In many of the creation-vs.-evolution debates I’ve seen in this forum over the years, it is mentioned that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that it has “no problem” with evolution, so long as at some point along the lineage from great apes to hominids to humans a “soul” was introduced by God.
Now, however, I have a Catholic co-worker who insists that this isn’t true. She insists that, although Catholicism has no problem with microevolution (changes within a “kind” over time), the Catholic Church is opposed to macroevolution (a population belonging to one “kind” changing into a new “kind”).
Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the nebulous definition of “kind”, I’d like to know: What is the official position of the Catholic Church with regard to (macro)evolution? Where is this official position spelled out, and how is it phrased? And would it be possible for the Church as a whole to be neutral with regard to macroevolution, but for the parish that my Catholic co-worker belongs to to be staunchly opposed to it?
Here’s a link to a cite that discusses it. Basically the catholic church is okay with evolution. When I was a kid, as a catholic, the stance was always “evolution is the mechanism, God is the engineer.”
There may be some catholics who disagree of course. Even within RC there are different points of view after all.
The official Catholic position draws no distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution. Basically the postion is only that evolution does conflict with church doctrine as long as it is recognized that God is the cause and that the soul is created and does not evolve.
Basically, your Catholic coworker is simply making this position up. The Catholic Church has no position on the details of evolution; it’s not their concern. I learned about macroevolution and speciation in Catholic high school in the 1960s; there was not considered to be any doctrinal problem with it.
Does the Catholic Church accept the work done by evolutionary psychologists? My very limited reading on the subject seems to suggest that religion came about through humans assigning meaning to natural/unexplainable events, and belief in a higher power was beneficial to survival, somehow. I don’t see how one can accept the evolutionary explanation for religion and not discredit their own religion.
I also might be completely wrong about evolutionary theories of religion…please correct me
Is it possible that certain local Catholic churces/parishes teach a “stricter” view against macroevolution than the official position of the Vatican? My co-worker doesn’t seem like the type who would just make up her beliefs out of thin air; she seems to have gotten this notion from somewhere.
That’s true from a scientific standpoint but the OP was asking about specific Catholic doctrine, not scientific fact.
It might be worth Tracer to explain to his friend, though, that “micro” and “macro” evolution is an artficial distinction with no real bilogical meaning.
To a biologist, sure – but to someone whose faith rests (wholly or partially) on a literal interpretation of Genesis, the concept of “microevolution” provides the appearance of an acceptable compromise. You can still believe that each “kind” was created separately, and that new “kinds” cannot arise, while accepting that genetic changes within a population and even speciation are possible (since you can arbitrarily draw the line between “kinds” at a higher level than the species level).
I’d be too afraid that she might smack me with a ruler.
Okay, okay, that’s an unfair Catholic stereotype. What I’d really be afraid of is that, since she’s a co-worker, I might alienate her to the point that she could get me called onto the carpet for “religious harassment.” And even barring that, her job includes testing the software I write, so it’s not a wise move for me to be on her bad side.
FWIW, Michael Behe is a Catholic, and he seems to believe only in microevolution. (For example, he has decried the supposed lack of transitional fossils.)
I started a thread about a week ago on pretty much this same subject, but didn’t get much input. I would like one of these Catholic theologians to explain to me how he envisions the events to have taken place where God inserted a soul into one of our ancestors. This would mean that some individual got his or her soul while the parents of that individual did not. Also the current, overwhelming consensus of paleoanthropoligists is that Homo sapiens existed for tens of thousands of years alongside Homo neanderthalensis, a distinct human species. One would have to assume that only the former got a soul and not the latter.
Also, concerning the terms micro- and macro-evolution, I think they serve a useful purpose in differentiating between the concepts of change within a species, and the multiple changes that result in the development of new species. I’m not familiar with terms that evolutionary biologists use to distinguish those concepts, if in fact there are any, but I’d be happy to use them if I knew what they what they were.
The term that biologists use to refer to multiple changes that result in the development of new species is “speciation.” With sexually-reproducing critters, the criterion for speciation is that two (intrafertile) populations that used to be able to interbreed and produce intrafertile offspring can no longer do so.
I could produce any number of refernces to peer reviewed scientific journals, and textbooks that state categorically that there are such things as microevolution and macroevolution, and that it is not just evolution period.
Sometimes. Sometimes species are divided despite frequent, common hybridisation. Sometimes groups are condidered the same species despite being infertile. The fertility criterion for species definition is far from rigidly applied and appears to be on the way out altogether.
That would be consistent with this little blurb I read somewhere on line today (but can’t find now), which said that the official position of the RCC these days is that Catholics are not required to accept evolution, but they are not required to reject it either.
