Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Animals may have feelings and may even act in ways that are truly self-sacrificing. I do see differences in personalities in different cats, dogs, birds etc. But that does not mean that animals are equal to humans not does it mean that humans are merely animals developed to a higher degree of intelligence.

I am sure there is research out on this but it seems sufficient to me to point out that the Popes have written that man alone is charged with being the over-seerer of Creation, and that man alone was ‘made in God’s image’. It would seem sufficient to recall that Christ took a Human form and that Mary, the Immaculate Conception, is the most perfect of all creatures, having belonged to God her entire life.

Man is capable of sin, while animals are not. That alone is a difference that cannot be ignored for it implies that man can make judgements of right and wrong that animals are incapable of doing.

St. Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and St. Anthony preached to the fish showing their regard for nature, yet I do not believe that they thought the birds and fishes were equal to the human person in regards to the capacity they had to glorify God.

Birds, fishes, our pets glorify God by acting according to their instincts but men and women glorify God by coming into spiritual union with God. That is allowed to human persons because they have been given a different kind of soul than an animal soul.

The human person is a temple for God’s Holy Spirit. Into the human soul Christ condescends to come under the form of the Eucharist, something He does not do for animals.

I do believe we need to regard the beauty of nature and see how it glorifies God but that human beings have a much higher calling.

I read the quote from Darwin differently than you do. I read it as saying that he has endeavored to show that man is only different from animals in degree but not in nature. I feel that man has a nature that is different from animals because of the types of soul given to the human person. I do not think that the ability to think and reason alone sets the human person apart, for then I would say that an adult person was more valuable than an unborn child.
I believe the nature of the human soul and how it houses the Divine Presence is what essentially sets it apart from animal souls.

At any rate…since science has defined human beings as just animals we now are combining human and animal DNA to create hybreds, and that is very troubling. It seems to me that this is compatible with the materialistic view of man and nature which does not differentiate between human persons and animals, but it
is not compatible with the Catholic teaching that the human person has a unique dignity and is set apart by God in a unique way.

What would Darwin say? would Darwin agree with this research?

"Admixed embryos are widely supported by scientists and patient groups as they provide an opportunity to produce powerful stem-cell models for investigating diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes, and for developing new drugs.

Their creation, however, has been opposed by some religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, described the work last month as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.

The admixed embryos created by the Newcastle group are of a kind known as cytoplasmic hybrids, or cybrids, which are made by placing the nucleus from a human cell into an animal egg that has had its nucleus removed. The genetic material in the resulting embryos is 99.9 per cent human.

The BBC reported that the Newcastle cybrids lived for three days, and that the largest grew to contain 32 cells. The ultimate aim is to grow these for six days, and then to extract embryonic stem cells for use in research.

Once the technique has been tested, scientists hope to create cybrids from the DNA of patients with genetic diseases. The resulting stem cells could then be used as models of those diseases to provide insights into their progress and to test new treatments."
timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3663033.ece

I believe that Darwin would believe this research was OK because he really did not apply morals to science and left that open, which is why the eugenics movement and the Nazi movements were compatible with his writings as well. Afterall, he is saying mankind does not deserve or belong to any other category or
assigned classification than the animal kingdom.

again Pope Benedict’s words on the human person:

"This boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for the human being reveals the degree to which the human person deserves to be loved in himself, independently of any other consideration - intelligence, beauty, health, youth, integrity, and so forth. In short, human life is always a good, for it “is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 34).

Indeed, the human person has been endowed with a very exalted dignity, which is rooted in the intimate bond that unites him with his Creator: a reflection of God’s own reality shines out in the human person, in every person, whatever the stage or condition of his life. "

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Remembering that it was Darwin who said that human did not differ from animals in their abilities in any significant way, only in degree…we come to the present day situation in the sciences in which human beings are argued to be other animal forms and acts of violence against human beings is thus justified. In my past post I showed that scientists were willing to blurr distinctions between human beings and animals for research by creating DNA combinations of animals and humans.

here is another example:

"But, on second view, it gets quite clear that the concept of interest and the equal consideration of human being’s and animal’s interests do contain dangerous implications. These can be used to neglect the human being’s claim to life as a fundamental human right rather than simply to justify the animal’s right of not to be killed, as some of Singer’s remarks on abortion and euthanasia (pp. 126-57) show.

II.

Singer holds, that any different treatment of human beings and animals is unjustified, because it violates the principle of equal consideration of basic interests. As a consequence, Singer does not separate humans from other beings, but persons (beings with the ability to have interests) from “non-persons” (beings without the ability to have interests). In the first group belong “some nonhuman animals” (p. 97) like apes, every human fetus belongs to the second, for “no fetus is a person” (p. 118). This argument leads to the conclusion that “no fetus has the same claim to life as a person” (p. 118). To Singer the likelihood of the incapability of fetuses of less than 18 weeks “of feeling anything at all, since their nervous system appears to be insufficiently developed to function” does mean that “an abortion up to this point terminates an existence that is of no intrinsic value at all” (p. 118). And even late in pregnancy an abortion “should not be taken lightly”, but it “is hard to condemn in a society that slaughters far more developed forms of life for the taste of their flesh” (p. 118). Singer insists that if we do not want to be “speciesists” by any religious or other justification and do not like to turn into vegetarians, we cannot uphold the moral wrongness of abortion.

The problem in this argument lies in the comparison of the actual morally relevant status of a human fetus with that of developed animals on the basis of the concept of interest, leaving out the notion of potentiality. The essential, i. e. the genomic imprinting that constitutes a human being as a being of serious interests (and not only of basic ones that can also be found in animals like the interest of being free of pain) already exists directly after the fertilization. Hence, right from the very beginning of human life we should consider the being as a “potential person”.

On the other hand, Singer’s comparative argumentation could be taken as a justification for killing some human beings. The problem, here, is Singer’s emphasis on the similar actual morally relevant status of some animals (as persons) and that of mentally disabled human beings (as “non-persons”): “Some nonhuman animals appear to be rational and selfconscious beings, conceiving themselves as distinct beings with a past and a future. When this is so, or to the best of our knowledge may be so, the case against killing is strong, as string as the case against killing permanently defective human beings at a similar mental level” (p. 103). The reverse might be: If we kill animals for our benefit we cannot condemn the killing of human beings of the same or of a lower mental level. That, to me, is a very problematic implication leading directly to euthanasia. And this would be the first step on a slippery slope, ending in complete immorallity and making genocide possible on the basis of an ethical reasoning that stems from the debate on animal rights. Singer attempts to deny this alarming risk with some historical and anthropological remarks: “Ancient Greeks regularly killed or exposed infants, but apear to have been at least as scrupolous about taking the lives of their fellow-citizens as medieval Christians or modern Americans. In traditional Eskimo societies it was the custom for a man to kill his elderly parents, but the murder of a normal healthy adult was almost unheard of. If these societies could separate human beings into different categories without transferring their attitudes from one group to another, we with our more sophisticated legal systems and greater medical knowledge should be able to do the same” (p. 157).
re-public.gr/en/?p=154

---

When I think that Jesus Christ chose to abide in Mary’s womb as an unborn child I have a deep realization that every unborn child, every blastocyst, every frozen embryo bears the image of Christ to the Eternal Father. Every human person has a value just because of that likeness alone…apart from any skill or intelligence. How angry Satan, a fallen angel must be to realize this great gift of God’s likeness has been imparted to every human being and it becomes clear that it must be this jealous rage that drives Satan to spur others to kill these little human persons.

