S
StAnastasia
Guest
Not likely. Pope Benedict seems inclined to accept common descent, and most theologians agree with him.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Even if the Pope and theologians accept common descent (which by the the way Catholic dogma is common descent from one set of parents) 2000 years of teaching and belief will have to be explained and why Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job.Not likely. Pope Benedict seems inclined to accept common descent, and most theologians agree with him.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The Holy Spirit never sleeps!Even if the Pope and theologians accept common descent (which by the the way Catholic dogma is common descent from one set of parents) 2000 years of teaching and belief will have to be explained and why Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job.
B
buffalo
Guest
So that leaves us with the following. The constant teaching and belief of the Church is correct and scientism is wrong.The Holy Spirit never sleeps!
M
masterjedi747
Guest
Your “challenge” was absurd, it did not deserve a serious response, and I’m glad to see that it didn’t get one.On a prior thread –The Crackpot Challenge forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=333500 - a challenge was made to disprove Copernicanism and neoDarwinism and reverse being labeled ‘crackpots’ . The thread used the three knowledge domains appropriate to the subject matter for a Catholic – theology, logic/philosophy and science – to refute the claim that the Earth orbits the Sun. The thread was uncontested; no defense was made of the Copernican belief by the challenger nor by any other forum member.
This thread is a similar travesty, as it essentially amounts to a one-sided spewing forth of narrow-minded intellectual sophistry masquerading as Catholicism. The responses necessary for your posts would take hours to assemble, and I for one do not have the time or desire to indulge you.
You’re obviously already convinced that you’re right, and no number of rational arguments or respected Catholic theologians (the Pope included) will be able to make you even hesitate, because you already have all the documents to “prove” that anything said against you is wrong. You’re clearly looking for an endorsement, not an honest argument.
All I can say is that you’re so far off the deep end here, it’s not even funny, and I’m honestly of the opinion that the sooner this thread dies off and sinks away, the better. But DO NOT presume to take the silence of the opposing side as an endorsement of your position, because it’s not. Far from it. Same goes for the Copernican thread.
B
buffalo
Guest
In paragraph 69 the Pope also writes:Not likely. Pope Benedict seems inclined to accept common descent, and most theologians agree with him.
- The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. **A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. **The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (*Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). 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. 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).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The YEC Titanic has hit the evolutionary iceberg: glub, glub, glub…All I can say is that you’re so far off the deep end here, it’s not even funny, and I’m honestly of the opinion that the sooner this thread dies off and sinks away, the better. But DO NOT presume to take the silence of the opposing side as an endorsement of your position, because it’s not. Far from it. Same goes for the Copernican thread.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
And for the record:
Dr. Ludwig Ott:
The documents show that many Church leaders weren’t OK with evolution. The current position of the Church is another question. There is also the issue of whether (or to what extent) these documents represent infallible Church doctrine. Because, like it or not, not every Church document ever published is guaranteed to be infallible.Time and time posters make claims that the church is ok with evolution. They are surprised when the documents show different.
Dr. Ludwig Ott:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
…With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See… By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
What teaching is infallible?
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
A
Alethios
Guest
Conclusion of theological denial of neoDarwinism
The historical record shows great similarities between the Vatican responses in both controversies involving Galileo and Darwin:
The historical record shows great similarities between the Vatican responses in both controversies involving Galileo and Darwin:
- Galileo was called in and rebuked by the Holy Office, as were Fr. Léroy and other innovators.
- Works defending the Copernican system were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, as were Léroy et al. two and half centuries later.
- A consistent, if relatively quiet, Vatican rejection of both Galileo and human evolution persisted for several decades afterwards.
- Of most importance, the root cause of the dissension in both cases was the liberal interpretation of Genesis as symbolism, metaphor, myth or poetry in the face of challenges by secular science.
- Anti-Darwinian censures emanating from Rome never received nearly as much publicity as the Galileo case.
- A single lay scientist was the focus of the first conflict, a group of clerics of the second.
- Galileo was a public figure and personal friend of the Pope and Vatican insiders; the evolution supporters were relatively unknown to the public and the See of Peter – even their books had limited circulation.
