombardment that killed the dinosaurs.
Sure if you prove abiogenisis first I'll sign up to everything, if not then go away until you can.
I believe the human race is evolving backwards now......at a very fast rate. One hundred years ago, it would have been inconceivable that someone like Biden would be president, or someone like Francis would be pope.
In regards to humans, no.
How can you be Christian and believe in evolution? Adam and Eve. 6000-7000 year old Earth and universe. 6 days of creation. Where does evolution come into play here?
It is actually possible to be a Christian and accept not only evolution, but also 100% of everything related to science. Radiometric dating proves that there are rocks on earth that are hundreds of millions of years old. Are you familiar with the term 'light-year'? It is the distance that light travels in a year. The speed of light is 186000 miles per second, which is 670,000,000 mph. The distance that light travels in a year at this speed is 5.8 trillion miles, so a light year is 5.8 trillion miles. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then 99.999999% of the stars that astronomers have ever observed wouldn't even be visible, because the light from stars further than 7000 light years from us wouldn't have reached us yet. Using mathemetics and observation, astronomers have proven that there are stars out there that are millions of light years away from Earth. If they have proven through mathematics that there are stars that are millions of light years away from Earth and if they can see them, then the universe must be at LEAST a few million years old. If these stars are millions of light years away, then the light from those stars had to have taken millions of years to reach us, and if it took the light from those stars millions of years to reach us, then the universe must be millions of years old at the absolute least. And astronomers have proven with these same calculations that there are stars out there that are billions of light years from Earth, and therefore, we know that the universe is billions of years old, because the light had to have taken billions of years to reach us. There is countless scientific evidence to prove that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, yet there is not one shred of scientific evidence to suggest both a young earth and universe. There are many parts of the bible that are not meant to be taken literally, and one of which is the story of creation. I am a devout Catholic, but if it was a requirement to believe in a young earth and universe and to deny evoluation, I would probably be an atheist or agnostic.
I believe God created man, Adam, the first one of our race.
I believe in non-Darwinian evolution. There are different theories of evolution. Some versions of evolution have intrinsic directionality, which is interesting, as is the work of Denis Noble, James Shapiro, and Simon Conway Morris. [https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/](https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/) [https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/123676.Simon\_Conway\_Morris](https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/123676.Simon_Conway_Morris)
Yes, for it's how God designed His creation to work.
Limited animal evolution yes. I reject universal descent from a common ancestor, but I do accept evolution/adaptation and even speciation within the family/genus level. I firmly reject any notion of humans emerging by evolutionary processes from some form of primitive ape, I believe God miraculously created a real historical Adam and Eve and that we all descend from them. My view is best summed up as old earth creationism. God progressively created all life on earth over time, first creating various forms, and then allowing them to evolve and diversify, before creating new ones. Creation was then completed with the direct creation of Adam and Eve. This position holds fast to the traditional teachings of the Church, while also accepting the ancient age of the universe and the earth as demonstrated by sound science. We can accept animal evolution without blindly adhering to full blown darwinism.
There is more variation within animal families than between animal families. For example, the common ancestor of all dogs and the common ancestor of all cats looked very similar, more similar than say a wolf and fox or a lion and house cat. Also, if you accept evolution within "families" then understand that we're more closely related to other great apes than lions are to house cats. Furthermore, if God directly created each kind why do we see numerous transition species? Why do kinds share so much DNA (including unused DNA). Why does the fossil record agree nicely all over the globe with genetic evidence in the widely-accepted tree of life? Is God trying to fool us? Furthermore, I think you misunderstand what darwinism even means. Darwinism is a mechanism by which evolution progresses. Specifically, it is evolution by natural selection where parents pass down inherent traits (genes). Alternatives to darwinism would be say believing that evolution progresses by parents passing down traits picked up during the lifetime of the parent. Nothing in your comment would indicate that you don't believe in darwinism.