I recall reading in an account by a mystic that the Blessed Mother, the Immaculate Conception, was able to adore God while she was a tiny embryo in her mother’s womb. Since she had a unique gift of being free from original sin, I can believe this is true.
While animals and plant life adore God in their simple act of existence, man adores God by choosing to do so and surrendering the human will to act according to the Divine will.
I do not believe animals are able to do that on any level. I think animals act in a simple way, which is beautiful and inspiring, but not equal to the surrender of the human soul. I cannot say at what level of realization an embryo acts or exists, but because the human embryo has been given the gift of a human soul God can convey Himself to the human embryo in unique ways…unknowable to us and yet i believe those ways are very real. The possibility of that unique transmission between God and the human soul along with the fact that Christ took the form of a human being, make the human person separate and different from other animals.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Remembering that it was Darwin who said that human did not differ from animals in their abilities in any significant way,

You don’t think our spiritual side is significant? That seems like a huge difference to me. It seemed that way to Darwin, who said that humans had rights to life and liberty, and that it was evil to let the least of them die. I’ll have to disagree with you on that, Mary. These seem like huge differences to me.

(Arguments that others don’t think humans are essentially different than animals)

Well, shame on them. They should have listened to Darwin, who argued that they were.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Animals may have feelings and may even act in ways that are truly self-sacrificing. I do see differences in personalities in different cats, dogs, birds etc. But that does not mean that animals are equal to humans

True. Darwin also made that point.

nor does it mean that humans are merely animals developed to a higher degree of intelligence.

Again that was Darwin’s point. We are animals, but we are not merely animals.

Man is capable of sin, while animals are not.

We know good and evil, being like God in that regard. But if God gave us that gift by natural means, why would you object?

I read the quote from Darwin differently than you do.

That’s because you desperately want to deny what he wrote. If Darwin actually meant what he wrote, then it means that those people making excuses for the Nazis were wrong; Darwin was not the one who proposed the “final solution” for Jews. This is why Benjamin Stein has been denounced by the Anti-Defamation League; he has dirtied the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, and made excuses for the ones who killed them.

I read it as saying that he has endeavored to show that man is only different from animals in degree but not in nature. I feel that man has a nature that is different from animals because of the types of soul given to the human person.

So did Darwin. He explicitly stated that man’s spiritual side could not be evaluated by science. You won’t accept this, because it means that you can’t blame Darwin for all those things that you wish he had inspired.

I do not think that the ability to think and reason alone sets the human person apart, for then I would say that an adult person was more valuable than an unborn child.

So said Darwin. Remember, he thought that non-Europeans were not equal to Europeans, but still thought they had rights to life and freedom.

At any rate…since science has defined human beings as just animals

No. As Darwin said, science can’t do that.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I read the quote from Darwin differently than you do. I read it as saying that he has endeavored to show that man is only different from animals in degree but not in nature. I feel that man has a nature that is different from animals because of the types of soul given to the human person. I do not think that the ability to think and reason alone sets the human person apart, for then I would say that an adult person was more valuable than an unborn child.
I believe the nature of the human soul and how it houses the Divine Presence is what essentially sets it apart from animal souls.

Aristotle defined soul according to degrees of abilities:

There is a nested hierarchy of soul functions or activities (413a23).
a. Growth, nutrition, (reproduction)
b. Locomotion, perception
c. Intellect (= thought)
This gives us three corresponding degrees of soul:
a. Nutritive soul (plants)
b. Sensitive soul (all animals)
c. Rational soul (human beings)

Sinse human beings are capable of self reflection, something animals cannot do, that alone would make a human being in a separate classification. Human beings can remember things, reflect upon them, change attitudes, imagine things beyond what exists in this reality…an animal cannot do those things.

Darwin said very clearly he thought of human beings as being in the same classification as animals, not taking in account the potential of the human soul which is destined to be united, transformed by God.

Pope John Paul II used the term ‘divinized’ in talking about the action of grace within a person drawing them up into union with God. Animals are not capable of that.

from Franciscan question/answer site:

“There are three kinds of souls that differentiate
living things from inanimate things, such as rocks and dirt. There
is a plant soul, (plants are alive and actually react to various
stimuli), there is the animal soul (we all know they are very much
alive and relate to their own species as well as humans as in pets) and there is the human soul. Now it is important to know that the difference between the human soul and the animal/plant soul is beyond words. The reason is that “God made man/woman in his own image and likeness.” So, the pope may have said animals have souls, but he would never say that the animal soul and human soul are the same. That is impossible. Being made in man’s image and likeness means that human can do the things that God does: we can love, we can forgive, we can reflect, we can repent and so much more. Animals live on instinct their soul cannot be compared to the human soul.”

Darwin said people and animals were in the same classification, not allowing for a difference between animal and human souls.

This article listed four different areas in Darwin’a theory that are incompatible with Catholic teaching:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-05-028-f
"*Darwinism not only does away with an immaterial soul, it also comes with its own account of original sin. Death, on the neo-Darwinian view, is not the result of the envy of the devil and of a human choice, as the Scriptures teach. It is, rather, an impersonal, potent, creative force that combined with chance mutation to make us what we are.

We are lustful and violent, not because we fell from a privileged pedestal through original sin, but because our ancestors copulated and fought their way, red in tooth and claw, to biological predominance. Those who by chance were not obsessed with copulation or who were slow to anger and violence were culled from the ancient gene pools that eventually led to the present gene pool that we call human.

If Darwinism is accepted as true, we have no choice but to accept that the Christian understanding of created and fallen man is just a pious fable, a myth intended to assign personal agency to a universe that has none. And if the nature of man is a fable, so must be the Incarnation.

There has been little attempt by Catholics who are favorable towards evolutionary theory to deal directly with the theological truths revealed by the story of Adam and Eve. The opening chapters of Genesis tell us, first of all, that human beings are the pinnacle of creation. God made us in his image, something that is said of no other animal. Scripture also speaks of the original innocence of our first parents. They were naked and not ashamed.

Theologians have differed among themselves about the details of this state of original justice, but they agree that man was created immortal. It was only through the disobedience of Adam and Eve that death became part of the human condition.

Darwinism collapses the story of creation and the fall into one. The economy of the Darwinist explanation is itself a powerful argument in favor of the theory. And one should not underestimate the allurement of Darwinism as an excuse to dismiss both God and sin from the world."*

John paul II constantly reminded us that man was created apart from animals and had a unique position in Creation, something Darwin fails completely to do.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I read the quote from Darwin differently than you do. I read it as saying that he has endeavored to show that man is only different from animals in degree but not in nature.

