Creation or Evolution

[hecd2]

For myself, it’s not a concern about Nature magazine, but only in their failure to give any support for the concept of human dignity when faced with this kind of legislation. The magazine was not able to distinguish between dignity afforded to plants and animals versus that given to humans. As a result, Nature concluded that “dignity” was not useful as a basis for granting rights. They couldn’t argue that humans deserve more dignity because human beings possess an immortal soul, as a direct creation of God.

Of course they couldn’t argue that. Nature journal is not in the business of making blatantly religious pronouncements like that - it is a journal representing the scientific community, not a theological tract. But again, you set up the strawman that because the editorial rejects the concept of dignity as a basis for making moral choices, then they also blur the distinction between humans and non-humans - exactly the opposite of the actual case.

So they claim that the concept of dignity cannot be used in the formulation of laws or moral norms. Can religious belief be used for the establishment of laws or moral judgements?

No, not in a pluralistic society.

But beyond the opinions of this one magazine, the bigger issue is that the laws enacted in Spain and Switzerland are supported by evolutionary theory. That is the foundation for the belief that animals are to be accorded “human rights” (as the story says) or even that plants should be granted rights equivalent to that granted to humans.

People using the fact of evolution to create daft laws has no bearing on the truth of the science.

There is a clear application of Darwinian theory in the shaping of societal laws. Since the ape is “the closest genetic relative to the human”, then apes should be protected by similar laws.

Well, I think it is a well accepted ethical principle that organisms with more highly developed cognition should be protected more carefully. Experiments on bacteria and plants are not regulated, nor are experiments on fruit flies. All experimentation on mammals is regulated, with the most stringent regulation reserved for primates and ultimately for the great apes. Are suggesting that we should abandon this hierarchy of regulation?

This is the use of science to manipulate society and the moral laws of the community.

No, this is the use of science to illuminate our ethical choices.

Materialistic philosophy places apes and humans in relatively the same category – to be accorded similar rights.

That is a generalisation that you will not be able to support.Some people do, some don’t, but few think like you do that there should not be a hierarchy of regulation and protection

Again, this is the consequence of Darwinism. Animals are accorded these rights because they are our so-called “evolutionary comrades”.

Well they clearly are, but what would you do - deregulate all animal experimentation?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The Nature article by itself could just be an anomaly. But in the field of bioethics in general (transhumanism, embryonic research, genetic selection of offspring, creation of human/animal hybrids and chimeras) there are many scientists who - lacking God - believe that whatever can be done should be done. Right and wrong are defined by them - the scientists. A replay of the very original sin at the dawn of mankind.

This is a basic misrepresentation of the facts. I don’t know any scientist who thinks that whatever can be done should be done. Nor do scientists views prevail in an unregulated environment The truth is that society as a whole, in most countries (certainly in mine) determines what can and cannot be done. Bioethics are determined not by scientists alone but by a consensus of the community. You are sore because that consensus does not accord with your personal beliefs.

The short editorial below demonstrates a typical (based on many other things I’ve read) mindset of those enamored with the Darwinian worldview. In this case, it also demonstrates the influence of Darwinism on other fields (in this case, Psychology).

seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/225611_chimera25.html

Psychology!!! What are you talking about? There is no mention of psychology in this article.

I don’t agree with the most of the projects that the article promotes, but one thing is spot on - the continuity of human biology with the rest of nature. That has not been an open question for more than 150 years.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I disagree and I think you’re overstating your point (which appears to show a Darwinist bias, as I view it).

It shows a bias towards good science over hand-waving magical thinking.

First, this proves that “ID proponents” are doing theoretical science and their work is published in the scientific press.

We already know, as I stated, that “ID proponents" are doing science and their work is published in the scientific press. That is not in question. What is in question is whether the “cdesign proponentsists” are doing and publishing any valuable scientific work that is based on ID principles which show that what we observe in the biological world cannot be explained by methodological naturalism, but by some other scientifically insightful cause – for example a designer that can be characterised so that useful predictions follow.

Claiming that this is “worthless” is more of a statement about the “scientific press” than about the Biologic Institute’s work.

