Conference on Evolution

[StAnastasia]

But even then, you never admitted that angels have these qualities in a non-material being. But they do, of course. And if you take the position that imago dei found it’s way through random evolution into a single person amongst a large population, then you NEED a 2 person bottleneck downstream anyway to ensure that imago dei is present in all humans, and not just decsendants of that lucky one among many who got it first. Unless of course, you believe that imago dei is not a characteristic of all humans.

(1) It was you who brought up angels, not me. I have nothing to say about them.

(2) Imago Dei is not a thing or even a quality that found its way anywhere. Rather, Imago Dei refers to our reflection of God, and historically it has been characterized in different ways.

(3) Of course all members of Homo sapiens reflect the image of God. There was no one lucky person who “got” it or had it “infused” and then transmitted it genetically to her or his descendants; Tertullian’s traducianism was not accepted in the third century.

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you considered sending a letter to Pope Benedict giving him the news? Adam and Eve are right out and here’s the genetics? From Our Sunday Visitor, April 19, 2009. “It [the Church] is saying, in effect, that no matter what current scientists think, no matter how well established their theories of human origins seem to be, that in the end, when all the evidence is finally in, science will not contradict the fact (my italics) that human beings have a single set of parents.” That is where I stand.Peace,
Ed

Ed, I understand your position. I don’t share it, and I don’t know theologians who do; Pope Benedict accepts the descent of all life from a common origin. If you need for theological purposes to think that Adam and Eve were historical individuals from whom all humans descend, by all means you think that – the Church does not forbid it. I don’t know how you square that with what we know from genetics, but let the geneticists worry about that.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

If you are a Catholic teaching in a Catholic institution then your interpretation is meaningless.

To the contrary – theology is at heart an hermeneutical enterprise. Theology as “words about God” (theos-logos) is the translation and interpretation of meaning from one era and culture to another.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I understand your position. I don’t share it, and I don’t know theologians who do; Pope Benedict accepts the descent of all life from a common origin. If you need for theological purposes to think that Adam and Eve were historical individuals from whom all humans descend, by all means you think that – the Church does not forbid it. I don’t know how you square that with what we know from genetics, but let the geneticists worry about that.

StAnastasia

I am asking you to stop with your attempts to portray genetics as somehow superior to Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To the contrary – theology is at heart an hermeneutical enterprise. Theology as “words about God” (theos-logos) is the translation and interpretation of meaning from one era and culture to another.

StAnastasia

That is nonsense. Though slang may be introduced into a language, God is unchanging and His word is unchanging. If you believe in the calendar myth, that change occurs automatically because of the date on the calendar, then you are wrong. American society has become more corrupt in the last 40 years and the calendar had nothing to do with it. A gradual moving away from living out Church teaching did.

Don’t you dare suggest that Biblical interpretation is possible for the unschooled and undisciplined layman or the internet amateur. The teaching body of the Church teaches and we, as Catholics, are obligated to learn what the Church teaches, understand it and obey.

This lack of obedience and the idolatry of the human mind has blinded too many to the practical living truths of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If you need for theological purposes to think that Adam and Eve were historical individuals from whom all humans descend, by all means you think that – the Church does not forbid it. I don’t know how you square that with what we know from genetics, but let the geneticists worry about that.

I am asking you to stop with your attempts to portray genetics as somehow superior to Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

genetics is neither the god of science nor the god of salvation

 

[StAnastasia]

I am asking you to stop with your attempts to portray genetics as somehow superior to Church teaching.Peace,Ed

I’m sorry Ed, but you’re projecting; you’re reading that into what I said. Theology and genetics are no more in competition than are mathematics and literature. They cover separate domains, although sometimes they have important and interesting intersections.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

genetics is neither the god of science nor the god of salvation

You’re absolutely right, Grannymh!

 

[StAnastasia]

genetics is neither the god of science nor the god of salvation

Grannymh, I meant to add that genetic science is nothing more nor less than a tool in service of human knowledge.

