H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m familiar with the Evolutionist point of view. I’m not familiar with the Creationist point of view. Are you saying that God created a lot of unfit organisms? What’s the theology behind that?
- Status
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Are you sure you are a member of the Catholic Church? Members of the Catholic Church may hold Creationist or Evolutionist views, and do not despise those who hold different views from their own. In denying that Evolution is an acceptable position, you deny your membership of the Catholic Church. You are protesting against it. You are a Protestant.
G
Gorgias
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
I meant to say evolution supposedly kills off the unfit.Everything now that I see in the real world that God has created is fit for its environment.Techno2000:
I’m familiar with the Evolutionist point of view. I’m not familiar with the Creationist point of view. Are you saying that God created a lot of unfit organisms? What’s the theology behind that?
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Glad you are enjoying. I have no problem providing the entertainment. Have some cold beer in the fridge, it’s not as interesting drinking alone.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Two minor quibbles:
- Not all of Genesis is ‘figurative’. I don’t think that’s what you’re claiming, but it’s important to qualify that statement – there is more than one genre of literature in the Book of Genesis.
- Not all expressions of evolution are in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Before giving a blanket ‘thumbs-up’ to evolution, it’s important to identify what a particular person means when they say ‘evolution’. After all, some moderns mean “there is no God and everything is arbitrary and without a telos.”
L
laylow
Guest
Nah, only the parts that obviously look made up and don’t fit into the current dogma.
R
Richca
Guest
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
I agree with you that ‘Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim’ because God’s creative activity or creationism is supernatural and not something that can be observed with the senses or investigated directly by the natural sciences. To believe in God the Creator is a matter of faith and in this sense so is Darwinism a matter of faith. At the same time, our faith is not unreasonable and God has left ‘traces’ as it were of his creative activity such as the fossil record in which we find everywhere the abrupt appearance of species and stasis as well as the spectacular intelligent design of the biology of organisms and plants. Not in the least are the heavens itself and its almost unbelievable vastness, the billions upon billions of stars and galaxies according to the findings of modern science. As the psalmist declares:
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1).
There also seems to me to be a contradiction in your above statement in some sense. You state ’ a Catholic can take Genesis literally AND accept the findings of science (i.e., evolution in this context).’ Apart from the evolution comment which I personally don’t believe in at least the macro variety, I agree with you here to some extent. But again, I distinguish between the findings of science properly so called and psuedo-science or the conjectural and unsubstantiated, impossible to prove, theories of science. Such theories, in my opinion, violate that rule of the interpretation of scripture from Pope Leo’s encyclical I mentioned above.
Than, you go on to state ‘because Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim.’ In other words, if ‘Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim’ in what sense can you claim a ‘scientific’ interpretation of it per ’ a Catholic can take Genesis literally AND accept the findings of science (i.e., evolution in this context)’?
Macroevolutionary theory is not a finding of science or science properly so called. It is occult ‘scientism,’ a philosophical and for theistic evolutionists even a theological interpretation of reality including the fossil record. It is fundamentally except for certain aspects of the theistic variety such as the inclusion of God and divine providence an ideological interpretation of reality founded upon naturalism, materialism, and rationalism. Macroevolutionary theory is impossible to prove for no human was there to observe the deep past. However, I think the theory may be scientifically disproven if that has not already been done so due to our present day biological knowledge of the enormous and spectacular complexity of organisms as well as for simply the enormous variety of plant and animal species in the world. Also, macroevolutionary theory contradicts what we actually observe in the real world, namely, humans come from humans, lions from lions, and so forth.
I agree with you that ‘Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim’ because God’s creative activity or creationism is supernatural and not something that can be observed with the senses or investigated directly by the natural sciences. To believe in God the Creator is a matter of faith and in this sense so is Darwinism a matter of faith. At the same time, our faith is not unreasonable and God has left ‘traces’ as it were of his creative activity such as the fossil record in which we find everywhere the abrupt appearance of species and stasis as well as the spectacular intelligent design of the biology of organisms and plants. Not in the least are the heavens itself and its almost unbelievable vastness, the billions upon billions of stars and galaxies according to the findings of modern science. As the psalmist declares:
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1).
There also seems to me to be a contradiction in your above statement in some sense. You state ’ a Catholic can take Genesis literally AND accept the findings of science (i.e., evolution in this context).’ Apart from the evolution comment which I personally don’t believe in at least the macro variety, I agree with you here to some extent. But again, I distinguish between the findings of science properly so called and psuedo-science or the conjectural and unsubstantiated, impossible to prove, theories of science. Such theories, in my opinion, violate that rule of the interpretation of scripture from Pope Leo’s encyclical I mentioned above.
Than, you go on to state ‘because Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim.’ In other words, if ‘Genesis is not literally asserting a scientific claim’ in what sense can you claim a ‘scientific’ interpretation of it per ’ a Catholic can take Genesis literally AND accept the findings of science (i.e., evolution in this context)’?
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Further, what text of Genesis 1-2: 1-3, i.e., the seven day creation narrative, do you think Moses or the sacred writer is possibly asserting evolutionism either in the form of the Big Bang or Darwinism theories? Or, for that matter, any text of the Bible?
