Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Roman Catholic Church and Creationism
Thatcheright
Suspended
in Dead Horses
I have raised this in DH because it probably is one, though tangentially.
Can anyone explain what the Roman Catholic Church’s official position is on young Earth Creationism? I suspect they reject it and that the RCC’s official stance is that the Big Bang is probably correct, that the universe is circa 14 billion years old and the Earth is about 5 billion years old, and that the best explanation for life being as we see it today is genetics and evolution.
In other words, their official position is that God is not involved in creation in the way that is literally described in the Bible.
I use the word “official” deliberately to distinguish between the Church and individual Roman Catholics, who will presumably have views ranging from Big-Bang, old universe types, through to Biblically-inerrant YECists.
I don’t know if IngoB is still around but he may know, but if not I hope someone can help.
I’m Anglo-Catholic but would like to know what the official position is for the Church that arguably represents the majority of the worlds Christians – I could look it up, but I don’t know where to start, nor how long that would take, and I promised someone that I would try to find the answer out as quickly as possible. I think the Ship is the quickest way possible providing that my laziness is overlooked!
Thank you.
Can anyone explain what the Roman Catholic Church’s official position is on young Earth Creationism? I suspect they reject it and that the RCC’s official stance is that the Big Bang is probably correct, that the universe is circa 14 billion years old and the Earth is about 5 billion years old, and that the best explanation for life being as we see it today is genetics and evolution.
In other words, their official position is that God is not involved in creation in the way that is literally described in the Bible.
I use the word “official” deliberately to distinguish between the Church and individual Roman Catholics, who will presumably have views ranging from Big-Bang, old universe types, through to Biblically-inerrant YECists.
I don’t know if IngoB is still around but he may know, but if not I hope someone can help.
I’m Anglo-Catholic but would like to know what the official position is for the Church that arguably represents the majority of the worlds Christians – I could look it up, but I don’t know where to start, nor how long that would take, and I promised someone that I would try to find the answer out as quickly as possible. I think the Ship is the quickest way possible providing that my laziness is overlooked!
Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"God Of Evolution: Theology With Attitude". Not specifically RC; but it tries to be sort of a middle ground between non-theistic evolutionists and Young Earth Creationists. Looks very interesting.
Oh, and this is the Chardin quote I like:
At least one lower level RC prelate has written regarding evolution that there is nothing in RC teaching that is opposed to it, but that the "Neo-Darwinian" notion (which is the current scientific consensus) that natural selection operates due to completely random mutations (the mutations or the fact that they drive evolution aren't the problem - it's the idea that human beings arose due to a random process) is opposed to Catholic teaching. But this may not count as the teaching of the Church.
I'm no expert on the subject though!
The best reconciliation of that I've come across (if one is deemed needed) is to take a phone book and hide all but the last digit of every phone no. You now have what appears to be a completely random series of numbers. In reality, anyone with access to the phone book source can, in theory, predict the next number in the series. However, viewed as an independent series of numbers, they are entirely random, and no mathematical analysis of them would reveal a pattern. It's an imperfect analogy, but the point is that a random series from one frame of reference can be entirely deterministic from another.
It should be noted that while mutations are random, they are subject to non-random selective pressures.
Computers have a hard time generating truly random numbers for more or less the reason you gave. It can generate numbers which appear to be random, or are at least "random enough" for most applications, but if you know the underlying code you can predict which "random" number will pop up next. I believe Doctor Who used this as a plot point in the most recent season.
In essence, randomness means a lack of predictability. It should be noted that an aggregate of random occurrences can sometimes lead to predictability if the aggregate is large enough. For example, there's no way to predict if a particular unstable atom will decay in a given timespan. However, if you gather enough of the same type of atoms together you can predict fairly accurately how many of them will undergo fission in a given timespan. You just can't predict which ones.
Quantum level events are at least modelled as random. Whether there is some unidentified cause we don't and possibly can't know. Quantum mechanics (and I speak as someone who studied it to masters level) is weird.
Also, this obligatory Dilbert cartoon.
People tend to use the word "random" to mean "unbiased". If you have a (fairly weighted) die, but replace the 1 with another 6, rolling the dice is still "random", but the possible random outcomes are not equally likely.
The routine violation of the Bell inequalities demonstrates that you cannot explain quantum mechanics with a local hidden variable theory. Any kind of deterministic "unidentified cause" must at least be nonlocal.