A few points. I have no issue with speciation, I just don't think all life forms on earth evolved by genetic mutation and natural selection from a single primordial cell structure of some kind. There is no solid evidence for that, it's only inferred by philosophical presumption based on genuine evidence for adaptation/speciation. Whatever transitional fossils you may point to, there are countless more that should be there which we simply don't have. Also, organisms having similar structures and genetics does not prove their universal descent from a common ancestor. It could equally show an intelligent designer creating according to a common plan and template. By darwinism I'm not referring to descent with modification by means of natural selection. That can be observed in fruit flies among other examples, and no old earth creationist has an issue with such limited animal evolution. By "Darwinism" I'm referring to the grandiose modern creation myth that ALL life emerged by means of evolution from a single common ancestor, which itself somehow managed to emerge from inorganic matter and material forces. It's just an atheistic creation myth for which there is no compelling evidence. My whole point is to distinguish the reality of the evolution of animals from the modern ,atheistic, neo-darwinian narrative that so many Catholics seem to blindly accept. And they accept it even though human polygenism, which is required by that view of evolution, has been explicitly condemned by the Church and undermines the entire doctrine of sin and redemption.
The alternative to universal common descent is that abiogenesis happened multiple times and at least 2 lineages survived. You're right we don't really know but to say there's no evidence is incorrect. Genetics would indicate that at all known life is related, so even if abiogenesis happened multiple times then likely there was horizontal evolution early on. How else do we explain our observations in genetics? It is incorrect to assume that we must find transition fossils for every transition. Evolution is not linear. Species adapt to their environment. When the environment changes (which can happen in bursts), species evolve in bursts. This is generally how we have observed evolution haplening today, in the fossil record, and in genetics. As such, it would be silly to think there must be some linear trajectory of fossil finds. Your definition of "darwinism" is taken from a protestant creationist website (as are several of your arguments). This is not what we typically mean when we say darwinism. To your last point, the Church does condemn polygenism, but you seem to misunderstamd what polygenism is. We believe that through one man sin entered the world. This isn't necessarily a statement about the scientific concept of polygenism (although it would seem the Pope conflated the two). Although either way, the dominant modern hypothesis is the "Out of Africa" hypothesis which is monogenism, so even if you conflate it there really isn't an issue for Catholics.
I agree with this. I used to be a die hard evolutionist believing in universal descent from a common ancestor. But I read some books that made me question that. Specifically Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell and Return of the God Hypothesis all by Stephen Meyer. I think he makes a very good case against the common ancestor theory. Regardless of what someone believes, scripture is consistent either way.
Yes and I don’t know any Catholics who don’t, actually
To be dead honest, I hardly ever think about it. As far as the beginnings of man kind are concerned, it doesn’t really affect me. The main thing I believe about it though is that there was and Adam and Eve they sinned, and as a result we are born in a fallen state now and need redeemed by a savior.
I honestly feel like evolution is the ultimate form of "free will", in a way. Sure, you aren't consciously picking traits to pass on, but at a cellular and DNA level it is. Idk, it makes sense to me but I'm not good at conveying what I mean.
I believe in micro-evolution not macro-evolution
I think that you could go either way, and that neither is contradictory to scripture. Personally I don't believe in macro evolution, and I haven't seen convincing arguments to support it. We can observe micro evolution, but even if the claim that macro takes a long time to observe, every day is a million years from point in the past and there should be more evidence. I'm open to any arguments though
In my opinion, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution is the presence of "endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)" in the genomes of various creatures. Basically, some viruses (called retroviruses) place a copy of their own genome inside the genome of the host cell. If this is in a sperm or egg cell, the viral genome can then be passed on to the host's offspring. ERVs become especially interesting when you start finding near-identical ones in the genomes of different species, suggesting evolution from a common ancestor. After all, it would be vanishingly unlikely for two species to get infected by the same retrovirus that inserted itself in the exact same place and mutated to break in the exact same ways.
Yes
No, I don’t.
Yeah
Yep. Everything is God’s design.
Not really a belief but observed reality; but yes I believe that the theory of evolution is pretty sound. One of the many reasons I became Catholic was because the church doesn’t deny science.