Since Darwin mentioned man’s spiritual side (which he acknowledged was beyond the reach of science), that reading is incompatible with Darwin’s statement.

I feel that man has a nature that is different from animals because of the types of soul given to the human person.

So did Darwin. We might have nervous systems, lungs, blood, DNA, and so on like animals, but Darwin pointed out that there was more than that to humans.

I do not think that the ability to think and reason alone sets the human person apart, for then I would say that an adult person was more valuable than an unborn child.

So did Darwin. It seems you now agree with him. Maybe this talk did some good after all.

Darwin said very clearly he thought of human beings as being in the same classification as animals, not taking in account the potential of the human soul which is destined to be united, transformed by God.

We are, of course, animals, but as Darwin said, we are not only animals. He specifically mentions this fact, alluding to our spiritual side which sets us apart.

This article listed four different areas in Darwin’a theory that are incompatible with Catholic teaching:
touchstonemag.com/archive…id=19-05-028-f

**"Darwinism not only does away with an immaterial soul, **

Your own Darwin quote refutes this error quite nicely. Darwin attributed to humans a spiritual dimension beyond the reach of science. Sound like these guys are pretty sloppy researchers, um?

We are lustful and violent, not because we fell from a privileged pedestal through original sin, but because our ancestors copulated and fought their way, red in tooth and claw, to biological predominance.

Guess they never read Descent of Man, in which Darwin says just the opposite.

If Darwinism is accepted as true, we have no choice but to accept that the Christian understanding of created and fallen man is just a pious fable, a myth intended to assign personal agency to a universe that has none. And if the nature of man is a fable, so must be the Incarnation.

Didn’t you just know that they were leading up to a rejection Catholic teaching? They always do that in the end.

Mary, trust the Church and its teachings, not some fundamentalist site. Their misrepresentations are not limited to the Church’s teaching; I found this egregious dishonesty on the site:

It may be useful to cite one particularly revealing passage from one of Steven Jay Gould’s popular books on evolution. Gould was a paleontologist at Harvard and a talented writer who was a Darwinist even though he openly declared that the fossils told a different story.

Gould himself was rather lenient in his interpretation of such misrepresentations:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax” states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Gould’s point was that change in evolutionary histories is most often too sudden to get a detailed species-to-species documentation in fossils. But he also points out that there are cases where it was slow enough to do this. He mentions horses, forams, and ammonites among them.

One cannot serve God by lying in His name, Mary. You should avoid people like these. They serve a different master than the One we do.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Since Darwin mentioned man’s spiritual side (which he acknowledged was beyond the reach of science), that reading is incompatible with Darwin’s statement.

He merely said that naturalists could not talk about it, and yet he proudfully claimed he could explain it all from natural processes, enough so that man was just another species of animal. He could have said that man acted on levels that animals could not attain but he did not do so and implied that animals could all evolve to the same level of man over time. I don’t think he blieved in morality really. I think he was a relativist just seeing that different cultures, environments brought forth different needs and responses. We have also seen numerous quotes that show he lost faith in the Christian God and saw different religions as myths.He mentioned the word ‘spiritual’ in terms of qualities but he did not say what he meant by the word. So I think there is not enough information in what he said to rpove your point.

So did Darwin. We might have nervous systems, lungs, blood, DNA, and so on like animals, but Darwin pointed out that there was more than that to humans.

No, he said we differed only in degree from animals and not enough to be in a separate classification.

So did Darwin. It seems you now agree with him. Maybe this talk did some good after all.

Don’t know what you are referring to…

We are, of course, animals, but as Darwin said, we are not only animals. He specifically mentions this fact, alluding to our spiritual side which sets us apart.

He said it did not set us apart. he tried to explain it all from natural processes. Go back and read “Desecnt of Man”, that is a large part of what he talks about.

**"Darwinism not only does away with an immaterial soul, **

Your own Darwin quote refutes this error quite nicely. Darwin attributed to humans a spiritual dimension beyond the reach of science. Sound like these guys are pretty sloppy researchers, um?

Re-read the quote. He did away with the spiritual aspect by boasting he could show it as evolved animal traits and responses.

We are lustful and violent, not because we fell from a privileged pedestal through original sin, but because our ancestors copulated and fought their way, red in tooth and claw, to biological predominance.

Guess they never read Descent of Man, in which Darwin says just the opposite.

Darwin talks about sex selection a great deal in Descent of Man and seems to be saying that viral men and women tend to have more mates and offspring…quite an unappolegetic view of the human person as having no control over their appetites I guess.
He is not very high minded in his discussions, very pragmatic.

If Darwinism is accepted as true, we have no choice but to accept that the Christian understanding of created and fallen man is just a pious fable, a myth intended to assign personal agency to a universe that has none. And if the nature of man is a fable, so must be the Incarnation.

Didn’t you just know that they were leading up to a rejection Catholic teaching? They always do that in the end.

They didn’t say they thought that but that Darwin thought that and it is true that Darwin said he felt the whole bibical account of creation was nothing but a myth. he found the accounts of the flood and Noah and other stories as nothing but stories like those in other religious traditions. He lost his faith by way of his scientific theories. Others have followed him in doing the same. I don’t thnik you have to lose your faith by believing in evolution, but Darwin presents such a godless version of eolution that I would see that as the end result.

Mary, trust the Church and its teachings, not some fundamentalist site. Their misrepresentations are not limited to the Church’s teaching; I found this egregious dishonesty on the site:

It may be useful to cite one particularly revealing passage from one of Steven Jay Gould’s popular books on evolution. Gould was a paleontologist at Harvard and a talented writer who was a Darwinist even though he openly declared that the fossils told a different story.

Gould himself was rather lenient in his interpretation of such misrepresentations:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax” states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Gould’s point was that change in evolutionary histories is most often too sudden to get a detailed species-to-species documentation in fossils. But he also points out that there are cases where it was slow enough to do this. He mentions horses, forams, and ammonites among them.

One cannot serve God by lying in His name, Mary. You should avoid people like these. They serve a different master than the One we do.

I am not saying I agree completely with fundamentalists who believe in literal creation, as in exactly seven days, but I do believe in Divine intervention. This is God’s creation and he can step in and act according to His Will when He so ordains. He did so when He created Adam and Eve, he did so when He brought about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception, and He did so at the moment of the Incarnation. it is important to hold unto to faith
and knowledge that God can do all things, even bring about a pregnancy by overshadowing a young Maiden, God can change water into wine…so why not change all of creation.

"The cosmos is created by God as the dwelling place of man and the theatre of his adventure of freedom. In the dialogue with grace, every human being is called to accept responsibly the gift of divine sonship in Jesus Christ. For this reason, the created world acquires its true significance in man and for man. He cannot, of course, dispose as he pleases of the cosmos in which he lives, but must, through his intelligence, consciously bring the Creator’s work to completion.

