E
edwest211
Guest
I have no comment 
Ed
Ed
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man
- Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.
And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
EWTN Note on translation:
The English edition at first translated the French original as: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.” The L’Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope’s statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions (as above and Humani Generis).
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
It is possible for theistic Evolutionists to refer to “we” as, unlike Creationists, we all have fairly similar views about the origin and promulgation of life.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
So @Buffalo, can a Catholic accept any kind of biological evolution?
Yes or No is fine. No need to post lengthy quotes or critique certain aspects of evolutionary theories.
Yes or No is fine. No need to post lengthy quotes or critique certain aspects of evolutionary theories.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I get that. There is just way too much room for error. I get science, but in this case, the Church has set up certain boundaries that derive from Divine Revelation, which, while outside of scientific inquiry, are 100% applicable. Either you don’t get that or choose to ignore it. Either way, certain things actually happened, including miraculous things, but they don’t if one chooses to place ‘science only’ blinders on. It’s a shame but we’re not having a Galileo moment but a “I want it. I want it. I want it” moment.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
One must recognise the particular methods of each of the sciences. “This is why methodical research, in all the fields of knowledge, will never be truly opposed to faith, if it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and follows the norms of morality: worldly realities and the realities of faith find their origin in the same God” [5]. But it would be false to understand this autonomy of earthly realities to mean that they did not depend on God, and that man could dispose of them without reference to the Creator. JPII
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. …
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you. That bolded part is so very rarely mentioned.
B
buffalo
Guest
"Science fiction exists, on the other hand, in the ambit of many sciences. That which you explain about theories concerning the beginning and the end of the world in Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc., I would designate as science fiction in the good sense of that phrase: they are visions and anticipations, in order to reach a true knowledge, but they are also, precisely, only imaginations with which we seek to come close to reality. There indeed exists, science fiction in a grand style, for instance, within the theory of evolution. The “selfish gene” of Richard Dawkins is a classic example of science fiction." Pope Benedict XVI
B
buffalo
Guest
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love "It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." Pope Benedict XVI
E
edwest211
Guest
I’ve read that too. As a writer of science fiction, I need an understanding of science to build on and extrapolate from. Some of the greats, like Jules Verne, have come up with fantastic ideas that actually came to fruition. Reading about Thomas Edison and his lengthy search for just the right material to allow the light bulb to work for a lengthy period of time is another example. Imagination can be the source of inspiration for researchers and applied science. A Japanese researcher wrote: “If I had 100 ideas, I tried all 100.”
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Did Pope Benedict Really Dismiss Evolution as 'Science Fiction'?
In a recent letter to Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Italian atheist and mathematician, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI used the term "science fiction." Odifreddi is the author of the 2011 book Dear Pope, I'm Writing to You, a critique of Benedict's theological writings. Benedict's letter is a response to that b
strangenotions.com
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Wheee again! Here comes another quotebomb. No idea what it says, no idea what it means, no idea if it’s a valid contribution to the debate, I’ll just lob it in the discussion in the hope that its sheer weight will stun them into submission. Shall I tell the poor Evolutionists where it comes from? No, better not, in case they realise how little it supports my Creationist argument, and how much, in fact, it supports their Evolutionary one.
My colleague Evolutionists, Buffalo’s inconsiderate cut’n’paste dollop comes from a speech which Pope John Paul II gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences over twenty years ago. As he so rightly pointed out, there are two distinct philosophies of Evolution, the materialist and the theist, each of which has minor variations of its own. And as he further pointed out, the validity of any of them depends on their harmony with the results of observation as well as philosophical considerations.
By moving directly from Section 4 of this speech to the quite unnecessary mention of the ‘Note on Translation’, Buffalo gives the impression that the speech stopped there, whereas in fact there were two more sections, touching directly on man. In them, Pope John Paul II specifically accepted that the origin of the human body could come through living matter which existed previously, although also insisted that the spiritual soul is created directly by God. As such, those “theories of evolution which … regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” He recognised that this could be a problem - “But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry?” He elaborates, and then resolves the problem as follows: “The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs.”
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
With the solemn presentation of the divine work of creation that unfolded over seven days, the first chapter of Genesis in particular occupies a special place. God brought the creation to completion in six days and on the seventh, the sabbath, he did not do anything, but rested: a day of freedom for all, a day of communion with God. Thus, with this image the Book of Genesis tells us that God’s first thought was to find a love that would correspond to his love.
and to conclude, the seventh time, after the creation of man: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good
So God waited 4B years or so to comment?
