Are Catholics creationists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_of_Woking said:
As an aside Does anyone one know of any Saints (post mid nineteenth century) who have affirmed or denied evolution.
Click to expand...
“Sir, what would you think of a man who would describe his wristwatch as follows: ‘The metal covering the watch came out of the mine by accident; in some strange way it was molded and formed, cleansed and shaped into its present form by accident; the face of the wristwatch came to be written upon also by accident. In fact, the crystal was blown into its form by accident. The spring and mechanism came into being by accident; finally, all of the various parts of the wristwatch were assembled by accident, that is, without assistance of human thought or hand; in fact, the wristwatch gives the correct hour by accident.’ Now, what would you say of a person who, in all seriousness, were to be so convinced?”
“Perhaps that he has taken leave of his senses!” “In nature, too, we have organisms of incomparable complexity, mysteriously constituted. No doubt, sir, when you studied anatomy, you marveled at the structure of the human eye. You doubtless noted how many parts it has, how delicately and wonderfully they serve our vision. All nature is composed of millions and billions of living organisms that unfold and multiply. Is it possible, therefore, to assert that these wonders of nature are an accident?
–St. Maximillian Kolbe, Maria was His Middle Name, 1977

Not directly against evolution but the implication is there.

we need only look about ourselves so as to come to the conclusion that God is in charge of everything, that He directs everything. Everything is directed to its appropriate and determined end; its very method of development is determined. On one and the same plant there grow leaves and buds, and the latter become lovely flowers. **The structure of the flower is so mysteriously, so wondrously thought out; how exact it all is. Scientists are at a loss even to enter into the mystery, though they might spend a lifetime in observing just one such plant. **Therefore, the words of Sacred Scripture are entirely correct: “The fool said in his heart: there is no God.”
St. Maximilian Kolbe – Maria was His Middle Name, 1977 pg. 11
 
reggieM said:
[The structure of the flower is so mysteriously, so wondrously thought out; how exact it all is. Scientists are at a loss even to enter into the mystery, though they might spend a lifetime in observing just one such plant.
Click to expand...
That’s not true at all: botanists are not at a loss regarding flowers. One of my priest friends is a botanist who specializes in the evolution of California flowering native plants. He also believes in the mystery that is God, and celebrates daily Mass.

StAnastasia
[/quote]
 
StAnastasia said:
That’s not true at all: botanists are not at a loss regarding flowers. One of my priest friends is a botanist who specializes in the evolution of California flowering native plants. He also believes in the mystery that is God, and celebrates daily Mass.
Click to expand...
Wow, a priest you know actually believes in God and celebrates daily Mass. Ok, it’s between him and St. Maximillian Kolbe … hmmm. Tough choice here.
 
reggieM said:
Wow, a priest you know actually believes in God and celebrates daily Mass. Ok, it’s between him and St. Maximillian Kolbe … hmmm. Tough choice here.
Click to expand...
I’ll go with my friend who knows about botany today, not with the guy died seventy years ago and who knew so little about the subject he considered it to be a mystery.
 
40.png
grannymh:
Having an extremely active imagination, I love the poetic reference to stardust.

However, I cannot imagine that the relationship between God and genetics is exactly the same as between the Bread and Wine and the Body of Christ. Which is the substantial presence, God or genetics? And how is the other, the outward accidents, characteristics or signs?

The substantial presence would be be God acting within us. It would be the Spirit acting through us, creating good in this world. the outward accidents would be the genes in this instance, measurable in amino acids and the like.

If evolution was all there was, then what is remarkable about this world is not that there is so much evil, but that there is so much good. So often, it is in our best interest to act selfishly, according to what our instincts tell us is most self-enhancing, as do all other animals for the most part.
It would seem to me though, that the best amongst us act in just the opposite way, in ways that are self-sacrificing, that put them directly in harms way and therefore out of the evolutionary gene pool.

Teh accidents in this case is our biology. the substance is the goodness that comes from being the hands and hearts of God.

Recall though that I was answering a question about a book that I never read. The best I could do is take a look at the author’s website and try to understand the themes she was putting across. In it she was mentioning something about a God-gene (to grossly simplify of course), and wondered if there might not be some genetic reasons why some people are more spiritual.
I wondered what she might be talking about, if whe was thinking about a more like a mystical connectedness with God when talking about spirituality. When I think of spirituality, it is more about doing the will of God than a mystical connectedness. I this, there may well be a genetic factor in how one relates to God, but a relationship with God is not dependent on ones genes. Inasmuch as he is doing the will of God, and keeping his commandments the semi-barbaric crusader is every much as spiritual as the enlightened sage or mystic having visions.

IN other words there is no God gene, I don’t think. Just as brown, pumpernickel, white or rye make no substantial difference in the Real Presence, just as the wine may be red or white, so too may the genes be those of a brute of a sage.
 
Darryl1958 said:
IN other words there is no God gene, I don’t think. Just as brown, pumpernickel, white or rye make no substantial difference in the Real Presence, just as the wine may be red or white, so too may the genes be those of a brute of a sage.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree – the whole notion of a “God gene” is scientifically incomprehensible. There might be a genetic component to greater or lesser orientation to spiritual things, just as there can be a greater and lesser inclination to artistic and musical sensitivity.
 