*“Man”, teaches Gaudium et spes, “was created in God’s image and was commanded to conquer the earth with all it contains and to rule the world in justice and holiness: he was to acknowledge God as maker of all things and relate himself and the totality of creation to him, so that through the dominion of all things by man the name of God would be majestic in all the earth” (n. 34). *

John Paul II
conservation.catholic.org/holy_spirit_acts_in_all_creation.htm

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Mary objects to Darwin’s acceptance of man as more than just an animal)

He merely said that naturalists could not talk about it, and yet he proudfully claimed he could explain it all from natural processes,

No, he said that that man had a spiritual side that could not be addressed by science. Even if you don’t want him to write that, he still did write it, Mary. If you want to discuss his opinions, you must address the ones he had, not the ones you wish he had.

Barbarian observes:
So did Darwin. We might have nervous systems, lungs, blood, DNA, and so on like animals, but Darwin pointed out that there was more than that to humans.

No, he said we differed only in degree from animals

You already know better than that, Mary. So does everyone else here. The truth matters. Try to stay with it.

So did Darwin. It seems you now agree with him. Maybe this talk did some good after all.

We are, of course, animals, but as Darwin said, we are not only animals. He specifically mentions this fact, alluding to our spiritual side which sets us apart.

He said it did not set us apart.

He is merely saying (as the Church teaches) that we have a physical body, but that is not all we are.

he tried to explain it all from natural processes.

Your own quote says differently, Mary. Darwin says that there is a part of man that is not accessible by science, unlike other animals.

Go back and read “Desecnt of Man”, that is a large part of what he talks about.

"Darwinism not only does away with an immaterial soul,

Your own Darwin quote refutes this error quite nicely. Darwin attributed to humans a spiritual dimension beyond the reach of science. Sound like these guys are pretty sloppy researchers, um?

Foolish misinterpretation of Darwin’s book:
We are lustful and violent, not because we fell from a privileged pedestal through original sin, but because our ancestors copulated and fought their way, red in tooth and claw, to biological predominance.

Guess they never read Descent of Man, in which Darwin says just the opposite.

Darwin talks about sex selection a great deal in Descent of Man and seems to be saying that viral men and women tend to have more mates and offspring…

He also points out that our nature is not merely selfish, but also brings us to altruism. The silly people who wrote that nonsense about Darwin either have no idea what he thought, or simply lied about his ideas.

(More foolish misrepresentations of Darwin)
If Darwinism is accepted as true, we have no choice but to accept that the Christian understanding of created and fallen man is just a pious fable, a myth intended to assign personal agency to a universe that has none. And if the nature of man is a fable, so must be the Incarnation.

Barbarian observes:
Didn’t you just know that they were leading up to a rejection Catholic teaching? They always do that in the end.

They didn’t say they thought that but that Darwin thought that

Of course, that isn’t true. But more importantly, they reject the Church’s teaching that evolution is consistent with our faith.

I don’t thnik you have to lose your faith by believing in evolution, but Darwin presents such a godless version of eolution that I would see that as the end result.

You know better than that Mary. Darwin asserted that man has a spiritual aspect not found in other animals, and even attributed tie origin of life to God. Even truth you don’t want to hear, it’s still the truth, and it still matters.

Barbarian suggests:
Mary, trust the Church and its teachings, not some fundamentalist site. Their misrepresentations are not limited to the Church’s teaching; I found this egregious dishonesty on the site:

It may be useful to cite one particularly revealing passage from one of Steven Jay Gould’s popular books on evolution. Gould was a paleontologist at Harvard and a talented writer who was a Darwinist even though he openly declared that the fossils told a different story.

Gould himself was rather lenient in his interpretation of such misrepresentations:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax” states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
stephenjaygould.org/libra…nd-theory.html

Gould’s point was that change in evolutionary histories is most often too sudden to get a detailed species-to-species documentation in fossils. But he also points out that there are cases where it was slow enough to do this. He mentions horses, forams, and ammonites among them.

One cannot serve God by lying in His name, Mary. You should avoid people like these. They serve a different master than the One we do.

I am not saying I agree completely with fundamentalists who believe in literal creation, as in exactly seven days, but I do believe in Divine intervention.

So did Darwin:

**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. **
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

God could do whatever He wanted with the universe, but this one is the one we have given to us. Accept it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

let’s look closely at what Darwin is saying.

First he actually seems to talk about a 'Creator". although we are not sure if it means God or not because of his later statements about losing his faith. he does talk about the ‘breathe’ of the Creator which he says is first given to a few forms…interesting, no mention of the human person,so I guess Darwin just sees man as a link in an ongoing chain of evolution that is still ongoing from his words, "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. " No sense that there was a special creation of the human person, or that the human soul is anything different from the same ‘breathe’ animating all other life forms. And perhaps room to think another higher form of man will evolve or perhaps another life form will overtake the human…

boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000519.html
*"And so it has always been, argues biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter in his fascinating new book, Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Backed by extensive quotation, Hunter contends that Charles Darwin and his heirs, far from being disinterested scientific observers, came to their views based on their assumptions about God. They looked at the world, decided it should have been designed better, and concluded that God simply wouldn’t have done it that way. Hunter writes:

Darwin was concerned, for example, that tons of pollen go to waste every year, that some species are ill-adapted for their environments, that ants make slaves of other ants, and that parasites feed off their victims. He tried to make sense of what seemed to be the evil side of nature. “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature,” he concluded a letter to a friend.
How could divine creation be reconciled with such evils? It was questions like these that, for Darwin, seemed to confirm that life is formed by blind natural forces. He was motivated toward evolution not by direct evidence in favor of his new theory but by problems with the common notion of divine creation. Creation, it seemed, does not always reflect the goodness of God, so Darwin advocated a naturalistic explanation to describe how creation came about.

That naturalism colored all his perspectives. Take homologies, common traits between different species; e.g., lizards, bats, and humans all have five digits. “Before Darwin,” Hunter writes, “homologies were interpreted as a sort of divine template revealing the Creator’s unity of design.” (I think of God as an artist Who has certain stylistic signatures He’s pleased to imprint on His work.) But “according to Darwin, homologies are leftovers of descent with modification.” There’s nothing logically inferior about the former view, given a God who can do what He wills; it just didn’t fit Darwin’s worldview. So he needed to find an alternative — descent from a common ancestor — that rendered God unnecessary. *

---

The Pope was right to point out that there are many different theories of evolution and that this materialistic view is incompatible with a Catholic view.

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin’s statement, attributing the creation of life to God:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

let’s look closely at what Darwin is saying.

Good idea.

First he actually seems to talk about a 'Creator".

Not “seems to.” He says that the Creator made the first living things. No question about it.

although we are not sure if it means God

In western writing, “Creator” with capitalization means “God.” This is the context in which it is used in the Church, as well as in the Church of England, to which Darwin belonged. No question about that, either.

or not because of his later statements about losing his faith. he does talk about the ‘breathe’ of the Creator which he says is first given to a few forms…interesting, no mention of the human person,so I guess Darwin just sees man as a link in an ongoing chain of evolution that is still ongoing from his words, "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. "

Right. In the words of our Pope:

**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. **

That’s also consistent with the Church’s teaching. No mention if the human person there, either. But I don’t think the Pope is any more of a materialist than Darwin was.

