E
edwest2
Guest
The earth is not an entity.
To my fellow Catholics - You are not just bags of chemicals or animals.
God bless,
Ed
- Status
To my fellow Catholics - You are not just bags of chemicals or animals.
God bless,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re trying to prove that evolution is true by referring to science curricula in Catholic schools.
For the record, I completed 14 years of Catholic education. I had several teachers who taught that evolutionary theory was false.
Fr. Kenneth Baker, well-known Jesuit teacher, editor of one of the most prominent Catholic magazines in the country, stated that Darwinian theory was a “fraud”.
I’d be interested in seeing your proof that evolution is “factual”.
I’d be interested in hearing about your version of evolution that is “only science” and does not contain a philosophical component. I’ve been waiting to hear about your belief on how, precisely, God has influenced the development of human life. You’ve stated that human life came into existence through “natural selection”. What role did God have in this process?
I really don’t need to do that because I know enough prominent Catholics who are creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design theory. I know of many scientists who are the same. The fact that these Catholic schools you mention have Darwinists on their scientific staff doesn’t surprise me. How many professors in those schools have signed the Oath of Fidelity as required by Pope John Paul II? How many of them have met the Canon Law requirements for the mandatum as specified by Ex Corde Ecclesiae?
You mention Marquette as a “Catholic” university. Perhaps you think that their most prominent theologian is an orthodox Catholic. The U.S. bishops wouldn’t agree with that.
Where do you think I got that information?
I don’t know. You claimed that no Catholic schools reject Darwinism. I just posted a long statement from a Catholic bishop in Oregon giving his complete endorsement of an anti-Darwinist text. Apparently, this means nothing to you.
Before going further, I’d like to hear what my “ridiculous claims” have been. Please quote my words from prior posts. I will then be able to give “the least substantiation” for them, and probably a lot more than that. Apparently, you think that I have “done absolutely nothing” in all of the posts I’ve provided – where I posted several links to original sources.
Again, I’d like to see where I said that. Please provide the quoted text. It should be a lot easier than your request to me that I call Catholic universities and ask to speak with professors. All you have to do is go back in this thread and quote where I have said that “all of science is a sham”.
It seems fairly clear to me that you do not have the truth. But I’m willing to change that opinion – I would like to see your proofs for your scientific theories as well evidence to support your religious beliefs.
I posted a peer-reviewed paper that you were not capable of understanding (by your own admission). You couldn’t even read the substantiation I provided. But you claim that “not a shred” was provided to you.
Please indicate where there were “attempts to use the Catholic Church to support ‘cranksmanship’”
What cranksmanship, precisely, are you referring to? Where was the Catholic Church used to support whatever it is you’re talking about?
A
anthony022071
Guest
[edwest2]
I never said that humans are just chemical or animal.
An entity is something that has a distinct existence in reality. The Earth is certainly that.
I never said that humans are just chemical or animal.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So the good Bishop is merely speaking from ignorance, being unaware of the evidence for an old earth (which was pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI) and that there is no evidence of a world wide flood.
Which is his right; the Church does not require that he be cognizant of the facts of evolution, and permits him to deny what the evidence shows. It only requires that he not teach such foolishness as Catholic doctrine.
And apprently, he does not. Which is fine. If he were to require Catholic schools to deny evolution, he would then be on a collision course with the Church.