It is the Intelligent Design hypothesis that is scientifically worthless, because it seeks to invoke magic; this paper does not change our view on that because it contains no ID claims.

This is one of those cases where you’re changing the goal posts. Two claims are refuted here, at least – one, ID has no peer reviewed papers, and that ID is “not doing science”.

This paper cannot refute those claims because it does not have any specific ID content . After this paper, the observation that ID does no science and publishes none still stands.

As for the contribution that Stylus makes towards science, you appear to be saying that only successful scientific projects really contribute any knowledge.

No. On the contrary. What I am saying is that only projects that contribute to our knowledge are successful. Stylus almost certainly fails on that criterion because the analogy on which it is based is flawed for the many reasons I explained.

The unique insights arising from ID are first, a critique of current Darwinian theory – as in the use of Avida as a software model that attempts to show how complexity can arise from random mutation.

A critique is not an insight, unless it has something better to put in place – which ID obviously hasn’t. Anyone can stand on the sidelines carping – actually doing science is a different matter. What you mean is that IDists have attempted (and failed) to undermine the value of Avida because they “know” a priori that complex function cannot evolve by mutation and selection. In fact Avida does show, amongst other things, that such complexity can evolve through a Darwinian process that involves mutation, competition for limited resources, and self-replication.

As I understand it, Stylus was built (in part) as an improvement on that software model.

Well you understood wrong, since the objective of Avida and the purported objective of Stylus are quite different – they model (or in the case of Stylus, attempt to model) quite different things. One cannot be an “improvement” on the other any more than an apple can be an improvement on a frog.

ID therefore serves as a critique to mainstream evolutionary thought and this project is an output of that critique.

ID serves some people as a religiously motivated Paleyian critique of the Theory of Evolution, but it doesn’t serve as a scientific critique at all. Furthermore, as I pointed out, since this paper does not contain ID concepts nor demonstrate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory, it is merely a rather badly flawed paper that happened to be written by ID proponents (rather than an ID paper).

As for bias in your reply – I notice 9 points you’ve listed in critique of Stylus. This gives the impression that the current evolutionary modeling software in use, Avida, does not have any flaws worth mentioning.

Well since the two platforms do not attempt to do even vaguely similar things, then my criticism of Stylus does not imply anything either positive or negative with regard to Avida. Avida doesn’t have to be perfect for Stylus to be junk, as they are not competing to perform the same function. It must be your superficial understanding of the two simulations that has lead you into this muddle. As for the nine points I listed (I could have listed more) which show that the analogy in Stylus is flawed, I notice that you do not try to refute any of them, so I suppose you accept them.

Interestingly also, Stylus is open-source software. It seems you’re saying that there is no chance that this program can show any improvements in the future.

I suppose that there can be peripheral improvements made, but it’s hard to see how the fundamental flaws in its conceptual core can be overcome. Because of these deep conceptual flaws, I doubt that many (or even any) structural biologists will use it. I think they’ll stick to working with actual protein structure. We’ll see. Post in a year’s time how many structural biologists have published papers that use Stylus.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

reggieM:

Can religious belief be used for the establishment of laws or moral judgements?

No, not in a pluralistic society.

This could read as if I am saying that religious belief cannot influence the ethical choices of society or the moral judgements of individuals, and that is neither what I meant nor what I believe. Religious belief obviously determines the opinion of many people and that opinion should be considered in deciding what society will and will not allow. However religious belief of any belief group, cannot, on its own, dictate the ethical choices in a pluralist society. Those choices need to consider a range of religious beliefs as well as the ethical choices of non-believers.

And religious belief can always, within bounds that are determined by society, establish the moral judgements for the personal acts of individual believers.