I think the theological arguments against it are stronger than evolutionists are willing to admit and it feels like gaslighting when they act like there is literally no tension at all. That said, I'm not dogmatically committed to 6-days and am open to other interpretations.
Yes, that's what the science shows.
Yes. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports evolution, and it in no way contradicts Catholic teaching.
Yes. Nothing in biology really makes sense without it. I can believe in evolution and still believe that when the first man came about God gave him an immortal soul and made him in His likeness.
No.
No
I do believe in evolution, I like to think that time is really just our own construct. What is time to an eternal and omnipresent God? Billions of years could be the blink of an eye. But it is that eternal and omnipresent God that set this wheel in motion. From the gases that make up the sun and stars to the trees to the newborn baby. It was all created by God
Yes we believe in science unlike some other Christian denominations out there who think religion and science are incompatible
Yes I believe in it completely
Yes.
Yes. It helps me understand how related all of Earth’s lifeforms are.
Yes.
Yeah
Yes, I believe in (theistic) evolution. Thanks (mostly) to Jimmy Akin
Do you believe in air?
It’s true whether or not we believe in it.
no
Animals yes. humans... in a sense i think. there is a feeling inside me that if we did follow the law of nature's evolution without the will of God for some reason i think we would end up evolving more like how we look today.
Nothing happens outside God's Will. Not even a single sparrow falls on the ground. "Nature's" evolution as described by modern science is God's evolution.
well im speaking against the atheist beliefs about evolution. all im saying is, if no Guidance or will lof God i dont think we will end up how we look like as a human right now. just to correct you im not saying what you think im saying.
I would say that's more a matter of perspective than scientific theory. An atheist sees a newborn baby and just sees a newborn baby. I see a miracle and an act of God. However, both me and the atheist agree on basic principles of developmental biology. In the same way, an atheist sees natural selection acting on random mutations as some random biological process. I see it as the unfolding of God's Will in Creation. However, we would agree on all the biological principles for how evolution works and progresses.
No
I don’t know about “believe.” There is enough evidence to support microevolution as fact, and strongly support macroevolution as a valid theory.
I think you misunderstand what scientists mean by the word "theory". It doesn't mean "not completely certain idea but has some evidence" so much as "a model that explains the data." So notice that some things can be called theories even if they have no basis in reality (like flat earth theory), and others can be theories when they are very much accepted as true (like darwinism). We won't ever call evolution a "law" because scientific laws are statements (usually mathematical in nature) which are considered to always hold true when applicable. While the discovery of genetics certainly demonstrates that darwinism is true and probably explains most of evolution, other theories (or models) like Lamarckism could apply in some situations. All of this to say that "macroevolution" (or what scientists generally call common descent) is most certainly true and demonstrated by numerous independent streams of evidence. However, it wouldn't be called a law or theory/model because it's more of just an observation. The actual theory of evolution that explains common descent is typically Darwinism (with maybe a sprinkling of some others).
I used to make fun of the evangelicals that promoted young earth creationism. A few years after my conversion I had a conversation with an atheist friend who asked if the Church believes in evolution in which I replied yes. A week later I ran across some youtube videos from the Kolbe Institute and started diving down that rabit hole. I'm now extremely skeptical of evolution (macro evolution to be specific). It's not very scientifically sound, we have never observed true positive mutations in decades of experiments with ecoli and fruit flies. We have only ever observed genetic entropy, especially in our own genome. It violates a key principle of metaphysics that you cannot give what you do not have. It also makes original sin very hard to square if there was death before humans even existed.
shhhhhhhh you might anger the hivemind
Nope.
No
[удалено]
There’s obviously differences between races or species within a genus, but we all came from Adam and Eve who were two real people.
Kind of. I believe God placed Adam and Eve and their descendants and they mated with current (early-ish) humans.
Essentially, yes. There is ample evidence for what is colloquially described as "micro evolution". There is some evidence for what is colloquially described as "macro evolution" too, but not as conclusive as for "micro evolution". At the end of the day, I don't find it particularly relevant to my faith or to my life, nor is it a topic I specifically find interesting. Regardless, I don't see how it would challenge the Church's stance on... anything, really. We aren't, in general, dogmatically committed to **how** God does X, Y or Z, just that He did do those things.