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
Its not a matter of CATHOLIC opinion and doctrine, but of all human beings in the world who really believe in God. First of all of course monotheistic religions (Jews, Moslems, Christians). And it’s an unsophisticatedness, yes nativeness, to simply feel our genesis in God in a very natural way. A natural rise or root or derivation into which we will return back when we leave this earth. Let’s be prepared and not stand before God and stammer something of … “oh, I thought we mutated – terribly sorry, I just refused to believe it was You who created me in your overwhelming love”.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Who is denying that God created us? See, you have exactly the same problem as Ed has. You can’t accept that one can have faith and accept science at the same time. I love the Lord. I have absolutely zero doubt that God created me and everthing else. I don’t need science to tell me that. Conversely, the evidence collected by science that clearly indicates that we physically evolved from earlier life forms is overwhelming. Unless God is a deceiver (and I am absolutely sure that He is not), we can accept the science AND keep our faith. I really, really don’t understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with that. Instead, Ed insists that I chose science and reject God or that people who accept the science are really atheists, even when those of us who accept the science make it real clear that we are not.Its not a matter of CATHOLIC opinion and doctrine, but of all human beings in the world who really believe in God. First of all of course monotheistic religions (Jews, Moslems, Christians). And it’s an unsophisticatedness, yes nativeness, to simply feel our genesis in God in a very natural way. A natural rise or root or derivation into which we will return back when we leave this earth. Let’s be prepared and not stand before God and stammer something of … “oh, I thought we mutated – terribly sorry, I just refused to believe it was You who created me in your overwhelming love”.
Peace
Tim
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It’s one thing to be a Catholic creationist. It’s quite another to let the “Creationist” overrule Catholic doctrine.
Those who assert that evolution somehow denies God’s creation and love for us have left the teaching of the Church for their own doctrines.
Those who assert that evolution somehow denies God’s creation and love for us have left the teaching of the Church for their own doctrines.
R
reggieM
Guest
I’m not sure if you really mean that or if it’s just a rhetorical device (either way is fine but it does affect how to reply).
But without being polemical, if you’d like to understand more about why people have a problem with the artificial division between God and science that many propose (and the most vocal atheists use as a weapon against religion), then I’d be glad to try to discuss this with you.
If you already have your mind made up on why people take this position, then you may be saying “I know why people take this view, but I don’t understand why they persist in this notion since it has been proven wrong so many times”.
That’s a different matter.
I offered this discussion point to “drHess” previously but he said that he already knew why creationists believe the things they do.
You may feel the same - if so, that’s fine with me. I’m just wondering if you had questions about why people oppose Darwinism.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I mean I don’t understand people like Ed who insist that I reject God and the Church if I accept the science of evolution when the Church has made it clear that isn’t the case.
I’m happy to discuss it as we have in the past. Let me start by giving you my position on the matter. God exists. He created everything. Science is the study of nature. While God is part of nature, He is supernatural and, therefore not within the realm of science.
No, I really don’t understand what I see as a fear that science can somehow invalidate our faith. Truth is truth. If we find that, as in the case of geology, that the earth isn’t 6,000 years old, it means that we can’t take the creation story in Genesis as literal. That obviously doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, just not literal.
Do you accept any form of evolution? It is easy to thow out terms like Darwinism and then say that that lead to the holocaust (as Ben Stein did) or other social problems. How about the scientific evidence that life has evolved over time? Do you accept that or reject that based on your faith? Same question about the age of the earth and the universe. Are geologists either lying about the fossil record or just mistaken? Are astrophysicists wrong about the conclusions come to based on the data they collect? If your answer to either of those questions is yes, then what do you base that on? The bible or are you trained in either of those fields?
Peace
Tim
B
beeliner
Guest
This is a waste of time, so I will touch only a few points briefly, and then end my participation in this thread, UNLESS it starts going somewhere, in which case I might return. Because of the number of your points(?), I’ll have to split it into two parts.
B
beeliner
Guest
continued…
14ff. Everything you’ve posted on the subject has been ridiculous. If it weren’t, there would be biologists, even if only a minority, who agreed with you with no overriding religious agenda. I have asked you to name - I think I originally said three, but I’ll settle for one or two - and you have been unable to do so.
Anyone who has not been bored stiff by these exchanges can go back and read exactly what each of us said, and see that you continue to falsely characterize my posts.
If you can’t produce a single supporter who can reasonably be regarded as a qualified biologist, then where is your credibility? Why should anyone reject ALL of modern biology, which depnds completely on the evolution of species as its cornerstone, and replace it with…NOTHING, which is what you have presented here?