No sense that there was a special creation of the human person, or that the human soul is anything different from the same ‘breathe’ animating all other life forms.

Your own quote from Darwin says that there is. He alludes to spiritual powers of humans that are not in other animals.

And yes, finding evidence for evolutionary processes, but no design in nature, Darwin concluded that God created it by natural processes, not design. It’s very interesting that engineers are now learning to use evolutionary processes instead of design to solve very difficult problems. Darwin was right; God is much more capable than IDers are willing to let Him be.

That naturalism colored all his perspectives. Take homologies, common traits between different species; e.g., lizards, bats, and humans all have five digits. “Before Darwin,” Hunter writes, “homologies were interpreted as a sort of divine template revealing the Creator’s unity of design.” (I think of God as an artist Who has certain stylistic signatures He’s pleased to imprint on His work.)

That was, as Darwin showed, faulty thinking. Homologies show that life proceeded not by a series of clever designs, but by gradual modification and reworking of existing features to new uses. So bones supporting fins are gradually modified to become legs, wings, differs, paddles, grippers, etc. all while retaining the evidence of their piscine origin. Indeed HOX genes show precisely how these transitions took place.

Is this not more amazing and wonderful than a little demiurge prancing about, making a rabbit here, and a bird there? Darwin was right; there is grandeur in this creation, more than mere magic.

But “according to Darwin, homologies are leftovers of descent with modification.” There’s nothing logically inferior about the former view, given a God who can do what He wills; it just didn’t fit Darwin’s worldview.

Well, the “poof, magic” idea is less impressive, and there is no evidence for it. And there is abundant evidence for evolution of such functions. Would you like to take a closer look, Mary?

So he needed to find an alternative — descent from a common ancestor — that rendered God unnecessary.

That, Mary, is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

The Pope was right to point out that there are many different theories of evolution and that this materialistic view is incompatible with a Catholic view.

As you learned, Darwin’s attribution of creation to God makes it clear that his theory is not ontologically materialistic.

And that is all that is necessary to make it compatible with our faith.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Darwin’s statement, attributing the creation of life to God:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Good idea.

Not “seems to.” He says that the Creator made the first living things. No question about it.
In western writing, “Creator” with capitalization means “God.” This is the context in which it is used in the Church, as well as in the Church of England, to which Darwin belonged. No question about that, either.

---

OK, let’s say Darwin’s 'Creator" means God and not “Nature”…
At what point does God create the human soul as different from animal souls? What evidence do you have that Darwin saw the human soul as different from animal souls? when Darwin talks of descent from a common ancestor my impression from his statement is that he means a one celled organism, not Adam and Eve, can you show me that he does not mean that?

Right. In the words of our Pope:

**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. ****
That’s also consistent with the Church’s teaching. No mention if the human person there, either. But I don’t think the Pope is any more of a materialist than Darwin was.

Where do Adam and Eve come in though? Show me how Darwin’s theory in any way differentiates the human being as being apart from animals and this chain of ongoing selection and evolution… The Pope(s) have stated that it is contrary to Catholic teaching to say that human beings did not descend from a single pair, the original Adam and Eve, who were given the nature of being human when God infused them with His Breathe making them “Living Souls”. Darwin’s statment sounds more like Pantheism, that all of Creation is the Living Soul.

Your own quote from Darwin says that there is. He alludes to spiritual powers of humans that are not in other animals.
He alludes to other scientists saying that humans have spiritual aspects that set them apart and then declares he can explain those things through nature.

And yes, finding evidence for evolutionary processes, but no design in nature, Darwin concluded that God created it by natural processes, not design. It’s very interesting that engineers are now learning to use evolutionary processes instead of design to solve very difficult problems. Darwin was right; God is much more capable than IDers are willing to let Him be.

What are the ‘natural processes’ that you refer to? Sickness? Famine? Change in climate?

That naturalism colored all his perspectives. Take homologies, common traits between different species; e.g., lizards, bats, and humans all have five digits. “Before Darwin,” Hunter writes, “homologies were interpreted as a sort of divine template revealing the Creator’s unity of design.” (I think of God as an artist Who has certain stylistic signatures He’s pleased to imprint on His work.)

That was, as Darwin showed, faulty thinking. Homologies show that life proceeded not by a series of clever designs, but by gradual modification and reworking of existing features to new uses. So bones supporting fins are gradually modified to become legs, wings, differs, paddles, grippers, etc. all while retaining the evidence of their piscine origin. Indeed HOX genes show precisely how these transitions took place.

Are you then implying that earlier forms in nature, being more ‘primitive’ are inferior? Is there an implied sense of always looking toward future forms?

I tend to think God has placed symbolic aspects in nature, for example, the recurring ratio of the Golden Mean, seems to show a mathematical ration, found throughout nature. Now, since it recurrs so often in different ways and is part of the human figure, the hand, ratios in facial proportions, etc…is that just random? Why can that not be a symbolic relationship imprinted on nature somehow pointing to God as a Divine Pattern Maker? Other cultures from the earliest times have noticed Sacred Geometry as being a part of nature. Since people and cultures of the past have all noticed and recorded these things they must be there…

Is this not more amazing and wonderful than a little demiurge prancing about, making a rabbit here, and a bird there? Darwin was right; there is grandeur in this creation, more than mere magic.

You are grossly oversimplifying the other view point. Claiming there is a Divine Designer is hardly saying God created a ‘rabbit here, a bird there’…It is simply recognizing recurring patterns in nature and saying doesn’t this point to some kind of Divine
Architect. It is saying the book of nature, just like the Divine Revelations in scripture all point toward God. Darwin, though, lost his faith. is it because he was focused on the effects of sin in nature?..the death, the struggle for survival, the need to adapt to change? So what did he ultimately worship? The Designer or the ability to adapt? what is more important to Darwin, the Beginning and the End (God, our Alpha and Omega) or the process? His writings seem to plave empahsis on the process and neglect God.

continued next post

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Well, the “poof, magic” idea is less impressive, and there is no evidence for it. And there is abundant evidence for evolution of such functions. Would you like to take a closer look, Mary?

I don’t think anyone is talking about ‘poof magic’ when they talk of Divine Intervention.

That, Mary, is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

What is-- Divine Intervention in the creation of the human person?
I believe that is required Catholic teaching.

I also mentioned other instances of Divine Intervention:
Mary’s Immaculate Conception
The Incarnation of Christ
Miracle stories throughout New testament in which Christ directly intervenes to change sinful nature: curing leprosy, casting out demons, curing paralysis, raising the dead, curing the blind and paralyzed…
And even today people talk of miracles that happen to them that have no natural explanation, such as the incorrptible saints, the miraculous cure of cancers, etc…

Those are not “poof Magic” stories, they are stories of how near God is to each of us. Closer than our own skin, and they speak volumnes more to me than some series of ongoing natural processes that seem like dice pieces set up to fall one by one as they sequentially fall.