 

[StAnastasia]

That is nonsense. Don’t you dare suggest that Biblical interpretation is possible for the unschooled and undisciplined layman or the internet amateur. The teaching body of the Church teaches and we, as Catholics, are obligated to learn what the Church teaches, understand it and obey. This lack of obedience and the idolatry of the human mind has blinded too many to the practical living truths of the Catholic Church.Peace,Ed

I’m not sure what you mean Ed – you’re putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. I never suggested that “Biblical interpretation is possible for the unschooled and undisciplined layman or the internet amateur.” It is fundamentally dishonest for you to make something up and ascribe it to someone else. Dishonesty should concern you, as it is generally frowned upon by the Catholic Church.

Study fundamental or systematic theology sometime, and look into the matter of hermeneutics. Its is the basic principle with which one begins courses in Sacred Scripture. The Bible was written in different languages and time periods to a variety of different cultures (Hebrew, Aramaic, Hellenistic Greek, Roman), and now it is read by thousands of cultures in hundreds of different languages. The meaning of scripture is not self-evident from one culture to another, but rather is discerned through the science of hermeneutics, or the translation of meaning. Every homily is a hermeneutical exercise, as is every parish Bible study.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

I’m sorry Ed, but you’re projecting; you’re reading that into what I said. Theology and genetics are no more in competition than are mathematics and literature. They cover separate domains, although sometimes they have important and interesting intersections.

StAnastasia

And those intersections are recognized as problematic by the Church and they are brought up constantly here, i.e. Adam and Eve, real people? The Church says yes and genetics/science needs to be understood from the Church’s perspective. It is necessary for the full understanding about who human beings are and where we came from.

Your Stephen Gould approach to science is against Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure what you mean Ed – you’re putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. I never suggested that “Biblical interpretation is possible for the unschooled and undisciplined layman or the internet amateur.” It is fundamentally dishonest for you to make something up and ascribe it to someone else. Dishonesty should concern you, as it is generally frowned upon by the Catholic Church.

Study fundamental or systematic theology sometime, and look into the matter of hermeneutics. Its is the basic principle with which one begins courses in Sacred Scripture. The Bible was written in different languages and time periods to a variety of different cultures (Hebrew, Aramaic, Hellenistic Greek, Roman), and now it is read by thousands of cultures in hundreds of different languages. The meaning of scripture is not self-evident from one culture to another, but rather is discerned through the science of hermeneutics, or the translation of meaning. Every homily is a hermeneutical exercise, as is every parish Bible study.

StAnastasia

You abuse the true interpretation of Scripture by falsely assigning to it some sort of modernist spin. In the encyclical Humani Generis, there is clear reference to those same modernists who somehow think that greater minds in the Church have somehow missed something or that they do not realize that parts of the Bible are closed to further interpretation. This is what is called the deposit of faith.

The Pope was in Africa recently, and aside from dress, decoration and certain cultural practices, human beings are human beings in every part of the world. Each one is called to imitate Christ, not some fellow human being from their tribe, tradition or race, so don’t make those differences more significant than they are.

Every homily is a reaffirmation of authentic Church teaching. Sometimes, partly because of the false doctrines spread by Modernists, an individual priest can recast a Homily in the wrong light. Bible instruction is needed for each generation since each new generation needs to be taught, but it is validly taught only by those who have been validly educated.

Too often, you raise the mind of man to a false level. Too often, I see posts here that say that individual thought processes are more important than the revelation of God. That is wrong. The Church guides us in all things. We are to be holy in all things, not, Well, I’m doing S C I E N C E now, I can stop being holy in the lab.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

You abuse the true interpretation of Scripture by falsely assigning to it some sort of modernist spin. In the encyclical Humani Generis, there is clear reference to those same modernists who somehow think that greater minds in the Church have somehow missed something or that they do not realize that parts of the Bible are closed to further interpretation. This is what is called the deposit of faith.

The Pope was in Africa recently, and aside from dress, decoration and certain cultural practices, human beings are human beings in every part of the world. Each one is called to imitate Christ, not some fellow human being from their tribe, tradition or race, so don’t make those differences more significant than they are.

Every homily is a reaffirmation of authentic Church teaching. Sometimes, partly because of the false doctrines spread by Modernists, an individual priest can recast a Homily in the wrong light. Bible instruction is needed for each generation since each new generation needs to be taught, but it is validly taught only by those who have been validly educated.