- How could their curricula be anything else? If it were, the Catholic education system would loose all validity, it would become nothing more than a haven for fanatics and nuts. I’ll ask again: Can you name a single Catholic school that uses silly ‘creationist’ texts as the fundamentalist Protestant schools do? OF COURSE YOU CAN’T!
- Did they do so on religious grounds? If so, fine. They are entitled to their opinion. If they did so on what they claimed were scientific grounds, and if they are still living, I wish that you would name them and give me an addres or phone number so that I can ask them to verify that.
- Same question - on what grounds? If on scientific grounds, what are his qualifications to make such an assessment and what is his evidence?
- Any biologist in the world will be happy to explain it to you, if you are able to find one who ‘suffers fools gladly’. You might also consult a respected encyclopedia such as the Britannica. There are also hundreds, perhaps thousands of books on the subject, all from respected publishers. ‘Creationist’ drivel, on the other hand, is only published by ad hoc publishers. Why do you think that is?
- On religious or scientific grounds? See 2 & 3.
- They are staffed by qualified scientists and academics, not by fanatics and cranks. See 1. You are going around in circles.
- I haven’t the slightest idea nor am I familiar with such an oath. If you are implying that they are required to take an oath that denies basic scientific facts, please tell me how it is worded.
- What on earth has that to do with the teaching of orthodox science rather than ‘creationist’ nonsense? A lot of Catholics, including a lot of priests, think that the Church’s teachings on some - certainly not all - matters of human sexuality are unrealistic - even absurd. This person is obviously one of them.
- Honestly? I think you made it up, since I know of no public school system that allows that. But if you can cite a credible source, please do so.
- No, I asked you to name one, which you were unable to do. And I must have missed the ‘long statement’ - I saw only two short book reviews. If there was a long statement to that effect, we are back to #2. ‘Anti-Darwinist’ on what grounds? Religious or scientific? And if the latter, please give a link to the peer review of the author’s work. If his contemporaries say that it’s nonsense, it probably is.
14ff. Everything you’ve posted on the subject has been ridiculous. If it weren’t, there would be biologists, even if only a minority, who agreed with you with no overriding religious agenda. I have asked you to name - I think I originally said three, but I’ll settle for one or two - and you have been unable to do so.
Anyone who has not been bored stiff by these exchanges can go back and read exactly what each of us said, and see that you continue to falsely characterize my posts.
If you can’t produce a single supporter who can reasonably be regarded as a qualified biologist, then where is your credibility? Why should anyone reject ALL of modern biology, which depnds completely on the evolution of species as its cornerstone, and replace it with…NOTHING, which is what you have presented here?
R
reggieM
Guest
I notice that you didn’t “touch upon” these questions I asked you directly:
– I’d be interested in seeing your proof that evolution is “factual”.
No proof was shown.
— How many professors in those schools have signed the Oath of Fidelity as required by Pope John Paul II?
You were not even aware of what this is.
*— How many of them have met the Canon Law requirements for the mandatum as specified by Ex Corde Ecclesiae? *
As above, you never heard of it.
– Before going further, I’d like to hear what my “ridiculous claims” have been. Please quote my words from prior posts.
No quoted text provided. Basically no response to this claim was given.
– Again, I’d like to see where I said that. Please provide the quoted text.
Again, nothing provided.
– I would like to see your proofs for your scientific theories as well evidence to support your religious beliefs.
No evidence or support for either point was given.
*-- I posted a peer-reviewed paper that you were not capable of understanding (by your own admission). You couldn’t even read the substantiation I provided. But you claim that “not a shred” was provided to you. *
No response. I’ll accept that the point stands.
– What role did God have in this process?
No answer given.
– Please indicate where there were “attempts to use the Catholic Church to support ‘cranksmanship’”
Nothing provided.
— What cranksmanship, precisely, are you referring to? Where was the Catholic Church used to support whatever it is you’re talking about?