StAnastasia – I apologize for my previous uncharitable remark. It was unkind and uncalled for, and I regretted posting it just after the edit-window closed.
 
reggieM said:
StAnastasia – I apologize for my previous uncharitable remark. It was unkind and uncalled for, and I regretted posting it just after the edit-window closed.
Click to expand...
Thank you, ReggieM. I appreciate your contributions!
 
StAnastasia said:
That’s not true at all: botanists are not at a loss regarding flowers. One of my priest friends is a botanist who specializes in the evolution of California flowering native plants. He also believes in the mystery that is God, and celebrates daily Mass.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Biology textbook evolution gives no glory to God. Why do you connect it to religious and the celebration of the Mass?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Biology textbook evolution gives no glory to God. Why do you connect it to religious and the celebration of the Mass? Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, one of my favorite poets, the Jesuit Gerard Manly Hopkins, perhaps put it best, when he said “the world is charged with the grandeur of God.” As an outdoors-oriented person, I often find the beauties of nature to be revelatory in a deep sense, and some of the most moving liturgies have been celebrated on granite rocks at high elevations, led by priest friends who are also climbers.

Biology and geology and physics all reflect the glory of God. Their textbooks may but need not reflect that glory, as we live in a pluralistic culture. I attended a university with crucifixes in all the classrooms and laboratories, and for those of us who were and are Catholic, the presence of the crucifix summarized our approach, that of both science and religion (not either/or).

Because I believe in God, I didn’t need a preface in my biology or physics or geology or math or economics textbooks about how each of these sciences reflects the glory of God, even though I believe they do. I’m not sure how one would write a religion preface to a mathematics textbook.

StAnastasia
 
To (name removed by moderator) -

I must respectfully disagree. There are those who post here that claim scientific evidence changes, or should change, events in the Bible. One is the assertion that many human beings existed in the past and that before them, pre-humans. In the encylical Humani Generis, it is not apparent how this could be. Add to that a fraud like Piltdown Man. The Church teaches that we know by divine revelation that Adam and Eve were real people and the parents of us all. That an actuall willful act led to Original Sin which is passed onto all. Why did Jesus Christ have to die for all men? Those looking to the Church as a home, Those who we witness to, need to know this.

Finally, the Church declares that Eve was made from Adam’s side by God. In Communion and Stewardship, a statement is made regarding all theories of evolution in continuity with Humani Generis. Accepting present textbook evolution and declaring God was involved does not remove these obstacles to a proper understanding of divine revelation and how it applies to each of us. Communion and Stewardship also tells us quite clearly that without God operating infallibly evolution could not exist. As Pope Benedict has affirmed, we are not the result of chance and error. Each one of us is a thought of God. For Catholics, limited science is an inadequate answer to human origins. It cannot be accepted as the whole answer, since it is missing what Pope Benedict called, “other areas of reason that we still need.”

Peace,
Ed
 
(name removed by moderator), excellent post. I would offer the caveat, however, that “Christian Darwinism” may have little meaning in an era in which evolutionary biologists do not generally refer to themselves as “Darwinists” any more than physicists refer to themselves as “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.”

I concur with the thinking of Bishop Antje Jackelen of Sweden. She argues for dropping even the term “theistic evolutionist,” and speaking of ourselves simply as theists who accept the evidence supporting evolution. This gets around the difficulty of positing “theistic evolution” or “atheistic evolution” or “agnostic evolution,” or any other “-istic” associated with a scientific theory. “Theistic or atheistic gravity,” for example, would have as little meaning as “theistic or atheistic evolution.”

StAnastasia
 
Cosmology and Fundamental Physics
Pope John Paul II

"I have firm confidence in the world scientific community, and in a very special way in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and I am certain that thanks to them biological progress and research, as also all other forms of scientific research and its technological application, will be carried out in full respect for the norms of morality, safeguarding human dignity, freedom and equality It is necessary that science should always be accompanied and controlled by the wisdom that belongs to the permanent spiritual heritage of humanity and that takes its inspiration from the design of God implanted in creation before being subsequently proclaimed by his Word."
 
I did read your post. The present Pope has said, “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” This comment was in reference to the often quoted statement by Pope John Paul II that “evolution is more than a hypothesis.” Later, in that same address, Pope John Paul II refers to “theories of evolution.” In Communion and Stewardship, this statement is referred to again, but it “should not be viewed as a blanket affirmation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” Current biology textbook evolution describes a process that explicitly denies divine providence as having acted in any way. To claim otherwise is to go beyond what science can demonstrate. To accept the Biology textbook answer in its entirety denies the work of God at least in the basic sense of the creation of Eve. Science cannot provide an answer to the ontological leap to man and the richness of the deposit of faith must be applied by Catholics. The work of God in creation cannot be applied in an illogical or mythical way.

Peace,
Ed
 
From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success – inevitably it would become clear: Something is missing from the equation!

When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason.

The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless.
Benedict XVI’s Homily at Mass in Regensburg
 
How the processes [of creation] actually occurred is a wholly different question, which even the Bible itself leaves wide open. Conversely, I think that in great measure the
theory of evolution has not gotten beyond hypotheses and is often mixed with almost mythical philosophies that have yet to be critically discussed.
Pope Benedict XVI – Salt of the Earth, pg. 31
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top