Alec

 

[anthony022071]

1. Well, that is not a ‘who’, that is a ‘what’. It’s called ‘common sense’.

 

[anthony022071]

iscast.org.au/pdf/DicksonGenesisofEverythingOLJ.pdf

The prolific Jewish scholar, Philo, who lived and worked in Alexandria in
the first century (10 BC – AD 50), wrote a treatise titled On the Account of
the World’s Creation Given by Moses. In this work, Philo says that God
probably created everything simultaneously and that the reference to ‘six
days’ in Genesis indicates not temporal sequence but divine orderliness
(Philo 13, 28). In the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library edition of
this work the translators, FH Colson and GH Whitaker summarize Philo’s
rather complex and subtle view of things:
By ‘six days’ Moses does not indicate a space of time in which the
world was made, but the principles of order and productivity which
governed its making [original emphasis].

It is perhaps important to note that Philo was not marginal. He was the
leading intellectual of the largest Jewish community outside of Palestine.
How widespread his views were we do not know, but his discussion of the
topic reveals no hint of controversy.

The Greek ‘Fathers’
Philo is followed in this interpretation by the second century Christian
theologian and evangelist, Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215), for whom
the six days are symbolic (Stromata VI, 16). A generation later, Origen
(185-254), the most influential theologian of the third century—again, an
Alexandrian—understood Days 2–6 of the Genesis account as days in
time. However, he regarded Day 1 as a non-temporal day. He reasoned
that without matter, which was created on the second day, there could be
no time; hence, no true ‘day’.3 What is interesting here is that a leading
Christian scholar of antiquity was comfortable mixing concrete and
metaphorical approaches to Genesis 1 (Origen in Heine 1982).

Moving to Latin-speaking scholars, the fourth century Bishop of Milan,
Saint Ambrose (AD 339–397), taught a fully symbolic understanding of
Genesis 1.4 Moreover, his greatest convert, and perhaps history’s most
influential theologian, Saint Augustine, famously championed a quite
sophisticated, non-literalistic reading of the text. Augustine understood
the ‘days’ in Genesis 1 as successive epochs in which the substance of
matter, which God had created in an instant in the distant past, was
fashioned into the various forms we now recognise (Augustine 2002).
Augustine’s view was endorsed by some of the biggest names in the
medieval church, including the Venerable Bede in the 8th century
(Hexaemeron 1, 1), St Albert the Great (Commentary on the Sentence 12,
B, I) and the incomparable Thomas Aquinas (II Sentences 12, 3, I) in the
13th century.

 

[reggieM]

Nature journal is not in the business of making blatantly religious pronouncements like that - it is a journal representing the scientific community, not a theological tract.

Nature is apparently in the business of making blatantly philosophical pronouncements (claiming that dignity cannot be used as a foundation for moral judgement).

It’s enough to see the bias in this matter and how the scientific community will accept philosophical materialism but not traditional theological concepts (which are the foundation for the Bill of Rights in the U.S. for one thing).

This merely confirms what many have criticized about the scientific community, in that a philosophical position (essentially atheist) is the default position, and can be easily found in so-called scientific journals.

 

[reggieM]

Religious belief obviously determines the opinion of many people and that opinion should be considered in deciding what society will and will not allow. However religious belief of any belief group, cannot, on its own, dictate the ethical choices in a pluralist society. Those choices need to consider a range of religious beliefs as well as the ethical choices of non-believers.

That is a helpful addition to your previous comment. I wouldn’t argue that religious belief should “dictate” the ethical choices or foundations for law, but that religion certainly should be considered an important influence in the formation of laws.

This is what was missing in the discussion on the concept of human dignity (or dignity per se). I just observed that the editorial in Nature reflected a materialist position which is incompatible with Catholicism.

The Catholic teaching is that humans possess dignity because they were created in the image and likeness of God. This sets humanity apart from animals and plants.

 

[reggieM]

We already know, as I stated, that “ID proponents" are doing science and their work is published in the scientific press. That is not in question.

It is in question for some here – this is what someone like Beeliner has been arguing for the past couple of weeks here – and that’s why I posted the item. You jumped in on the discussion to make some points that were mostly irrelevant (or else supported what I said).

I can’t claim to know more about Stylus than the concept was published in a peer-reviewed journal and the software was produced by an ID organization.

I wouldn’t attempt to analyze the software until I downloaded it and worked with it for a while.

 

[reggieM]

It is the obvious absurdity of according to plants and animals the same rights as humans that the editorial is obviously arguing against.

