Are Catholics creationists?

[adowcday]

Evolution as currently described in the biology textbook is self-starting and self-operating. It requires no outside influence or (name removed by moderator)ut. Understand? It also assumes that human beings are nothing but another animal. Period. Do you know why there are billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.? Or signs on buses that read: Man Created God.? Science has told these people that our evolving brains created god/gods/spirituality as a purely survival mechanism. Until today, when we are so “modern” that we no longer need god/gods/spirituality. And, evoliution is a social control mechanism that promotes atheism.

While there are godless atheistic evolutionists, there are also Christians who are evolutionists. As a Ph.D. biologist and a Roman Catholic, I am one of the latter. You sound anti-science. Reason and faith are not in conflict.

 

[ricmat]

While there are godless atheistic evolutionists, there are also Christians who are evolutionists. As a Ph.D. biologist and a Roman Catholic,** I am one of the latter.** You sound anti-science. Reason and faith are not in conflict.

In fact, you may be the only one. Invite the other PhD biologists to a bible study and see how many show up. Hint: don’t spend too much on refreshments.

 

[StAnastasia]

While there are godless atheistic evolutionists, there are also Christians who are evolutionists. As a Ph.D. biologist and a Roman Catholic, I am one of the latter. You sound anti-science. Reason and faith are not in conflict.

adowcday, I am with you. There are many biologists in your position, including members of the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR - I am a member), the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS), the Metanexus Institute, the Vatican Observatory, and countless biology departments in Catholic universities. Add to that thousands of Catholic theologians, philosophers, and historians, and you can see you are in fine company.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

It is absolutely essential that Catholics belief in God as the Creator of the world, the beginning and the end of creation. It is contrary to Catholic teaching to believe anything other than God is the Creator, and that all things, seen and unseen are contingent on his being the Creator and the Sustainer of his creation.

Precisely. That is why as a theologian I accept evolution as the best explanation for how God – as sustainer of creation – creates the world.

StAnastasia

 

[RobbyS]

Today, the Pope Pius V University in Rome will be the setting for a day-long conference with the arresting title, “The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution.” The sponsors of the event are known crusaders against Darwin. But they go further than most Darwin dissenters and postulate a “young earth” chronology based on a literal reading of Scripture. Needless to say, the Catholics among them are not comfortable with what the ordinary Magisteri*um has to say on the subject. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have affirmed that the Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science and that theories of evolution are permissible so long as God is not excluded from the big picture.

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously remarked that the test of a first-rate mind is to hold two apparently contradictory ideas and still be able to function. In the debate over evolution, a Catholic must allow both revelation and science their due authority, reconciling the apparent contra**dictions between Genesis and modern research. Catholics also have to be skeptical about the claims of materialist ideologies disguised as science, while being open to the genuine findings of geneticists and paleontologists.

In 1986, John Paul II gave a series of general audiences on the subject of Creation. In them, he laid down a principle of Biblical exegesis that has been around since the Church Fathers: The Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science. Genesis tells what God did, not how he did it. “Indeed,” writes John Paul, “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about creation. . . .as presented in the Book of Genesis. . . .It must, however, be added that this hypothesis pro*poses only a probability, not a scientific certainty. . . .[But] it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings.”

thecatholicthing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2439&Itemid=2

Creationism , I have always understood, is the belief that the universe has a Creator. That behind it all there is a God. Evolution is, so I see it, no more than an effort to make sense of this creation. But those who attempt to use this research to answer the question of why there is evil in the world will fail.

 

[Digitonomy]

a principle of Biblical exegesis that has been around since the Church Fathers: The Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science. Genesis tells what God did, not how he did it.

I was not aware of the Church Fathers weighing in on this subject - can someone direct me to a source?

 

[latin_rite]

I honestly cannot follow this thread.What i gathered from the op was that the church says that its ok if Catholics believe in evolution as long as they don’t exclude God. Then we had another poster A catholic () who says the op is going to catch hell for posting his post. Is he saying that the majority of Catholics are creationist? well at least on this site?. we even had a agnostic/atheist who chimmed in with their usual drivel. This whole argument is going round n round in circles. My self im a creationist Cause i believe God created all. But i’m not a creationst in the popular sence of the word.

 

[buffalo]

I honestly cannot follow this thread.What i gathered from the op was that the church says that its ok if Catholics believe in evolution as long as they don’t exclude God. Then we had another poster A catholic () who says the op is going to catch hell for posting his post. Is he saying that the majority of Catholics are creationist? well at least on this site?. we even had a agnostic/atheist who chimmed in with their usual drivel. This whole argument is going round n round in circles. My self im a creationist Cause i believe God created all. But i’m not a creationst in the popular sence of the word.

Give this a whirl…

If you don’t believe in ID after this you will… a killer video.

Intelligent Design

 

[Seamus_L]

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned Romans 5:12

                 What's so hard about that ? Either you trust in God's word (oh how primative) or you believe the predominantly atheistic evolutionist crowd and there ever changing theories. 

                 We Catholics have believed in Creation for almost 2000 years. The Evangelicals have no claim to it.

 

[ricmat]

Precisely. That is why as a theologian I accept evolution as the best explanation for how God – as sustainer of creation – creates the world.

StAnastasia

Evolution, of course, takes no position on God. Or so most of you say. Most of the time.

In your rabid defense of evolution-at-all-costs, you deny that God can be found in nature, and that such a search is doomed to failure, so it’s not worth even looking.