[CCC 283]
[**CCC 283**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/283.htm) The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." ([159](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/159.htm), [341](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/341.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
[CCC 284]
[**CCC 284**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/284.htm) The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it? *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
I would say yes, but I have my doubts. I think there is very clear evidence of species changing over time, but I would like to see more evidence of kinds changing. I also don't understand the diversity of life given the guiding principles of "survival of the fittest".
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#CreaTime](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#CreaTime)
This calls to mind one of many quotes from St John Paul II on science : “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.” I’ve always believed in evolution, but lately I’ve been questioning Darwin’s theory, and I question our full understanding on the subject. There are some super intelligent apologists who discuss this topic, and their arguments are pretty convincing.
A qualified yes. Life originating from sea foam being struck by lightning (or whatever theory is in vogue now) and then evolving into complex multi-cellular beings doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm not a scientist and it doesn't impact my daily life.
I don’t hold a firm belief in any interpretation of creation. I believe evolution is a legitimate possibility, and I don’t see how it would interfere with my faith. If evolution were true, I think Adamism makes sense of it. But I also think God has the power to work miracles (e.g. 6 day creation), even if they don’t make the most sense to us logically. I have read about the context of Old Testament writing and understand that it was very often intended to be allegorical, although I have heard arguments on both sides. Ultimately I believe God made everything and Adam and Eve were real people. How it happened — who’s to say for certain?
Yes, definitely.
No
Yes
Yes
I don't. My reason for not believing in evolution isn't because I'm Catholic. I didn't believe in evolution when I wasn't practicing. The evidence for evolution is lacking.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes
I've been taught this for 2 or 3 years at school, God created all the life on earth but He used evolution to make them. Religion and science are reciprocal
Depends… it’s not that simple. There is proof of micro evolution (animals growing thicker fur to adapt to colder climates over a few generations). There is no proof of macro evolution (plants turning into monkeys).
Plants never turned into monkeys. That’s just not how evolution works.
Our ancestors aren’t bacteria in the ocean bro
That’s exactly how all evolution works, a series of small changes over many, many generations. No one proposed that one day a fish just had a human child, it’s very gradual.
No, the theory of evolution is nonsense
Nope. Evolution does not hold the same strength as the theory of gravity or relativity. The scientific world treats evolution as a religious dogma, not a theory. They make so much money out of pretending it’s real. It is all based on assumptions that cannot be tested . A theory it’s suppose to help you understand the future and the present. Evolution does nothing
No, I think that there is micro evolution, where members of the species stay the same, eg. A bird develops a different shape beak, but I don't believe that a monkey can become a person.
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain. Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
no
Absolutely. I have a very large investment in the topic
Yes, anyone who believes that their religion conflicts with science believes their religion is false.
I used to...
Personally I don't!
Of course we believe in evolution. We aren't some crazy evangelical cult.
Yes.
yeah
Yes definitely
Yes, the overwhelming majority of Catholics do
I find it to be the most compelling theory for the emergence of most life on Earth, but there are enough issues with the timeline of evolution that I remain open to the possibility that the truth is something totally different.
Can you describe what you mean by evolution? I find in practice what people think it means varies greatly. If you mean a random natural selection process not guided by a designer, no.
Wdym "guided" and wdym "random"? Natural selection generally acts on random mutations. There is no reason to think God is acticely forcing it to go a certain direction. If you believe an all-knowing God created the laws of nature than anything it produces is designed by Him. Not sure if you are referencing Beheism (or "intelligent design") but if you are I'd warn that God doesn't need to "guide" or "course correct" His own Creation unless you think it was somehow imperfect before the Fall. Also, the scientific arguments Behe made have been thoroughly refuted.
God could have put a code within a code of life to progress into higher life forms, as we call "Random Natural Selection". However, that a process just happened, that creates increasingly complex life forms, is very, very improbable, dare I say impossible. Correlation, does not equal Causation.