I don’t agree. You posted the subtitle of the editorial. The argument that Nature was making can be found summarized there:

"The use of ‘dignity’ as the foundation for an ethical law in Switzerland is compromising research"

This article is not about defending human dignity against laws that would grant rights to animals and plants.

It’s about assuring that scientists can freely do research. In order to preserve that freedom, Nature is willing to dispense with the concept of dignity entirely (for reasons already shown).

Beyond that, what you claim as “obviously absurd” was not found to be such by either the Spanish parliament or the Swiss government.

 

[beeliner]

Who’s[sic] common sense? People who have already made up their mind that the scriptures are not divinely inspired?

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/Feb98/genesis.html

< It is deceptive from the start to say that there are two creation accounts: as we’ve seen, the “second” account is a chiasmus with the sin of the fall at its center. The second creation account is not first and foremost an account of the creation, but an account of the fall which includes needed details about the creation of man. So the author is sticking to his pattern of retracing a few steps while at the same time going on to a new story.

While the Collegeville Bible Commentary does not mention this, it is often argued that the order of creation in the “first account” contradicts the order of creation in the “second account.” Before we go on, I would like to clear this up. The confusion results because Genesis 1 recounts man as the last animal created, but Genesis 2:18-19 says:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. . . .

This text seems to say that the animals were made after man, instead of before. The truth is, it’s a translation problem. Hebrew does not have the various past tenses that we have, “made, had made, was making” and so on. Hebrew has one bucket past tense to cover all that. So the verb “formed” in 2:19 could be translated:

So out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would call them. . . .

This presents God as foreseeing the problem and taking care of it, which is certainly consistent with the picture of God so concerned for man in the “first” creation account. With this translation, there is no contradiction in the order of creations. >

That explanation is silly for several reasons.

Firstly, the two creation accounts come from different sources and there isn’t the least indication that the author of either was aware of the other. Since the first account in Genesis originated several centuries later than the second, if any ‘retracing of steps’ had been involved, it would have to have been in the other direction. But besides the time difference, the two accounts originated in different lands and cultures, so that there is no reason to expect that they would agree in the details.

Secondly, it is clear from the context that both are serial accounts. The second does not use the literary device of division into days, but the language clearly implies that the events described happened in the order given.

Since you didn’t reply to the other items in my post, I will assume that you are unable to defend your position and leave it at that.

I did, however, due to time restraints, give unfairly short shrift to the last item to which I replied, which was:

1. The belief that they are allegorical precludes the belief that the creation narratives tell of actual events.

My curt reply was based on my own belief that the accounts ARE allegorical and DO NOT tell of actual events, just as you suggest.

That need not be the case, however. Such an account could very reasonably be allegorical and also true. Christians, for example, consider Adam, the Ark, and Jonah all as archetypes of Christ. The allegory is equally valid whether the stories are literally true or mere folklore.

 

[ricmat]

This is a basic misrepresentation of the facts. I don’t know any scientist who thinks that whatever can be done should be done. Nor do scientists views prevail in an unregulated environment The truth is that society as a whole, in most countries (certainly in mine) determines what can and cannot be done. Bioethics are determined not by scientists alone but by a consensus of the community.

That’s why I posted the article.

My signature says that without God anything is permitted. Or in other words, without a supreme unchangeable authoritative law, eventually somebody will come to power and decide what it is that they wish to permit. Which can change depending on who is in power. Sometimes the powers make good decisions and sometimes they don’t.

You are sore because that consensus does not accord with your personal beliefs.

Science is having more and more influence on what “consensus” believes to be right and what is wrong. Have you read the ethical views of Peter Singer? My personal beliefs, which I attempt to make conform to God’s will, are definitely at odds with Singer, Dawkins, etc. I’m not so much sore as I am concerned for society, and the promoters of personal law over God’s law.

Psychology!!! What are you talking about? There is no mention of psychology in this article.

The author of the article was a psychologist. As was stated at the end of the article. In addition, Freud was strongly influenced by Darwinian thought (not mentioned in the article). The influence of Darwinian ideas in areas other than biology is spreading to other areas, like the movement to grant to animals and even plants “human rights.”