Too often, you raise the mind of man to a false level. Too often, I see posts here that say that individual thought processes are more important than the revelation of God. That is wrong. The Church guides us in all things. We are to be holy in all things, not, Well, I’m doing S C I E N C E now, I can stop being holy in the lab.

Peace,
Ed

Well said. Thank you.

 

[StAnastasia]

And those intersections are recognized as problematic by the Church and they are brought up constantly here, i.e. Adam and Eve, real people? The Church says yes and genetics/science needs to be understood from the Church’s perspective. It is necessary for the full understanding about who human beings are and where we came from.

Ed, it’ll be a tough sell to tell the world’s geneticists that they are wasting their careers by discovering things contrary to a literal interpretation of one faith tradition’s scriptures. It will be a thankless task for which I’ll not volunteer.

 

[mpartyka]

I am asking you to stop with your attempts to portray genetics as somehow superior to Church teaching.

But…when it comes to humanity’s biological origins…it is.

God is unchanging and His word is unchanging.

That’s what’s giving me fits about Genesis 1-11. If it’s factually false, it’s going to stay factually false in spite of all the creative ways we might develop to interpret it. And I can’t ask people to base their lives and behavior on a collection of false facts, even if it was constructed with the best of intentions (e.g., to lead people out of polytheism into monotheism).

This would all be so much more reasonable to accept if the Bible were held to be one link in a chain of progressive, not final, revelations, but that’s not the way the Church understands it or has ever understood it – which is why I find it next to impossible to blindly obey. In my opinion, based on all I’ve read, the Church has been tried and found wanting – it isn’t worthy of the submission it demands from me.

The teaching body of the Church teaches and we, as Catholics, are obligated to learn what the Church teaches, understand it and obey.

No. Not if what the Church teaches is false. Truth has to take priority over Church teaching. We cannot proclaim “I AM” while at the same time hiding what truly is.

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

The Church guides us in all things. We are to be holy in all things, not, Well, I’m doing S C I E N C E now, I can stop being holy in the lab.Peace,Ed

Exactly – that’s what my friends and colleagues say who are both Catholic priests and evolutionary biologists! The glory and holiness of God is revealed in the laboratory as in the sanctuary, in the market place as in the school.

StAnastasia

 

[Annie39]

Exactly – that’s what my friends and colleagues say who are both Catholic priests and evolutionary biologists! The glory and holiness of God is revealed in the laboratory as in the sanctuary, in the market place as in the school.

StAnastasia

St. Anastasia:
What is your definition of evolution if I may ask?

 

[grannymh]

But…when it comes to humanity’s biological origins…it is.

That’s what’s giving me fits about Genesis 1-11. If it’s factually false, it’s going to stay factually false in spite of all the creative ways we might develop to interpret it. And I can’t ask people to base their lives and behavior on a collection of false facts, even if it was constructed with the best of intentions (e.g., to lead people out of polytheism into monotheism).

This would all be so much more reasonable to accept if the Bible were held to be one link in a chain of progressive, not final, revelations, but that’s not the way the Church understands it or has ever understood it – which is why I find it next to impossible to blindly obey. In my opinion, based on all I’ve read, the Church has been tried and found wanting – it isn’t worthy of the submission it demands from me.

No. Not if what the Church teaches is false. Truth has to take priority over Church teaching. We cannot proclaim “I AM” while at the same time hiding what truly is.

–Mike

Would it help to divide the facts into who? how? what? when? where? why?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is saced.

 

[StAnastasia]

St. Anastasia:
What is your definition of evolution if I may ask?

Here’s a serviceable definition with whih I concur:

“In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a “theory of origins” about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.”

However, I understand “evolution” more broadly to include cosmic evolution from quarks to galaxies; stellar and planetary evolution, and geological developments on planets. I also understand it to mean the unfolding of the creative potential implanted by God in Creation.

StAnastasia

 

[Annie39]

“Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.”

Thank you Anastatia. What are some of the proofs for evolution as you define it or rather within the definition that you accept?

Annie