No answer here to either question.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is a Catholic forum, not a secular humanist forum. It is puzzling that those who are not only convinced but know evolution is a fact continue to bother Catholics who are not required to believe in it. The Church is also not just about faith and morals. The atheists get very upset with the Church when any of its members say anything negative about evolution. Yet, at the same time, in a sort of schizophrenia, they are waiting for the Church to proclaim, for example, that “common descent is virtually certain.” Why do these people who reject God look to the Church to validate what they call facts? Facts that they say will not change just because someone does not accept them.
The fact of the matter, based on all the evidence here, and from my reading of secular humanist, freethinker, bright, leftist, communist and Marxist sites is obvious: get your invisible man in the sky beliefs out of my schools, out of my public eyesight and out of my public discussions. Just stay in your religious buildings and quit bothering self-proclaimed rational people like us.
Pope Benedict tells us that science gives us Catholics too narrow a view, that there are other areas of reason that we still need. I think it is appropriate to proclaim the work of God on a Catholic forum.
But it always comes back to the same thing:
Genesis is not literal.
Adam and Eve not literal.
God - eh, he just got the ball rolling, ya know. Physics and chemistry did the rest. He just sat back, had a pina coloda, and said it was good.
But, why cite Church documents or Church teaching? Boring stuff. Protein folding, peptides, nucleotides… now you’re talkin. Church documents are vague, science is not.
My point is this, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were actual people, our first parents. A careful reading of Humani Generis will confirm that, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But, of course, the reply will be “But we got evidence. It’s not like that at all.” The Church also has evidence, real evidence that it is like that.
I post about miracles (pfft, “just stuff science hasn’t gotten around to dealing with”) and I get nothing. I post about the tilma or cloak with the supernatural image of Our Lady of Guadelupe… nuthin. As if there are no Catholics here who believe, or are even intrigued, by the fact that God, through the saints, and the Blessed Virgin, has manifested His power in a tangible way on earth.
And when I question evolution… oh my God… you would think I personally insulted the people who respond. Which, once again, brings up the never dealt with question: If evolution is such a fact, that will never be overturned by one guy on an internet forum, why browbeat anybody about it? Just go on your merry way and leave those “anti-intellectual” types like me alone. But no, the agenda is clear: Evangelize 24/7 for evolution. The motive is also clear - Science must take charge of the people and leave religion behind. That was made very clear to me on a forum where I’m a moderator. One poster was voicing his sincere hope that religion would “end up on the trash heap of history.”
God just gets in the way of too many people. Organized religion is this evil thing. If only “they” (religious types) would somehow go away, “we” would be happy. That’s the current propaganda line anyway.
Nope, if you’re just here to tell us the Bible got it wrong or got interpreted wrong, please contact the Vatican. In the meantime, I believe that the Bible has been interpreted correctly. That the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct, and that’s that.
God bless,
Ed
The fact of the matter, based on all the evidence here, and from my reading of secular humanist, freethinker, bright, leftist, communist and Marxist sites is obvious: get your invisible man in the sky beliefs out of my schools, out of my public eyesight and out of my public discussions. Just stay in your religious buildings and quit bothering self-proclaimed rational people like us.
Pope Benedict tells us that science gives us Catholics too narrow a view, that there are other areas of reason that we still need. I think it is appropriate to proclaim the work of God on a Catholic forum.
But it always comes back to the same thing:
Genesis is not literal.
Adam and Eve not literal.
God - eh, he just got the ball rolling, ya know. Physics and chemistry did the rest. He just sat back, had a pina coloda, and said it was good.
But, why cite Church documents or Church teaching? Boring stuff. Protein folding, peptides, nucleotides… now you’re talkin. Church documents are vague, science is not.
My point is this, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were actual people, our first parents. A careful reading of Humani Generis will confirm that, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But, of course, the reply will be “But we got evidence. It’s not like that at all.” The Church also has evidence, real evidence that it is like that.
