A Few Questions (About Evolution)

[zian]

From the OP -

Please, these threads are usually chaotic, and so I would ask that you try to answer the questions posed here and offer additional helpful information rather than bickering amongst yourselves, which causes little to ultimately be accomplished.

Have we gotten to this point in this thread yet??

 

[inthecloud]

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

Ed do you realize that the Church in not critizing evolution but the atheistic spin of Neodarwinians (or better New Atheists as people like Dawkins and Harris are being called now) put on evolution.

The New Atheists on one side, like the fine folks of AIG or CRI on the other side what us to choose between God and evolution, a false choice.

Believe me, the church since the days of John Henry Newman have people looking at evolution and finding God’s work in it.
The OP asked us for a Theistic view on Evolution and some posters have managed to derrail it as usual into a atheist evolution vs God debate.

 

[Sideline]

Ah yes, the facts. Well, as a Catholic, I accept a lot of things as facts that can’t, in most cases, be proven by science.

Did you read any of my post except for the last paragraph?
I’m sorry, I forgot that you don’t like the word facts. I’ll try not to reference them in the future if it would make you feel better.

You (sideline) are simply repeating the same rhetoric I’ve seen everywhere else on the internet where this subject discussed. In all cases, there is rewording but the arguments are quite old. I can go back 30 years: “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.” That’s all it boils down to.

If you read my posts I think you will find that I don’t say that anywhere. I don’t suggest it anywhere in our discussions of Evolution. I find fault with your premise that Evolution is ungodly. Which, by the way, a few Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and lots of people on this forum seem to agree with. You have taken the ideology of a few and applied it to the whole.

Don’t get me wrong. I like evidence. I’m a big, big fan. I think it kicks ideology’s sorry behind all around the playground. Evidence will appeal to me every time. For instance, if you could produce some EVIDENCE I said what you claim I said, I would have worlds more respect for you than I do now.

I have studied Church documents that quite clearly tell me what is in line with Church teaching and what is not.

Well, your Church seems to disagree with you, but who am I to say.

Although, if you are as good at dissecting theology as you were at dissecting my post, I have to wonder how clear your understanding is.

There are many people here who deny the worldview implications of the textbook version of evolution; the highly negative worldview implications.

You know, I had really never examined how in love with evidence I really am. Some evidence here would be so lovely.

I thought there might be a chance you and I could actually communicate, but I’m pretty convinced it’s hopeless. Sad really.

 

[Donald45]

You seem to want to live in two different worlds instead of one.

No, I live in a world in which proper distinctions need to be made.

I live in a world where the word of the Church about such subjects as evolution puts it in the right context.

There is no “word of the Church about such subjects as evolution,” since the Church only has authority when speaking on matters of faith or morals. The Church has never pronounced upon evolution, but only on certain claims of scientists that have gone beyond the proper limits of science and into the realm of theology.

By itself, as in textbooks, it is meaningless and used to encourage meaninglessness.

Once again, we’re waiting for you to list these supposed “textbooks.” Please do so. Otherwise, your claim can hardly be taken seriously.

The following is a factual statement and not theology, but the necessary Catholic view on a claimed evolutionary theory.

You’re simply wrong here. This is not a commentary on science at all, but on the occasional non-scientific statements made by some scientists that stray outside the bounds of science into the field of theology, which is the Church’s area of authority. Read the quotation for yourself:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

The Church is clearly addressing certain statements by scientists that go beyond science into theological topics. It’s not evolution, but theological claims made in the name of science, which the Church objects to.

I believe this statement for both the theological and linked scientific components.

There are no “scientific components.” The Church is addressing the non-scientific claims of certain scientists. The Church is not addressing “science.”

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

God’s hand is evident from the Christian perspective.

A statement of the theological concept of divine providence.

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

I’m sticking with the Church’s view that science, by itself, only provides part of the answer.

Yes, it provides the scientific part of the answer. The Church, on the other hand, provides the theological part of the answer.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

You can repeat that as often as you like, I don’t separate the two and you appear to be unwilling to accept that. Oh well.

You realize that each one of us will stand before the physical Jesus Christ to be judged? That is not a theological statement, that is a fact.

I hope you understand, but most Catholics I know live with the fact-reality of a Living God, not a symbolic God, not a maybe God, not a science-can’t-prove-it God, but a real God who died and ascended physically into Heaven and who will come back in the same form. If you don’t accept that then who are you praying to?