Now, before I sound like I don’t believe in that at all, I want to say I can and do believe that God set creation on a path and that there is sequence to its development, but at the same time I don’t know what the world was like before the sin of Adam and Eve and so I cannot say that the present way we perceive Creation was the order that was originally intended and how much of what we experience is from a creation that is disordered by sin.

And yes, I believe when Chirst died, His death was to redeem mankind but also all of nature since I feel the object of Satan was to steal Creation from God the Creator. In Mary we already have hope of a Redeemed Creation and that is why the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is so important. God has one piece of Creation which He redeemed, Claimed and Preserved perfectly from any stain of sin. Through that door of Mary Christ entered Creation and now the process of drawing all things back into the Divine Order is ongoing.

The question goes back to what that order is: Is it an order of chaos and rendomness or is it a process of ordained harmony.

“Man”, teaches Gaudium et spes, “was created in God’s image and was commanded to conquer the earth with all it contains and to rule the world in justice and holiness: he was to acknowledge God as maker of all things and relate himself and the totality of creation to him, so that through the dominion of all things by man the name of God would be majestic in all the earth” (n. 34)"

…

"The cosmos is also called, in a mysterious but real way, to participate in this newness of life in the building up of universal peace through justice and love. As the Apostle Paul teaches, “the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:19-23).

Creation, given life by the presence of the Creator Spirit, is called to become “a dwelling place of peace” for the entire human family. Creation achieves this goal by means of the freedom of man whom God has appointed as its guardian. If man selfishly withdraws into himself, through a false conception of freedom, he fatally involves creation itself in this perversion.

On the contrary, through the gift of the Holy Spirit which Jesus Christ pours out upon us from his side pierced on the Cross, man acquires the true freedom of a son in the Son. He can thus understand the true meaning of creation and work to make it a “dwelling place of peace”.

In this sense, Paul can say that creation is groaning and awaiting the revelation of the sons of God. Only if man, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, recognizes himself as a son of God in Christ and looks at creation with fraternal sentiment, can the whole cosmos be set free and redeemed in accordance with the divine plan."

conservation.catholic.org/holy_spirit_acts_in_all_creation.htm

As you learned, Darwin’s attribution of creation to God makes it clear that his theory is not ontologically materialistic.

And that is all that is necessary to make it compatible with our faith.

But Darwin falls so far short of allowing us to hear that call to become Sons of God! Especially since he contiunally makes comparisons between the human being and other forms of animal life. I cannot find myself inspired by his writings in Descent of Man at all and can only see how it could be an impediment to
mankind hearing and receiving that call to act in union with the Divine Will.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I received this book review in my e-mail today and thought it was appropriate to include the content because of the nature of our discussion in regards to the eugenics movement. It apparently is still very much alive and well…

New Book Exposes Eugenics Mandate
in Reproductive Rights Agenda

Part I: Power, Money, and Science
Unite to Exterminate the World’s Poor

by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

 (NEW YORK – C-FAM) A book recently published by Harvard University Press explains how eugenics united some of the richest and most powerful elites of the twentieth century into a movement "to remake humanity by controlling the population of the world," answering to no one and bringing untold misery upon the world's poor. The book, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population," was written by Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly and shows why today's reproductive rights advocates are "faithfully reciting a eugenic catechism without the faintest idea where it comes from or where it can lead."   
 
 In 1952, at a secret, invitation-only gathering in Colonial Williamsburg, John D. Rockefeller III brought together what would become the modern population control establishment. Setting the agenda for the following decades were the heads of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Academy of Sciences, and top scientists "from embryology to economics," including past and present Nobel Prize winners. 
 
From verbatim transcripts of the "Conference on Population Problems," just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes, Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many people the world could hold along with "whether 'industrial development should be withheld' from poor, agrarian countries like India." By decreasing mortality and encouraging "breeding," development would increase inferior populations and further degrade "the genetic quality of the human race." They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates were justified in order to save "Western Civilization" from being dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World countries. 
    
 Thus was born the Population Council, which would in turn become the nexus of the entire population control movement, going on to coordinate the work of the United Nations, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – founded three weeks later – as well as major pharmaceutical firms. 
 The founder of IPPF, Margaret Sanger, selected for its first director general the psychologist C. P. Blacker, who called for a strategy of "crypto-eugenics," saying "you seek to fulfill the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without mentioning the word."     
 When Nehru presented India's first population-limitation policy in December 1952, the population establishment found a willing government that would allow them to start experimenting on its people to find a cheap contraceptive "to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles and among the most ignorant people," as Margaret Sanger put it. Years later, Planned Parenthood would import the experiments back into poor neighborhoods in the United States. Sanger said, "I believe that now, immediately there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them." ...

 [www.c-fam.org](www.c-fam.org)

On a side note:
Mahatma Ghandi was an extremely loud voice and protester of
Margaret Sangar and the population control feminists in India.

Quotes by Ghandi on artificial means of birth control:

“I think it is the height of ignorance to believe that the sexual act is an independent function, necessary like sleeping or eating. The world depends for its existence on the act of generation, and as the world is the playground of God and a reflection of His glory, the act of generation should be controlled for the growth of the world. He who realizes this will control his lust at any cost, equip himself with the knowledge necessary for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of his progeny, and give the benefit of that knowledge to posterity.” (A, p. 148)

---

“It is dinned into one’s ears that gratification of the sex urge is a solemn obligation like the obligation of discharging debts lawfully incurred, and that not to do so would involve the penalty of intellectual decay. This sexes urge has been isolated from the desire for progeny and it is said by the protagonists of the use of contraceptives that conception is an accident to be prevented except when the parties desire to have children. I venture to suggest that this is a most dangerous doctrine to preach.”

More quotes ca e read at:
mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap59.htm

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin’s statement, attributing the creation of life to God:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Barbarian observes:
Not “seems to.” He says that the Creator made the first living things. No question about it.

In western writing, “Creator” with capitalization means “God.” This is the context in which it is used in the Church, as well as in the Church of England, to which Darwin belonged. No question about that, either.

OK, let’s say Darwin’s 'Creator" means God and not “Nature”…
At what point does God create the human soul as different from animal souls?

Darwin says that is beyond the reach of science.

What evidence do you have that Darwin saw the human soul as different from animal souls?

His acknowledgement of humans having spiritual powers apart from animals, and his assertion that humans intrinsic rights to life and liberty.

when Darwin talks of descent from a common ancestor my impression from his statement is that he means a one celled organism, not Adam and Eve, can you show me that he does not mean that?

So when our pontiff talks about a common ancestor for all life on Earth, do you think he means a one-celled ancestor, not Adam and Eve? If so, why do you think that might deny that we are all ancestors of Adam and Eve? Clearly, Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t think so.

Pope Benedict XVI:
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.

Barbarian chuckles:
That’s also consistent with the Church’s teaching. No mention if the human person there, either. But I don’t think the Pope is any more of a materialist than Darwin was.

Where do Adam and Eve come in though?

Ancestors of all living humans.

