# Is the Catholic Church about to reject Evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2006, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773 "2006-08-30T09:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/21 "2006-08-30T18:37:39Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I’m not sure what aspect of scientific inquiry will ever be able to address the existence of God. The church sees God as transcendant and wholly outside the physical; no discovery of any discipline is likely to endanger that belief. [/quote] Well, the fact that we can’t think of any such aspect of science doesn’t mean we won’t ever be able to think of it, does it? And, of course the church sees God that way but that doesn’t mean much. If some method of inquiry in the future does make a scientific examination of God possible the church will either change or become ittelevant. > [@](#): > > The issue only comes up when someone wants to make a jump from physical science to philosophy; there is no barrier to the inquiry of physical science, at all. I disagree. If you are told that you never are allpwed for any reason whatever to reach a particular conclusion, there is a barrier. Implicit in your claim is that we can’t see any bridge between the two and therefore there isn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/22 "2006-08-30T19:19:52Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Well, the fact that we can’t think of any such aspect of science doesn’t mean we won’t ever be able to think of it, does it? And, of course the church sees God that way but that doesn’t mean much. If some method of inquiry in the future does make a scientific examination of God possible the church will either change or become ittelevant. [/quote] There are already people who believe (and have argued on this board) that the church is already irrelevant for that very reason. > [@](#): > > I disagree. If you are told that you never are allpwed for any reason whatever to reach a particular conclusion, there is a barrier. Implicit in your claim is that we can’t see any bridge between the two and therefore there isn’t one. Not exactly. Implicit in the claim is the expressed belief of the church that a transcendant God simply cannot be known by any physical examination. I have already seen proferred on this board the response to the idea that religious beliefs are simply odd firings of brain synapses that may have served some past evolutionary purpose but which are nothing more than brain farts (organized into belief systems) at this time. The response given was that such a series of brain farts might just be the way in which God let us know he was there. You are not going to find a scientific, physical explanation that will unequivocally overthrow a religious belief among those who hold the belief. I understand your concern, but I have not seen any evidence of inquiry prohibited by the church in a very long time. (Some applied science is forbidden, such as that involving aborted fetuses, etc., but there is no directed conclusion to theoretical physical science anywhere in the Church at this time.) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/23 "2006-08-30T21:22:36Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I have already seen proferred on this board the response to the idea that religious beliefs are simply odd firings of brain synapses that may have served some past evolutionary purpose but which are nothing more than brain farts (organized into belief systems) at this time. The response given was that such a series of brain farts might just be the way in which God let us know he was there. You are not going to find a scientific, physical explanation that will unequivocally overthrow a religious belief among those who hold the belief. [/quote] Of course there will always be an element that simply will not believe any evidence that might be produced 1000 years from now but I think it’s entirely within the realm of the possible that one rational, unified system can be derived from scientific investigation and most people will agree on it. > [@](#): > > I understand your concern, but I have not seen any evidence of inquiry prohibited by the church in a very long time. (Some applied science is forbidden, such as that involving aborted fetuses, etc., but there is no directed conclusion to theoretical physical science anywhere in the Church at this time.) I don’t have any concern that strictly scientific inquiry into the _physical_ will be hampered by churches. However I do think that inquiry into the “brain farts” you mentioned above could be discouraged if not forbidden. Psychology is just barely a science at present but scientists are more and more beginning to conduct real scientific studies into brain function and that _could_ cause gas pains in some sectors. I’m really not sure why I’m arguing science and philosophy since I don’t have a lot of respect for philosophy or the philosophers. They have been chewing over the same thing, what does it all mean and how do we know that, for century upon century without progress. Being a materialist I’m quite sure that religion, like everything else we think, will just turn out to be chemical and electrical activity in the brain. DNA shuffling will result in some brains having such religious activity to a great extent and some to a small extent or not at all. The details are left as an exercise for future scientific investigators. ---
**Author:** ![giddyaunt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/67e7ee/32.png) [@giddyaunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/giddyaunt)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/24 "2006-09-04T10:21:53Z")
Religion that denys science is nothing more than superstitution…end of story! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/25 "2006-09-04T14:14:02Z")