Science + Theology = The Whole Answer. Period.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

You can repeat that as often as you like, I don’t separate the two and you appear to be unwilling to accept that. Oh well.

I accept that you’re contradicting your own quotation of the Church’s position:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

You insist on blending theology and science, when the Church clearly requires the exact opposite. Your position, as you stated it above, is “I don’t separate the two,” while the Church’s position is that we are to carefully distinguish between genuinely scientific statements and those that go beyond science into theology. So, who’s wrong: Ed, or the Catholic Church?

You realize that each one of us will stand before the physical Jesus Christ to be judged? That is not a theological statement, that is a fact.

That is a theological fact.

I hope you understand, but most Catholics I know live with the fact-reality of a Living God, not a symbolic God, not a maybe God, not a science-can’t-prove-it God, but a real God who died and ascended physically into Heaven and who will come back in the same form. If you don’t accept that then who are you praying to?

I’m not quite sure why you launched into a theological explanation of the Church’s view of God. These are doctrinal truths that every Christian would affirm, and have nothing whatever to do with science.

Science + Theology = The Whole Answer. Period.

Careful, Ed----your formula clearly distinguishes between “Science” and “Theology.” I actually have no problem whatsoever with your formulation here. It’s too bad you’ve insisted on contradicting it in your other posts (and even in the one I’m responding to here).

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

I hope you’re enjoying this Don because I’m not. Everything I’ve written has been consistent. The Church does not believe in a theological Christ or a symbolic Christ, but an actual, physical, historical person. If you don’t want to accept that, fine. But why do Catholics pray “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”?

Who’s coming Don, a theological concept or a real physical Jesus Christ who the angels told the men of Galile, “The same Jesus will return.”

I don’t appreciate your attempting to lecture me on this point because God is real and alive at this moment - not as theology but as real as you or I. Once again, if you don’t accept that, fine. Just realize that I do. Always have.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

The Church does not believe in a theological Christ or a symbolic Christ, but an actual, physical, historical person. If you don’t want to accept that, fine. But why do Catholics pray “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”?

Honestly, Ed, what in the world are you talking about? I have never disputed the theological comments you make here.

Who’s coming Don, a theological concept or a real physical Jesus Christ who the angels told the men of Galile, “The same Jesus will return.”

Jesus Christ himself will return. Have I ever denied this theological truth?

…God is real and alive at this moment - not as theology but as real as you or I.

Again, I, too, affirm this theological truth.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I tried an experiment. I split myself into two separate beings:

Theology Ed
and
Science Ed

Science Ed only dealt with observable things, proven facts, testable things. He didn’t think about the supernatural at all.

Theology Ed only thought about God and miracles and supernatural things.

Well, one day, Theology Ed began thinking about scientific things, and Science Ed began thinking about supernatural things. This got Science Ed into trouble on Catholic Answers forum as well as Theology Ed.

They have both merged back into one being, Ed.

I’m sticking with the Church’s view that science, by itself, only provides part of the answer.

God bless,
Ed

Well done ED…I nearly fell out laughing…I could just picture it…two eds:extrahappy: and then one Ed :hypno: I can see how it could get confusing!!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I accept that you’re contradicting your own quotation of the Church’s position:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

You insist on blending theology and science, when the Church clearly requires the exact opposite. Your position, as you stated it above, is “I don’t separate the two,” while the Church’s position is that we are to carefully distinguish between genuinely scientific statements and those that go beyond science into theology. So, who’s wrong: Ed, or the Catholic Church?

I told him the same thing, and he cited it himself. He apparently cannot see that what he sited proves exactly the opposite of what he would have the Church claim.

That is a theological fact.

I’m not quite sure why you launched into a theological explanation of the Church’s view of God. These are doctrinal truths that every Christian would affirm, and have nothing whatever to do with science.

Careful, Ed----your formula clearly distinguishes between “Science” and “Theology.” I actually have no problem whatsoever with your formulation here. It’s too bad you’ve insisted on contradicting it in your other posts (and even in the one I’m responding to here).

**That would be the 14th time he’s done it so far. He finally states it properly, then regresses again. **

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I hope you’re enjoying this Don because I’m not. Everything I’ve written has been consistent. The Church does not believe in a theological Christ or a symbolic Christ, but an actual, physical, historical person. If you don’t want to accept that, fine. But why do Catholics pray “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”?

Who’s coming Don, a theological concept or a real physical Jesus Christ who the angels told the men of Galile, “The same Jesus will return.”