[In all that follows regarding Catholic duties and moral obligations the viewpoint is not of judgment but of observation - NJJO: Not Judging, Just Observing. ]
Blasphemy- Professed unbelievers, bound only by natural law, are held by their conscience to the extent their moral ignorance is invincible.
- For children of the light the responsibility is neither as simple nor subjective. * According to the principle of a well-informed conscience, a moral obligation to satisfactorily understand and NOT to uncritically accept science claims contrary to the plain words of Scripture falls on all the faithful.
- For clergy and laity, rejecting the Word of God as written in favor of scientific claims would require very strong proof.
- The validation of these claims that usurp Genesis by the teachers of the innocent is at the highest level of moral obligation.
- Those with a God-given talent for science matters have the highest obligation to thoroughly investigate and resolve such science claims, in accord with the principle of an informed Christian conscience. There is always the potential that a Catholic scientist’s personal decision in these matters may affect pastoral or Magisterial attitudes and decisions.
- In regard to talents, we could all be guided by the parable about the distribution of talents in Matt 25:14-30.
- In the taxonomy above, we each can see where we stand.
Rarely is the type and serious degree of moral duty explained in such cases where the Word of God is equated or even subordinated to modern science. The reason for this situation of moral uncertainty is one that should be explored, but would be off-topic here.
To equate or replace His Word with interpretations of natural discoveries by fallible men could reasonably be seen as violating the very First Commandment:
You shall not have strange gods before Me.
Does saying that God’s Word can be replaced or refused on one’s own authority, in effect make of oneself a god? For this we resort to the dictionary:- A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
- The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
- An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
- Insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and especially God as perceived by Christianity and Christian doctrines and writings
- Expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred
- The act of depriving something of its sacred character
*… Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. *
But the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, is the Sacred Author of Scripture…
The Douay-Rheims comment: This kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such willful opposing of the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise, there is no sin which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the Church. NJJO
Conclusion:
In the last years of the nineteenth century, the Vatican CDF issued intramural warnings and censures to early dissidents: Fr. Léroy and other Catholics such as Fabre, Mivart and Zahm. None of these Magisterial actions against evolution has received the public spotlight of the 1996 JPII non-Magisterial phrase - evolution is more than - a theory? - one theory?
As Galileo was called in and rebuked by the Holy Office, so were Fr. Caverni and Fr. Léroy. As, in the seventeenth century, works defending the Copernican system were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, so, in the nineteenth, were works defending human evolution – by Caverni, Mivart, Léroy (and possibly others). The main difference seems to have been that, for whatever reason, these anti-Darwinian censures emanating from Rome never received nearly as much publicity as the Galileo case.
AMDG
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Caverni’s New Studies of Philosophy: Lectures to a Young Student (1877) reconciled divine creation with the active intervention of God by leaving humans out of the process of evolution. The book was denounced and condemned, but since Caverni’s title did not mention evolution, this indirect condemnation of Darwin’s theory was ultimately ineffectual.In the last years of the nineteenth century, the Vatican CDF issued intramural warnings and censures to early dissidents: Fr. Léroy and other Catholics such as Fabre, Mivart and Zahm. None of these Magisterial actions against evolution has received the public spotlight of the 1996 JPII non-Magisterial phrase - evolution is more than - a theory? - one theory? As Galileo was called in and rebuked by the Holy Office, so were Fr. Caverni and Fr. Léroy. As, in the seventeenth century, works defending the Copernican system were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, so, in the nineteenth, were works defending human evolution – by Caverni, Mivart, Léroy (and possibly others). The main difference seems to have been that, for whatever reason, these anti-Darwinian censures emanating from Rome never received nearly as much publicity as the Galileo case.
The episode of French Dominican Dalmace Leroy offers further evidence that the Catholic Church had no official doctrine regarding evolution. Leroy published The Evolution of Organic Species in 1887, and critical reviews prompted him to issue an expanded edition under the narrower title Evolution Limited to Organic Species (1891), in which he carefully excluded Adam and Eve from consideration in the evolutionary story. The book was denounced to the Index in 1894 and Leroy agreed to retract, but with reservations. He sincerely believed that in its steadfast refusal even to consider the evolutionary preparation of the human body for reception of the infused soul, the credibility of the Catholic Church was at stake in an increasingly scientific world. Leroy retracted his book, but the episode shows that there was disagreement about the subject even among the theologians of the Index. Even while forbidding the reprinting of the book, they did not publish the decree of condemnation.