Well, then, it is a good thing that there is no evidence in this thread that we have a religion denying science, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/26 "2006-09-04T18:05:51Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Well, they should separate the religious education from the scientific education. If religion and science are entirely separate domains then in biology the best available biology should be taught with no religious content whatever. Or, alternatively, if it insisted that the religious viewpoint on life processes is to be taught in biology then the scientific evidence regarding religion should be taught in the religion classes. [/QUOTE] You seem to be confused here. Catholic school steach biology scientifically, and without any religious education at all. I was entirely educated in Catholic schools from K-12 and never once did a science teacher (we didn’t have a required biology class, in 10th grade there was a general science course with about 1/4th of the class devoted the biology, another 1/4 to geology, another 1/4 to physics and etc) in explaining any scientific concept bring theology into the classroom at all. The textbook we used was one used by many public schools, the instruction given by the teacher (who was a priest) was identical to that you would find in any non-religious institution. The religious and scientific education are quite separated in Catholic schools. However, the Church itself isn’t purely an educational institution, and in its discussion it can freely mix religion and science, without having any effect on how it teaches science or religion. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/27 "2006-09-04T19:47:58Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Not exactly. Implicit in the claim is the expressed belief of the church that a transcendant God simply cannot be known by any physical examination. [/QUOTE] As I understand things, ,this is quite wrong, at least for the Catholic Church. They are committed to the proposition that God is something that can be known via pure reason. Unlike the “faith-alone” doctrines common in Protestantism, this puts them more in the front line of having to be consistent with evidence and science. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/28 "2006-09-04T20:27:20Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] You seem to be confused here. Catholic school steach biology scientifically, and without any religious education at all. I was entirely educated in Catholic schools from K-12 and never once did a science teacher (we didn’t have a required biology class, in 10th grade there was a general science course with about 1/4th of the class devoted the biology, another 1/4 to geology, another 1/4 to physics and etc) in explaining any scientific concept bring theology into the classroom at all. The textbook we used was one used by many public schools, the instruction given by the teacher (who was a priest) was identical to that you would find in any non-religious institution. The religious and scientific education are quite separated in Catholic schools. However, the Church itself isn’t purely an educational institution, and in its discussion it can freely mix religion and science, without having any effect on how it teaches science or religion. [/QUOTE] I was responding to [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7730389&postcount=10) in which it was said that the Catholic church, and not the Catholic schools, was the largest educational institution in the world. What I was saying is that the Catholic church should separate the theological from the scientific if it is claimed that they are forever and ever two separate domains. As far as I can tell the intention of Catholic schools is to separate them although, as with most things, I suppose some school staff’s do it better than others. I do wonder what would happen if in biology class some student started arguing for Darwin’s “warm pond” origin of life. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/29 "2006-09-04T21:18:31Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] I do wonder what would happen if in biology class some student started arguing for Darwin’s “warm pond” origin of life. [/QUOTE] Well, based on the Miller-Urey experiments from a bit over a decade earlier, Darwin’s Warm Pond was the explanation that was offered as having the highest probability of being the origin of physical life in both my Catholic high school and Catholic college biology courses. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/30 "2006-09-04T22:56:52Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Well, based on the Miller-Urey experiments from a bit over a decade earlier, Darwin’s Warm Pond was the explanation that was offered as having the highest probability of being the origin of physical life in both my Catholic high school and Catholic college biology courses. [/QUOTE] Well, that answers that. I don’t have to wonder any more, in at least two cases. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2006, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/31 "2006-09-05T11:56:14Z")
[QUOTE=giddyaunt] Religion that denys science is nothing more than superstitution…end of story! [/QUOTE] Enemies of the Catholic Church are prostituients … end of story! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/32 "2006-09-05T20:36:59Z")
[QUOTE=constanze] To use another example, science can measure the wavelength of colour blue, and explain why the black sky looks blue to us, and why a sunset looks red. But science can’t explain why we feel the color blue, or how it feels like to watch a sunset. It’s outside the scope of science. [/QUOTE] It is not outside the scope of psychology. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/33 "2006-09-06T06:52:14Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] It is not outside the scope of psychology. [/QUOTE] He specified science. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/34 "2006-09-07T18:59:44Z")
[QUOTE=constanze] I don’t know if Catholics are still required to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but they certainly aren’t required to interpret the Bible literally as an explanation for how science works. [/QUOTE] Catholics have NEVER been required to belive that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/35 "2006-09-07T19:02:58Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] … I don’t expect this much more conservative Pope to dance around that issue in deference to scientists in the same way that previous one did… [/QUOTE] The previous Pope was quite as conservative as Benedict. But he was more photogenic & charismatic, so people “liked” him more. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773/36 "2006-09-09T18:08:21Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] As I understand things, ,this is quite wrong, at least for the Catholic Church. **They are committed to the proposition that God is something that can be known via pure reason.** Unlike the “faith-alone” doctrines common in Protestantism, this puts them more in the front line of having to be consistent with evidence and science. [/QUOTE] 😕 Still? I know that was the view of Thomist scholasticism, but I was under the impression (see [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366037) GQ thread) that that was no longer the RCC’s official philosophy. Of course, knowing/proving something by “pure reason” and knowing/proving something by the scientific method (entirely unknown to St. Thomas Aquinas) are not the same thing at all. Some would argue they are mutually exclusive things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-catholic-church-about-to-reject-evolution/370773.md?page=1)