I think today’s (11/13/2009) first Mass reading is directed right at you, StA - and you friends. Here it is:

Wis 13:1 For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;
Wis 13:2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.
Wis 13:3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.
Wis 13:4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them.
Wis 13:5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.
Wis 13:6 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.
Wis 13:7 For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.
Wis 13:8 But again, not even these are pardonable.
Wis 13:9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD?

Have a nice day.

BTW - are there such things as coincidences?

 

[StAnastasia]

are there such things as coincidences?

Certainly.

 

[StAnastasia]

What’s so hard about that ? Either you trust in God’s word (oh how primative [sic]) or you believe the predominantly atheistic evolutionist crowd and there [sic] ever changing theories.

That’s a false dichotomy.

 

[StAnastasia]

Creationism , I have always understood, is the belief that the universe has a Creator. That behind it all there is a God. Evolution is, so I see it, no more than an effort to make sense of this creation. But those who attempt to use this research to answer the question of why there is evil in the world will fail.

Precisely – moral questions fall outside the purview of science.

 

[adowcday]

Evolution, of course, takes no position on God. Or so most of you say. Most of the time. In your rabid defense of evolution-at-all-costs, you deny that God can be found in nature, and that such a search is doomed to failure, so it’s not worth even looking.

I say, and I say it all the time, that those who deny evolution are anti-scientific. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I also say, and I say it all the time, that what the Scriptures and the Catechism say about the creation of the world by God is true. You’ve suggested that those who believe in evolution are atheists or on the way to atheism. Not so. What you are saying simply isn’t true for Catholic scientists, and there are many of us. “Rabid”, “evolution-at-all-costs” – nonsense. Shouting something or using such strong words doesn’t turn falsehood into truth.

 

[StAnastasia]

I say, and I say it all the time, that those who deny evolution are anti-scientific. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I also say, and I say it all the time, that what the Scriptures and the Catechism say about the creation of the world by God is true. You’ve suggested that those who believe in evolution are atheists or on the way to atheism. Not so. What you are saying simply isn’t true for Catholic scientists, and there are many of us.

I have friends who are both priests and cosmologists or evolutionary biologists. They celebrate Mass in the morning before going to their labs or classrooms.

StAnastasia

 

[gilliam]

see:

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea3.asp

 

[ricmat]

I say, and I say it all the time, that those who deny evolution are anti-scientific. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I also say, and I say it all the time, that what the Scriptures and the Catechism say about the creation of the world by God is true. You’ve suggested that those who believe in evolution are atheists or on the way to atheism. Not so. What you are saying simply isn’t true for Catholic scientists, and there are many of us. “Rabid”, “evolution-at-all-costs” – nonsense. Shouting something or using such strong words doesn’t turn falsehood into truth.

The only part of evolution that I outright deny is the fact that the source of all new “information” all happened by “random” mutations. According to your post above, that makes me “anti-scientific”. Hello? I’m an engineer. I’ve actually used science for 35 years to accomplish stuff. Have you?

My comments were not directed at you. I see that you have relatively few posts. But StA and others regularly comment that science should not be used (or cannot be used) in any way to find God. The quote I posted from the Mass readings clearly disputes that. Did you read it?

I have not suggested that those who believe in evolution are on the way to atheism. I do believe that those who believe that “random, unguided processes” did it (i.e. without God) are either atheists or on the way to atheism. A few years ago, there was a Harvard study of PhD university professors and what their views were on God. Biologists had the highest percentage of atheists (something around 70% as I recall). Biologists are also the ones most exposed to “random unguided processes lead to life” (i.e. the TOE).

You say that you are a biologist, that you believe in random unguided processes leading to human life, and that you are a faithful Catholic that believes in God. OK. I believe you. But as I said, that makes you unusual (in a good way).

By “evolution-at-all-costs” - I should have used instead “random processes at all costs.” Perhaps that clarifies things a bit.

 

[StAnastasia]

My comments were not directed at you. I see that you have relatively few posts. But StA and others regularly comment that science should not be used (or cannot be used) in any way to find God.

As a Roman Catholic, I believe God to be creator, transcendent above nature and its natural processes, including the human sciences by which we study it. It is a fundamental error to expect by using nature to find proof of a God who by definition infinitely transcends that very nature.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

As a Roman Catholic, I believe God to be creator, transcendent above nature and its natural processes, including the human sciences by which we study it. It is a fundamental error to expect by using nature to find proof of a God who by definition infinitely transcends that very nature.

StAnastasia

Then you will have no issue with science studying and formulizing ID.

 

[ricmat]

As a Roman Catholic, I believe God to be creator, transcendent above nature and its natural processes, including the human sciences by which we study it. It is a fundamental error to expect by using nature to find proof of a God who by definition infinitely transcends that very nature.

StAnastasia

To find absolute proof is one thing - and I don’t know of anybody who is trying to do that (except the straw men you erect).

However, to say that random processes alone evolved mankind directly eliminates God from the process. That view is deism, the watchmaker god - which is a heresy.

We are called to find God everywhere - through the beautiful things we see and hear. Through the order we see in nature. Most of the (Western) scientists of past ages looked for evidence of God’s work through their own work. No, they weren’t looking for proof of God’s existence - because they knew that to be true already. They were looking for manifestations of God’s glory that would enable them to stand even more in awe of God through understanding of his creation.

You have no desire, it seems, to follow in their footsteps. The reason you cite is that you cannot see evidence of God in nature, and furthermore say that it is impossible ever to find such evidence. How sad. How very very sad.