Animal Biotechnology and Guided Evolution

[edwest2]

Sadly, amateur theological discussions do not illuminate anything.

Truth cannot contradict truth? That statement from Pope John Paul II is only used as a method to convince Christians that the Church has accepted evolution. It has not.

Truth must flow in two directions, not just one. There is a proper relationship between faith and reason, which Pope John Paul II defined:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Further, the document “Human Persons Created In The Image Of God” states that God had a causal role role in whatever evolutionary process that may have occurred and that without God’s causal role, evolution is impossible.

So, for those who look at the biology textbook as the whole answer, it isn’t. It’s a fragment at best.

Genesis records things God actually did. It was written by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Camron]

Question 19: Which version of evolution does the Pope state is the correct one?

Here’s a primer from Pope John Paul II, pointing out the incorrect ones, which will eventually lead to the “correct one” as noted by Pope Benedict XVI…

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology…

…Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.****

This information noted below, by the way, is the “correct one”…

Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation; it involved a somewhat horizontal interpretation of the origin of the world.

A decisive advance in understanding the origin of the cosmos was the consideration of being qua being and the concern of metaphysics with the most basic question of the first or transcendent origin of participated being.

In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be

, and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence.

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously.

Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

 

[Camron]

Question 20: Where does the Holy Father explain what theistic evolution is, precisely – and how does he support that with scientific evidence?

Here…

To “evolve” literally means “to unroll a scroll”, that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists. Galileo saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author. It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose “writing” and meaning, we “read” according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the author who has wished to reveal himself therein.

This image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos. Notwithstanding elements of the irrational, chaotic and the destructive in the long processes of change in the cosmos, matter as such is “legible”. It has an inbuilt “mathematics”. The human mind therefore can engage not only in a “cosmography” studying measurable phenomena but also in a “cosmology” discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos.

We may not at first be able to see the harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of evident correspondences and undeniable finalities: in the inorganic world, between microstructure and macrostructure; in the organic and animal world, between structure and function; and in the spiritual world, between knowledge of the truth and the aspiration to freedom.

Experimental and philosophical inquiry gradually discovers these orders; it perceives them working to maintain themselves in being, defending themselves against imbalances, and overcoming obstacles. And thanks to the natural sciences we have greatly increased our understanding of the uniqueness of humanity’s place in the cosmos.

 

[Camron]

Question 21: Why does nature appear to be designed by God, but actually was the result of blind natural laws as evolution states?

You have asked another loaded question.

Nature is not the result the result of blind natural laws. Atheistic evolutionary theories claim this. Theistic evolutionary theories do not generally claim this, not unless they are of an aberrant form of “process theology” (noted above) which has already been rejected by the Catholic Church.

Question 22: Was God trying to deceive His own people by making them think that He created and shaped the world, when actually the atheistic view that natural laws alone are sufficient?

You have asked yet another loaded question that cannot be answered as stated.

The natural laws alone are not sufficient Reggie. Neither has God deceived anyone. This has already been explained to you. But let’s go further with this.

You said that nature is blind yet the Bible says that the skies proclaim the works of His hands…

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

How can you buy into the atheist claptrap of materialism by stating that “the atheistic view that natural laws alone are sufficient” when the Bible quite clearly states that the heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of his hands?

You also said that nature cannot accomplish anything but the Bible says that natural elements actually do God’s bidding…

Psalm 148:8
…lightning and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do his bidding…

This is the same concept as demonstrated in the Bible regarding God’s holy angels…

Psalm 103:20
Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word.

Again, why do you say that nature cannot accomplish God’s will when the Bible says that natural elements actually do in fact accomplish God’s will, since they do His bidding just His angels do according to the Bible itself?

 

[Camron]

Question 23" Is Father Coyne correct to say that “God didn’t know that man would be the result of evolution”?

Do you have a quote from Pope Benedict XVI that actually addresses this point?

If not, then why ask it?

If Father Coyne actually said that then I would answer no. Coyne carries comparatively little weight at the Vatican, despite the attention that mainstream American legacy media give to his views. You should probably ignore his commentary if presented through a secular source. I personally think he does a poor job presenting his ideas. He gives too much for the secular media to distort.

Question 24: How does natural selection affect the moral and social life of human beings?

I don’t think it actually does this. I don’t know of any quote where Pope Benedict XVI actually made this claim either.

Question 25: If natural laws alone are responsible for the beauty and harmony and origin of life, why did we need a redeemer?

Loaded question…

Natural laws are not solely responsible for the beauty and the beauty and harmony and origin of life.

Question 26: Why would human beings work against natural law or against the evolutionary process?

Created in the image of God to share in the communion of Trinitarian life, human beings are persons who are so constituted as to be able freely to embrace this communion. Freedom is the divine gift that enables human persons to choose the communion which the triune God offers to them as their ultimate good. But with freedom comes the possibility of the failure of freedom. Instead of embracing the ultimate good of participation in the divine life, human persons can and do turn away from it in order to enjoy transitory or even only imaginary goods. Sin is precisely this failure of freedom, this turning away from the divine invitation to communion.’

 

[Camron]

Question 26: Has all of life emerged through the ordinary working of the natural laws (from abiogenesis to mankind)?

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

With these questions, I’m not interested in your opinion.

Why not? You certainly seem to have no problem at all giving your own personal opinions on these matters? Why can’t I do this as well?

Please just quote where Pope Benedict has expressed his view very clearly on these matters.

It took some time to fully research this. But I have now provided relevant text from Pope Benedict XVI for every single “buckshot” question you asked above.

Then I will be able to understand how he reconciled the problems of evolution with the Catholic Faith.

Great. Now maybe you can answer the one question that I’ve been asking you for some time:

Can evolution happen if God is guiding it?

Thanks.

Don’t thank me. Thank the moon’s gravitational pull.

But, nonetheless, you are very welcome. I hope and pray this helps you.

Are you now ready to start at Genesis 1:1 in order to pray and mediate over each passage in order to break it down by the Four Senses of Scripture: Literal (or historical), Christological (or allegorical), Moral (or tropological), and Anagogical?

 

[Camron]

Sadly, amateur theological discussions do not illuminate anything.

Who are you talking to Ed?