John Zahm argued in Evolution and Dogma (1896) for the harmonization of evolutionary theory with Catholic doctrine. The appearance of the French and Italian editions of Evolution and Dogma provoked the Congregation of the Index to issue an injunction against further publication and distribution, although apparently this was never enforced. Zahm was a faithful Catholic, and when friends in Rome warned him that the book was about to be placed on the Index, he immediately wrote to the publisher of the Italian edition to slow its distribution. Convinced that the truth for which he had worked would in due time be manifest, he had made his point and was content to follow the orders of the church he loved and served. The decree of condemnation was not published, and Zahm never issued a retraction.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no reason to bring up what the Catholic Church teaches in a, you know, they could be wrong way.
Let’s look at the basics:
Adam and Eve. Two real individual people.
Our first parents.
The Bible tells us, through one man sin entered the world.
Atheistic evolution that gives God zero credit is the problem. Second, after Pope Benedict mentioned the secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II, he said, “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
That is where the Church stands. And the Holy Father does not just say things for nothing. By his Office, he needs to tell Catholics, and all those who are willing, the truth. As Jesus said to Peter, He who hears you hears me.
Peace,
Ed
Let’s look at the basics:
Adam and Eve. Two real individual people.
Our first parents.
The Bible tells us, through one man sin entered the world.
Atheistic evolution that gives God zero credit is the problem. Second, after Pope Benedict mentioned the secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II, he said, “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
That is where the Church stands. And the Holy Father does not just say things for nothing. By his Office, he needs to tell Catholics, and all those who are willing, the truth. As Jesus said to Peter, He who hears you hears me.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
He retracted his own work after it was placed on the Index for offering false teaching. If he disagreed with the action of the Holy See, then he was dishonest and a coward (since he would have denied something he held as the truth). The fact that he submitted in obedience means that he accepted the rights of the Church to denounce evolutionary theory and he withdrew his own work on that account.The book was denounced to the Index in 1894 and Leroy agreed to retract, but with reservations. He sincerely believed that in its steadfast refusal even to consider the evolutionary preparation of the human body for reception of the infused soul, the credibility of the Catholic Church was at stake in an increasingly scientific world. Leroy retracted his book, but the episode shows that there was disagreement about the subject even among the theologians of the Index. Even while forbidding the reprinting of the book, they did not publish the decree of condemnation.
The long essay by Alethios offered some excellent research – from Fr. Harrison (and his own work?). Those who claim that the Church gave uncritical acceptance to Darwinian theory are avoiding or covering-up this part of the historical record.
The same is evident in this attempt to downplay the Holy See’s condemnations of evolutionary theory from the beginning. I’m sure someone will explain that the German Catholic bishops’ condemnation of human evolution in 1860 was “non-infallible” and therefore can be ignored also. The fact that that decision was not overturned by the Holy See is proof that there was nothing heretical or erroneous in that condemnation of evolutionary theory.
N
Namesake
Guest
My goodness Ed, you keep bring that up and people keep telling you that no science theory is complete and proven. Science only says that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life of Earth. No scientist claims it is complete or proven.Second, after Pope Benedict mentioned the secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II, he said, “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Peace,
Ed
I can’t understand why you persist in bringing this up when you have been taught better so many times by so many people here. You are misleading people. Scientists agree that the theory isn’t complete and proven.
E
edwest2
Guest
I am misleading people? I’m quoting the Pope.My goodness Ed, you keep bring that up and people keep telling you that no science theory is complete and proven. Science only says that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life of Earth. No scientist claims it is complete or proven.
I can’t understand why you persist in bringing this up when you have been taught better so many times by so many people here. You are misleading people. Scientists agree that the theory isn’t complete and proven.
“taught better” What have I been taught? That the Biology textbook exceeds God’s word? That a court of law can give evidence proving something beyond a reasonable doubt but science cannot? When I dealt with electronic circuits and components, everything worked or it didn’t. I had all the proof I needed. I can prove gravity all I want, but evolution? No.