I post about miracles (pfft, “just stuff science hasn’t gotten around to dealing with”) and I get nothing. I post about the tilma or cloak with the supernatural image of Our Lady of Guadelupe… nuthin. As if there are no Catholics here who believe, or are even intrigued, by the fact that God, through the saints, and the Blessed Virgin, has manifested His power in a tangible way on earth.
And when I question evolution… oh my God… you would think I personally insulted the people who respond. Which, once again, brings up the never dealt with question: If evolution is such a fact, that will never be overturned by one guy on an internet forum, why browbeat anybody about it? Just go on your merry way and leave those “anti-intellectual” types like me alone. But no, the agenda is clear: Evangelize 24/7 for evolution. The motive is also clear - Science must take charge of the people and leave religion behind. That was made very clear to me on a forum where I’m a moderator. One poster was voicing his sincere hope that religion would “end up on the trash heap of history.”
God just gets in the way of too many people. Organized religion is this evil thing. If only “they” (religious types) would somehow go away, “we” would be happy. That’s the current propaganda line anyway.
Nope, if you’re just here to tell us the Bible got it wrong or got interpreted wrong, please contact the Vatican. In the meantime, I believe that the Bible has been interpreted correctly. That the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct, and that’s that.
God bless,
Ed
T
tonyl
Guest
Ed, why do you continue to post such completely dishonest characterizations of what is being said and about those who disagree with you?
We are not atheists; I have not seen a single evolution supporter on this thread push some anti-religion agenda; you are misquoting the Pope (again); Saying that evolution follows the rules set by chemistry and physics is not the same as saying God had no role; your slander that evolution supporters are trying to drive all religion from the public square is simple nonsense; we’re not the ones trying to browbeat anyone, we’re simply responding to your repeated attempts to browbeat us; Our claims are completely in line with those of the Vatican, as has been pointed out many times.
Seriously, why do you continue to attack us such a dishonest manner?
We are not atheists; I have not seen a single evolution supporter on this thread push some anti-religion agenda; you are misquoting the Pope (again); Saying that evolution follows the rules set by chemistry and physics is not the same as saying God had no role; your slander that evolution supporters are trying to drive all religion from the public square is simple nonsense; we’re not the ones trying to browbeat anyone, we’re simply responding to your repeated attempts to browbeat us; Our claims are completely in line with those of the Vatican, as has been pointed out many times.
Seriously, why do you continue to attack us such a dishonest manner?
E
edwest2
Guest
Nope, I’m simply pointing out the often avoided, and very clear writings of the Church: any evolutionary theory that denies to God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe is not compatible with Catholic teaching. It’s simple.
God trumps science. That should be simple also, but not here.
When the Pope voices his concern over the “many” scientists who point out that evolution precludes a truly causal role for God, that gets ignored.
There are times when I read posts here that could be lifted, almost verbatim, from the board I moderate that is packed with secular atheist-humanists. Same patterns.
God bless,
Ed
God trumps science. That should be simple also, but not here.
When the Pope voices his concern over the “many” scientists who point out that evolution precludes a truly causal role for God, that gets ignored.
There are times when I read posts here that could be lifted, almost verbatim, from the board I moderate that is packed with secular atheist-humanists. Same patterns.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
As I have pointed out many times there are a few areas of contention, namely these constant Chruch teachings:
*] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
*] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
*] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
*] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
*] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
*] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
*] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
*] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
*] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
*] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
*] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
*] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
*] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
*] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
*] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
*] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
E
edwest2
Guest
For Catholics, a thorough knowledge of God as expressed in clear Church teaching comes first. Science is subordinate.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
V
Valke2
Guest
My copy of Genesis is not made out of rubber or elastic. So, unfortunately, I cannot bend and twist it to fit with evolution or other scientific facts. The only solution that does not belittle my religious beliefs and faith is to view the creation story as allegory.
E
edwest2
Guest
With all due respect, from the Catholic perspective, Genesis is not just symbolism.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Which is syncretism.
- Status