Show me how Darwin’s theory in any way differentiates the human being as being apart from animals and this chain of ongoing selection and evolution…

You did that yourself. Darwin’s words allude to a difference in spiritual powers and in rights to life and liberty.

The Pope(s) have stated that it is contrary to Catholic teaching to say that human beings did not descend from a single pair, the original Adam and Eve, who were given the nature of being human when God infused them with His Breathe making them “Living Souls”.

Evolutionary theory has no problem with that fact.

Darwin’s statment sounds more like Pantheism, that all of Creation is the Living Soul.

Pantheism means that all is God. But notice Darwin distinguishes the Creator from His creation. So your charge can’t be true.

Barbarian observes:
Your own quote from Darwin says that there is. He alludes to spiritual powers of humans that are not in other animals.
He alludes to other scientists saying that humans have spiritual aspects that set them apart and then declares he can explain those things through nature.

And yes, finding evidence for evolutionary processes, but no design in nature, Darwin concluded that God created it by natural processes, not design. It’s very interesting that engineers are now learning to use evolutionary processes instead of design to solve very difficult problems. Darwin was right; God is much more capable than IDers are willing to let Him be.

What are the ‘natural processes’ that you refer to?

Mutation and natural selection.

"Before Darwin," Hunter writes, “homologies were interpreted as a sort of divine template revealing the Creator’s unity of design.” (I think of God as an artist Who has certain stylistic signatures He’s pleased to imprint on His work.)

Barbarian observes:
That was, as Darwin showed, faulty thinking. Homologies show that life proceeded not by a series of clever designs, but by gradual modification and reworking of existing features to new uses. So bones supporting fins are gradually modified to become legs, wings, differs, paddles, grippers, etc. all while retaining the evidence of their piscine origin. Indeed HOX genes show precisely how these transitions took place.

Are you then implying that earlier forms in nature, being more ‘primitive’ are inferior?

No. “Primitive” only means “more like earlier forms.” Inferiority does not apply to evolutionary concepts. “Fitness” is close, but even that is only applicable in context of environment.

Is there an implied sense of always looking toward future forms?

No.

I tend to think God has placed symbolic aspects in nature, for example, the recurring ratio of the Golden Mean, seems to show a mathematical ration, found throughout nature. Now, since it recurrs so often in different ways and is part of the human figure, the hand, ratios in facial proportions, etc…is that just random?

No, it just means that God’s creative genius is greater than IDers like. A few simple rules (or maybe just one) produced all the things we see in the world today. No design, but something much greater and more powerful than design.

Why can that not be a symbolic relationship imprinted on nature somehow pointing to God as a Divine Pattern Maker?

Because it demeans and trivializes God’s creation. It is something much, much above that.

Barbarian observes:
Is this not more amazing and wonderful than a little demiurge prancing about, making a rabbit here, and a bird there? Darwin was right; there is grandeur in this creation, more than mere magic.

You are grossly oversimplifying the other view point.

I think not. I’ve seen the creationists’ films of their idea of creation. It’s mostly like that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Well, the “poof, magic” idea is less impressive, and there is no evidence for it. And there is abundant evidence for evolution of such functions. Would you like to take a closer look, Mary?

I don’t think anyone is talking about ‘poof magic’ when they talk of Divine Intervention.

I’ve seen the videos creationists present. “Poof” is what they show.

(assertion that common descent makes creation by God unnecessary)

Barbarian observes:
That, Mary, is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

What is–?

I restored the context for you.

I believe that is required Catholic teaching.

Since Pope Benedict XVI says common descent is virtually certain, you are certainly wrong.

I also mentioned other instances of Divine Intervention:

God does miracles, not because He must, but rather to teach us something. A miracle by definition is Him setting aside His usual ways and doing something contrary to nature.

And yes, I believe when Chirst died, His death was to redeem mankind

That is consistent with evolution, as the Church teaches.

but also all of nature since I feel the object of Satan was to steal Creation from God the Creator.

That is not the teaching of the Church.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Darwin’s attribution of creation to God makes it clear that his theory is not ontologically materialistic.

And that is all that is necessary to make it compatible with our faith.

But Darwin falls so far short of allowing us to hear that call to become Sons of God!

Science can never do that for you, Mary. For that, you much look elsewhere. Science, as Darwin and Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out, cannot address the supernatural.

Your unwillingness to accept God’s creation as it is, is a stumbling block for you on the way to Him.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not “seems to.” He says that the Creator made the first living things. No question about it.

Catholics believe that God continues to create living things. God is always the creator and is always creating. He intervenes in secondary causes,so there is no room for natural selection.

Darwin says that is beyond the reach of science.

Then naturalistic science cannot explain how God works to create living things either. Man is created in God’s image both body and soul.

Pope Benedict XVI:
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.

That paragraph begins with the words “According to the widely accepted scientific account,”. So the pope was only stating the opinions of scientists,not approving of those opinions.
In the next paragraph,the pope rejects evolution theories which are materialist and which deny God a causal role in the development of life.

In paragraph 68,he says: “In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce.”

So that contradicts natural selection and the idea that God left nature with rules to bring forth living creatures.

In paragraph 69 he says: “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.”

Do you know of any theory of evolution which allows for divine providence in random genetic variation and natural selection?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not “seems to.” He says that the Creator made the first living things. No question about it.

Catholics believe that God continues to create living things.

You and I, for example, are creatures of God. But like other creatures, He used natural means to make our bodies. Our souls are directly from Him, but science is unable to measure or detect those.

God is always the creator and is always creating. He intervenes in secondary causes,so there is no room for natural selection.

It seems rather pointless to accept that God uses natural processes to make us, but can’t use natural processes to make other species. The Pope has acknowledged that common descent is a fact, and that natural selection is within God’s powers:

**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). **
Cardinal Ratzinger, report of the International Theological Commission.

Barbarian concerning the soul:
Darwin says that is beyond the reach of science.

Then naturalistic science cannot explain how God works to create living things either.

It can and does. We have very good data on that. As the Pope acknowledges.

Man is created in God’s image both body and soul.

Remember, as Jesus says, God is a spirit, and a spirit does not have a body. God doesn’t have fingers or toes or earlobes. The “image” is in our minds and souls, and in our ability to know good and evil.

Pope Benedict XVI:
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.
That paragraph begins with the words “According to the widely accepted scientific account,”. So the pope was only stating the opinions of scientists,not approving of those opinions.
In the next paragraph,the pope rejects evolution theories which are materialist and which deny God a causal role in the development of life.

In paragraph 68,he says: “In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce.”

Yep. So natural selection is no problem at all for Him. Nature, not just natural selection, is His tool, as he says here.

So that contradicts natural selection

You’re arguing with your own quote. It makes it clear that natural selection is completely His to control.

and the idea that God left nature with rules to bring forth living creatures.

You think evolutionary theory says that? No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

I

n paragraph 69 he says: “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.”

Absolutely. Any scientist who thinks science can confirm or deny the supernatural is completely wrong. And, as the Pope says, that is going beyond the proper boundaries of science.

Do you know of any theory of evolution which allows for divine providence in random genetic variation and natural selection?