“best explanation” for what? An experiment conducted on fruit flies only proved that existing genetic material could be moved around but nothing new resulted.
If I was a rocket scientist working for NASA, I had better prove that I can get a rocket up in space or I’m out of a job. Quit offering the evolution is a fact but we can’t prove it argument. I hope you can see how unconvincing that sounds.
Respectfully,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, what is your “proof” of gravity?I can prove gravity all I want, but evolution? NoRespectfully,Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Who is claiming this?Those who claim that the Church gave uncritical acceptance to Darwinian theory are avoiding or covering-up this part of the historical record.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a good question. I wonder why all NASA stuff has course correction and orbital correction thrusters that always need to be fired?Ed, what is your “proof” of gravity?
R
ricmat
Guest
There is no theory explaining why gravity does what it does. Gravity is an effect. The proof of the effect is easily seen by dropping balls on the floor. You can say - “If I let go of this ball, I predict that it will fall to the floor and hit the floor with speed X.” The experiment can actually be run multiple times to verify the accuracy of the prediction.… what is your “proof” of gravity?
Tell me about an experiment you can run which proves that complex life developed from simple life over a 4 billion year period. (Hint: the best you can actually do is merely to speculate).
Now, personally, I think it is quite possible that simple life (with divine help at some points along the way) could have mutated its way to complex life over 4 billion years. But where I differ from the hard core evolutionists is that I know that it’s also possible that things didn’t happen that way (with or without divine help). So although I prefer the mechanism I just mentioned, I am open to other alternatives as well.
On the other hand, “they” say all the time that one must be an idiot for not accepting the fact of evolution, and then in the next breath say that no theory is ever proven. Except that they also say that Ida or the latest missing link actually does prove evolution - it’s the 8th wonder of the world.
Why is it that they insist on our compliance with their personal beliefs. There are no evolution questions on the test for driving a car, or an evolution quiz before you can buy groceries. Whether or not you believe their views of evolution has no effect on anyone’s daily secular life. Why does it bug them so much when people refuse to comply?
B
buffalo
Guest
But don’t you know it is the best explanation? The evolutionists cannot allow a divine foot in the door. So every experiment and conclusion will support the sandy foundation already built. I better stay the party line otherwise my lifetime job security and funding are at risk.There is no theory explaining why gravity does what it does. Gravity is an effect. The proof of the effect is easily seen by dropping balls on the floor. You can say - “If I let go of this ball, I predict that it will fall to the floor and hit the floor with speed X.” The experiment can actually be run multiple times to verify the accuracy of the prediction.
Tell me about an experiment you can run which proves that complex life developed from simple life over a 4 billion year period. (Hint: the best you can actually do is merely to speculate).
Now, personally, I think it is quite possible that simple life (with divine help at some points along the way) could have mutated its way to complex life over 4 billion years. But where I differ from the hard core evolutionists is that I know that it’s also possible that things didn’t happen that way (with or without divine help). So although I prefer the mechanism I just mentioned, I am open to other alternatives as well.
On the other hand, “they” say all the time that one must be an idiot for not accepting the fact of evolution, and then in the next breath say that no theory is ever proven. Except that they also say that Ida or the latest missing link actually does prove evolution - it’s the 8th wonder of the world.
Why is it that they insist on our compliance with their personal beliefs. There are no evolution questions on the test for driving a car, or an evolution quiz before you can buy groceries. Whether or not you believe their views of evolution has no effect on anyone’s daily secular life. Why does it bug them so much when people refuse to comply?
Just keep producing research that supports evolution. Then make the language complex enough so you can claim that you need to be an expert in science to get it. Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me.
“The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo.” Hannes Alfven
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, you’ve got it backwards. The effect is things falling to the floor, or planets orbiting stars. The theory is that the force of gravity attracts them. Effects don’t need proofs, but theories need confirmation.There is no theory explaining why gravity does what it does. Gravity is an effect. The proof of the effect is easily seen by dropping balls on the floor. You can say - “If I let go of this ball, I predict that it will fall to the floor and hit the floor with speed X.” The experiment can actually be run multiple times to verify the accuracy of the prediction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.