Then his second thought was to create a material world in which to place this love, these creatures who respond to him in freedom. This structure therefore results in the text being marked by certain meaningful repetitions. For example, the sentence “God saw that it was good”, is repeated six times (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and to conclude, the seventh time, after the creation of man: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (v. 31). Everything that God creates is beautiful and good, steeped in wisdom and love; God’s creative action brings order, instils harmony and bestows beauty. Pope Benedict XVI
Examining this Creation was good. His creative action brings order. Evolution of man does not fit.and to conclude, the seventh time, after the creation of man: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good
So God waited 4B years or so to comment?
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I disagree with the emboldened part. Cosmological evolution is in the same category of conjecturalism as Darwinism. I find it amazing how many people are unable to distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity, or reality and conjecture, or from what is true from what is only an opinion. Very uncritical thinkers and not of a philosophical bent.catholic1seeks:
EWTN Note on translation:
The English edition at first translated the French original as: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.” The L’Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope’s statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions (as above and Humani Generis).
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I don’t think you do. When you say this: …
… I’m sure you really mean that it is not possible to believe both in Evolution and in God. This is a major stumbling block for you.
This perpetuates the idea. Either things happened or they didn’t. The mind-set of the observer is irrelevant. What matters is whether he can demonstrate that they happened to others.
No idea what this means. I think it means that you think it is not possible to believe both in Evolution and in God. If so, then it is surely you who are wearing ‘blinders’, not me.
E
edwest211
Guest
Biased thinking is being presented here. Anything that contradicts the ‘desired’ explanation is dismissed or the poster is called ignorant or mistaken. In some cases, it appears that an emotional response is expected, or desired, to further discredit the critic.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Correct! Just what we’ve been saying all along.
Correct! Just what we’ve been saying all along.
Correct! Just what we’ve been saying all along.
You seem to have missed out the italicised words, no doubt inadvertently, so I’ve put them in for you.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Benedict XVI on original sin, Adam, and the New Adam
"If, in the faith of the Church, an awareness arose of the dogma of original sin, this is because it is inseparably connected to another dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. This means that we should never consider the sin of Adam and of humankind separately, without understanding them within the horizon of justification in Christ".
“As men and women of today we have to ask ourselves whether such a doctrine is still sustainable”, said the Holy Father. "Many people think that, in the light of the history of evolution, there is no place for … an original sin which extends through the history of humankind and that, consequently, the redemption and the Redeemer lose their foundation. Does, then, original sin exist or not?"
"In the evolutionist and atheistic view of the world … it is held that human beings as such have, from the beginning, borne evil and good within themselves. … Humans are not simply good, but open to good and to evil … both of them original. Human history then, according to this view, does nothing more than follow the model present in all evolution. What Christians call original sin is only this blend of good and evil".
"This, in the final analysis, is a vision of despair. If it is true, evil is invincible, … all that counts is individual interest, any form of progress would necessarily be paid for with a river of evil, … and anyone who wishes to progress would have to pay this price. … This modern idea, in the end, can create only sadness and cynicism".
“Evil arises from a subordinate source; God with His light is stronger. For this reason evil can be overcome, for this reason the creature … is not only curable but is in fact cured. God introduced the cure. He personally entered history and, to counteract the permanent source of evil, placed a source of pure good: Christ crucified and risen, the New Adam Who opposes the foul river of evil with a river of light … that remains present in history”.
"If, in the faith of the Church, an awareness arose of the dogma of original sin, this is because it is inseparably connected to another dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. This means that we should never consider the sin of Adam and of humankind separately, without understanding them within the horizon of justification in Christ".
“As men and women of today we have to ask ourselves whether such a doctrine is still sustainable”, said the Holy Father. "Many people think that, in the light of the history of evolution, there is no place for … an original sin which extends through the history of humankind and that, consequently, the redemption and the Redeemer lose their foundation. Does, then, original sin exist or not?"
"In the evolutionist and atheistic view of the world … it is held that human beings as such have, from the beginning, borne evil and good within themselves. … Humans are not simply good, but open to good and to evil … both of them original. Human history then, according to this view, does nothing more than follow the model present in all evolution. What Christians call original sin is only this blend of good and evil".
"This, in the final analysis, is a vision of despair. If it is true, evil is invincible, … all that counts is individual interest, any form of progress would necessarily be paid for with a river of evil, … and anyone who wishes to progress would have to pay this price. … This modern idea, in the end, can create only sadness and cynicism".
“Evil arises from a subordinate source; God with His light is stronger. For this reason evil can be overcome, for this reason the creature … is not only curable but is in fact cured. God introduced the cure. He personally entered history and, to counteract the permanent source of evil, placed a source of pure good: Christ crucified and risen, the New Adam Who opposes the foul river of evil with a river of light … that remains present in history”.
Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: Benedict XVI on original sin, Adam, and the New Adam
God cannot be the author of evolution.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
Last edited:
- Status