**Good grief is this where you are confused? Belief in Jesus is a theological concept. We BELIEVE in Jesus. Nobody has proved Jesus is the Christ. We believe the scriptures which tell us that. We believe Jesus was real, not theological whatever you think that means… You’re so confused I don’t know where to begin. **

I don’t appreciate your attempting to lecture me on this point because God is real and alive at this moment - not as theology but as real as you or I. Once again, if you don’t accept that, fine. Just realize that I do. Always have.

**You are stating what you believe in your heart. Not what is true by some evidence. Boy has this all come down to you not understanding what a theological statement is? **

Ed

 

[mschrank]

Revelation, not evolution, tells us our origin and destiny is God.

BRAVO!!! What a great post!

 

[edwest2]

Feel free to ignore me but I meant what I wrote. God is real, not a theological concept. I’m seeing way too much science worship here. Too bad.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Feel free to ignore me but I meant what I wrote.

I’m not ignoring you, I’m simply disagreeing with you, as you are with the Church. Again, the Church addresses not science itself, but rather the occasional non-scientific statements by some scientists which reveal that they are “straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science” (your quotation). Thus, the Church is carefully distinguishing between the scientific and theological statements of certain scientists. You, however, refuse to follow the Church’s lead in this matter.

God is real, not a theological concept.

This is itself a theological statement.

I’m seeing way too much science worship here.

If by distinguishing between theological and scientific statements one is “worshipping science,” then the Catholic Church is guilty of idolatry. (Of course, this is ridiculous, as is your claim, I’m afraid.)

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Sideline]

God is real, not a theological concept.

This is really 2 statements.

God is real.

God is not a theological concept.

No one argues the first point on this thread.

Theological = God + “words about”

If God is not a subject of theology, then theology is a rather poorly named study.

Science is the study of nature. Theology is the study of God. Saying that you can not study them independently is like saying you can not study a creation without studying the creator. Which is like saying you can not take a shop class without studying Gerald Ford. Saying that studying nature in mechanical terms leads to atheism is like saying a shop class without a history component leads to historical revisionism.

No one is asking you to split in half, they are asking you to recognize the difference between a creator and a creation.

Edit:

Obviously it is slightly different, because in a shop class the engine can not reproduce or modify itself. (Why mechanics isn’t such a great example of biological theories.) But the idea still stands, you don’t need to study the inventor concurrent with the invention.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is really 2 statements.

God is real.

God is not a theological concept.

No one argues the first point on this thread.

Theological = God + “words about”

If God is not a subject of theology, then theology is a rather poorly named study.

Science is the study of nature. Theology is the study of God. Saying that you can not study them independently is like saying you can not study a creation without studying the creator. Which is like saying you can not take a shop class without studying Gerald Ford. Saying that studying nature in mechanical terms leads to atheism is like saying a shop class without a history component leads to historical revisionism.

No one is asking you to split in half, they are asking you to recognize the difference between a creator and a creation.

Edit:

Obviously it is slightly different, because in a shop class the engine can not reproduce or modify itself. (Why mechanics isn’t such a great example of biological theories.) But the idea still stands, you don’t need to study the inventor concurrent with the invention.

There is an apparent disconnect here. Ed doesn’t understand what theological means. He confuses what he believes with what can be proven. There is no argument that will convince, since he has oddly enough twice now, supplied the very argument that disputes his own beliefs in this matter. He simply is gonna believe what he wants regardless of what the Church or anyone else tells him. Some folks are like that. Why he is here I have no idea. All that happens is that he is reminded again and again that he stands alone with these strange convoluted, self opposing beliefs. The illogic would drive me nuts. But I know of no way to explain it so he can get it.

 

[edwest2]

This all goes back to the atheist I spoke with 30 years ago, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

This all goes back to the atheist I spoke with 30 years ago, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

God bless,
Ed

I don’t suppose you would condescend to explain how?

Sideline says: Evolution doesn’t entail atheism.

Ed says:This all goes back to the argument, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

Sideline says: The Catholic Church doesn’t teach what you say it does.

Ed says: This all goes back to the atheist I spoke with 30 years ago, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

Sideline says: Theology means words about God.

Ed says: This all goes back to the atheist I spoke with 30 years ago, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

Although I find it somewhat amusing that you find my arguments so terrifying that you won’t even read them. It kind of make me wonder why.

Let me answer for you:

Ed says: This all goes back to the atheist I spoke with 30 years ago, “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”