The current theory, for one. It certainly allows for divine providence, although, as the Pope says, it cannot affirm or deny it.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

And yes, finding evidence for evolutionary processes, but no design in nature, Darwin concluded that God created it by natural processes, not design. It’s very interesting that engineers are now learning to use evolutionary processes instead of design to solve very difficult problems. Darwin was right; God is much more capable than IDers are willing to let Him be.

Barbarian observes:
That was, as Darwin showed, faulty thinking. Homologies show that life proceeded not by a series of clever designs, but by gradual modification and reworking of existing features to new uses.

The Church teaches that there is providential design in nature.

< In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. >
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

No, it just means that God’s creative genius is greater than IDers like. A few simple rules (or maybe just one) produced all the things we see in the world today. No design, but something much greater and more powerful than design.

That is not what the Church teaches. God is personally involved in the creation and development of creatures.

< 68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. >

Because it demeans and trivializes God’s creation. It is something much, much above that.

Natural selection demeans and trivializes God,because it renders him uninvolved in the processes of nature. It reduces God to the level of a first cause who left nature to function on its own.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

You and I, for example, are creatures of God. But like other creatures, He used natural means to make our bodies.

That’s true,but he did not use naturalistic means of scientific theory. Naturalism of any kind disallows for supernatural intervention in nature.

Our souls are directly from Him, but science is unable to measure or detect those.

Our bodies are from him also. God creates,not merely sets natural processes in motion.

It seems rather pointless to accept that God uses natural processes to make us, but can’t use natural processes to make other species.

I never said that anyway. Natural processes are one thing,the idea of natural selection is another.

The Pope has acknowledged that common descent is a fact, and that natural selection is within God’s powers:

The pope doesn’t even believe in macro-evolution,so how could he believe in common descent?

It can and does. We have very good data on that. As the Pope acknowledges.

No,the pope believes that God works through creative reason.
Science explains the origin of the human body in naturalistic terms,and the pope has a problem with that.

Remember, as Jesus says, God is a spirit, and a spirit does not have a body. God doesn’t have fingers or toes or earlobes. The “image” is in our minds and souls, and in our ability to know good and evil.

Our bodies are also made in the image of God,as the pope says.

< 31. These biblical, doctrinal and philosophical indications converge in the affirmation that human bodiliness participates in the imago Dei. If the soul, created in God’s image, forms matter to constitute the human body, then the human person as a whole is the bearer of the divine image in a spiritual as well as a bodily dimension. >

Yep. So natural selection is no problem at all for Him. Nature, not just natural selection, is His tool, as he says here.

The pope did not say that natural selection is God’s tool.
Natural selection,since is is a naturalistic idea,doesn’t allow for the activity of God.

You’re arguing with your own quote. It makes it clear that natural selection is completely His to control.

The quote doesn’t say that. If God has authority over contingency in nature,then the idea of natural selection is invalid,because natural selection does not allow for God’s authority.

You think evolutionary theory says that? No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

You have difficulty recognizing you’re own ideas.

“A few simple rules (or maybe just one) produced all the things we see in the world today.”

Absolutely. Any scientist who thinks science can confirm or deny the supernatural is completely wrong. And, as the Pope says, that is going beyond the proper boundaries of science.

Methodical naturalism denies the supernatural by not allowing for
the supernatural to be active in nature.

The current theory, for one. It certainly allows for divine providence, although, as the Pope says, it cannot affirm or deny it.

No naturalistic theory of evolution allows for divine providence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You and I, for example, are creatures of God. But like other creatures, He used natural means to make our bodies.

That’s true,but he did not use naturalistic means of scientific theory.

Of course, He did. Biology very accurately describes the process.

Naturalism of any kind disallows for supernatural intervention in nature.

No, that’s wrong. Methodological naturalism is perfectly compatible with divine providence.

Barbarian observes:
Our souls are directly from Him, but science is unable to measure or detect those.

Our bodies are from him also. God creates,not merely sets natural processes in motion.

Yes, but that can be obeserved by science, since God does that by natural means.

Barbarian observes:
It seems rather pointless to accept that God uses natural processes to make us, but can’t use natural processes to make other species.

I never said that anyway. Natural processes are one thing,the idea of natural selection is another.

Nope. Natural selection is a natural process.

Barbarian observes:
The Pope has acknowledged that common descent is a fact, and that natural selection is within God’s powers:

The pope doesn’t even believe in macro-evolution

Someone’s had a little fun with your trust on that one. The Pope says common descent of all living things is virtually certain. Can’t get more macro than that.

so how could he believe in common descent?

Let’s see…
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.

He says he accepts common descent because:

All living organisms on earth are genetically related

Converging evidence in the physical and biological sciences support it

Quote:
It can and does. We have very good data on that. As the Pope acknowledges.

No,the pope believes that God works through creative reason.

Right. Evolution is just one way that works.

Barbarian observes:
Remember, as Jesus says, God is a spirit, and a spirit does not have a body. God doesn’t have fingers or toes or earlobes. The “image” is in our minds and souls, and in our ability to know good and evil.

Our bodies are also made in the image of God,as the pope says.

Let’s take a look…

If the soul, created in God’s image, forms matter to constitute the human body, then the human person as a whole is the bearer of the divine image in a spiritual as well as a bodily dimension. >

This doesn’t mean God has a nose or eyes. God, as Jesus said, has no body.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. So natural selection is no problem at all for Him. Nature, not just natural selection, is His tool, as he says here.

The pope did not say that natural selection is God’s tool.

He said all of nature is God’s tool.

Natural selection,since is is a naturalistic idea,doesn’t allow for the activity of God.

Natural processes rule out the activity of God? What an odd idea for a Catholic to have. It’s directly opposed to the Church’s teachings.

Barbarian observes:
You’re arguing with your own quote. It makes it clear that natural selection is completely His to control.

The quote doesn’t say that.

Sure it does.

If God has authority over contingency in nature,then the idea of natural selection is invalid,because natural selection does not allow for God’s authority.

Of course it does. That’s the point of the Pope’s statement:

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.

He specifically says that natural selection does not rule out God’s guidance.

Barbarian chuckles:
You think evolutionary theory says that? No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

You have difficulty recognizing you’re own ideas.

No, you just aren’t comfortable with God being as wise and powerful as He is.

Barbarian observes the elegance and power of God’s creation:
A few simple rules (or maybe just one) produced all the things we see in the world today.

Barbarian observes:
Absolutely. Any scientist who thinks science can confirm or deny the supernatural is completely wrong. And, as the Pope says, that is going beyond the proper boundaries of science.

Methodical naturalism denies the supernatural by not allowing for the supernatural to be active in nature.

I can take your word for it, or the word of scientists and the Pope.

Not much of a choice, is it?

Barbarian observes:
The current theory, for one. It certainly allows for divine providence, although, as the Pope says, it cannot affirm or deny it.

No naturalistic theory of evolution allows for divine providence.

The Pope knows better than that. So do scientists. Isn’t it time for you to come to terms with the truth, Anthony?