Now, I understand that the present teaching of the Church allows for theistic evolutionary interpretation of creation theology within certain limits. So, I’m not claiming that you must accept presently ‘creationism’ as I do. At the same time, the Church does not claim that theistic evolution theory is true nor do I believe it can ever claim such without further revelation from God. However, we are not expecting any further divine revelation from God as the incarnation of the Word of God essentially completes God’s self revelation to mankind. What it has pleased God to reveal to us about his work of creation or ‘creation theology’ is in the Bible which is God’s word to us. We already possess this revelation, why would we ask for another or further revelation? Essentially, at the present time, the topic of creation theology involving creationism (the traditional teaching of the Church throughout the greater part of its history) vs evolutionism theory is open for discussion in the Church. Presently concerning evolutionism theory, the Church is as it were allowing the natural sciences to investigate it and see what they come up with. You can take my post here as an argument in favor of creationism.
Further, what text of Genesis 1-2: 1-3, i.e., the seven day creation narrative, do you think Moses or the sacred writer is possibly asserting evolutionism either in the form of the Big Bang or Darwinism theories? Or, for that matter, any text of the Bible?
Now, I understand that the present teaching of the Church allows for theistic evolutionary interpretation of creation theology within certain limits. So, I’m not claiming that you must accept presently ‘creationism’ as I do. At the same time, the Church does not claim that theistic evolution theory is true nor do I believe it can ever claim such without further revelation from God. However, we are not expecting any further divine revelation from God as the incarnation of the Word of God essentially completes God’s self revelation to mankind. What it has pleased God to reveal to us about his work of creation or ‘creation theology’ is in the Bible which is God’s word to us. We already possess this revelation, why would we ask for another or further revelation? Essentially, at the present time, the topic of creation theology involving creationism (the traditional teaching of the Church throughout the greater part of its history) vs evolutionism theory is open for discussion in the Church. Presently concerning evolutionism theory, the Church is as it were allowing the natural sciences to investigate it and see what they come up with. You can take my post here as an argument in favor of creationism.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
You, good sir, get an Amen.
J
jdavani
Guest
God created the mule, and told him, “You will be mule, working constantly from dusk to dawn, carrying heavy loads on your back. You will eat grass and lack intelligence. You will live for 50 years.” The mule answered, “To live like this for 50 years is too much. Please, give me no more than 20.” And it was so. Then God created the dog, and told him, “You will hold vigilance over the dwellings of Man, to whom you will be his greatest companion. You will eat his table scraps and live for 25 years.” And the dog responded, “Lord, to live 25 years as a dog like that is too much. Please, no more than 10 years.” And it was so. God then created the monkey, and told him, “You are monkey. You shall swing from tree to tree, acting like an idiot. You will be funny, and you shall live for 20 years.” And the monkey responded, “Lord, to live 20 years as the clown of the world is too much. Please, Lord, give me no more than 10 years.” And it was so. Finally, God created Man and told him, “You are Man, the only rational being that walks the earth. You will use your intelligence to have mastery over the creatures of the world. You will dominate the earth and live for 20 years.” And the man responded, “Lord, to be Man for only 20 years is too little. Please, Lord, give me the 30 years the mule refused, the 15 years the dog refused, and the 10 years the monkey rejected.” And it was so. And so God made Man to live 20 years as a man, then marry and live 30 years like a mule working and carrying heavy loads on his back. Then, he is to have children and live 15 years as a dog, guarding his house and eating the leftovers after they empty the pantry; then, in his old age, to live 10 years as a monkey, acting like an idiot to amuse his grand children.
E
edwest211
Guest
From Communion and Stewardship
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). 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. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). 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. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
Only on CAF can one find Catholics who argue with the Pope.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
So it is. But what is the Creationist view of extinct organisms? Why did God make them? If evolution didn’t kill them off, what did?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think this shows quite a deep misunderstanding of several aspects of Science. There is the usual Creationist reduction of its meaning to literally observable events, which would exclude all astronomy and most atomic theory from science as well as evolution. Strange that Creationists rarely mention their views about that. There is the usual claim that Science is somehow ‘proof’ of something, which of course it isn’t. And it ends with what seems to me a contradiction. Humans do indeed come from humans, and, significantly, lion come from lions, not from tigers or leopards. You seem here to be denying the often held Creationist doctrine of the creation of a few thousand ‘kinds’ which then diversified by adaptation (buffalo’s view, for example), in favour of the view that every species of organism was created individually. Is that your view?
I have to say that I think this is profoundly unCatholic. The incarnation most certainly did not complete “God’s self revelation to mankind”. God has continued to reveal himself though his creation, and will no doubt continue to do so. The bible is not a Catholic’s only route to “God’s word”, and Catholic theology has never held that it is.
Last edited:
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Not at all. There are many other forums, blogs, websites, and “news” outlets labeled as Catholic but set against Catholicism and popes.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I don’t know. All I can do is look around and see that animals today in this day and age are fit for their environment.I can only use this as a guide and extrapolate that the animals in the past were also fit for their environment.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Fair enough, but I can’t help feeling that although this fits well into an evolutionary philosophy, it doesn’t fit well into a creationist one. What was God doing, creating all these environments and the organisms that suited them, and then wiping them all out and replacing them with a new lot?
- Status