I don’t agree with the most of the projects that the article promotes, but one thing is spot on - the continuity of human biology with the rest of nature. That has not been an open question for more than 150 years.

Continuity in the context of the article means, “incrementally different than that which preceded” Mankind is not incrementally different, but a whole nother story. That’s the revelation of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

But I’m glad that neither of us agree on the specific projects mentioned in the article. Really, I’m glad that we have some common ground.

BTW - it is Catholic teaching that although we are unique in nature, the only material creations with an immortal soul, we are called to be stewards of that creation. In fact, Adam’s job in the garden of Eden was to “tend” it.

 

[NoelFitz]

There have been over 333 posts in this discussion.

As one who has come in to the debate late, I note that much of the discussion seems to be a personal dispute between several subscribers.

Vague attacks on the integrity of scientist are not constructive.

Several sidelines are opened (eg the nature of OT interpretation) in the debate, which are interesting in themselves, but do not develop the main arguments.

Alec’s points are very good, even if his approach is combative.

Another sideissue raised was the claim that modern science developed in Protestant countries.

Would Galileo, Avogadro, Marconi, Copernicus, Kepler, Fr Mendel, Brahe, Lavoisier, Pasteur, etc. agree?

It has been claimed that the foundations of many modern sciencesd were laid by Aristotle.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Catholic teaching is that humans possess dignity because they were created in the image and likeness of God.

NO, not quite Reggie. Catholic teaching is “The natural law, in so far as it regulates human social relationships is defined as “natural rights” and as such requires complete respect for the** dignity of individuals **in the realization of the common good. **An authentic conception of the natural right, understood as the protection of the illustrious and inalienable dignity of every human being, is the guarantee of equality and gives real substance to those “rights of man” that serve as the foundation of international declarations.” ** (ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE, Wednesday 27 February 2002)

Vague attacks on the integrity of scientist are not constructive.

Several sidelines are opened (eg the nature of OT interpretation) in the debate, which are interesting in themselves, but do not develop the main arguments.

Alec’s points are very good, even if his approach is combative.

Noel, Alec is a brilliant scientist. He’s been a member of Catholic.com for many years. He wins every debate! I don’t find his “approach combative” as you suggest.

I have to kill the weeds in my garden and put out snail bait. I’ll return tomorrow to talk about science. EVOLUTION!

 

[ricmat]

The Catholic teaching is that humans possess dignity because they were created in the image and likeness of God. This sets humanity apart from animals and plants.

NO, not quite Reggie. Catholic teaching is “The natural law, in so far as it regulates human social relationships is defined as “natural rights” and as such requires complete respect for the** dignity **of individuals in the realization of the common good. An authentic conception of the natural right, understood as the protection of the illustrious and inalienable dignity of every human being, is the guarantee of equality and gives real substance to those “rights of man” that serve as the foundation of international declarations.” (ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE, Wednesday 27 February 2002)

Wildleafblower, Reggie is right.

**From the CCC #27:

"The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. "**

Man alone is called to this communion with God.

Man alone is unique in creation as adopted children of God.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God as children resemble their parents.

Alec is a brilliant scientist. He’s been a member of Catholic.com for many years. He wins every debate!

Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate. We are foolish for even trying to converse with him.

 

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by reggieM
The Catholic teaching is that humans possess dignity because they were created in the image and likeness of God.

NO, not quite Reggie.

I decided to take about 10 seconds of searching for texts to correct you. I hope this will be of help.

“Being in the image and likeness of God the human person possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into community with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.” (CCC #357)

Belief in the inherent dignity of the human person is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching. Human life is sacred, and **the dignity of the human person **is the starting point for a moral vision for society. This principle is grounded in the idea that the person is made in the image of God. The person is the clearest reflection of God among us.
Archdiocese of St. Paul - Office for Social Justice

All human beings, therefore, are ends to be served by the institutions that make up the economy, not means to be exploited for more narrowly defined goals. Human personhood must be respected with a reverence that is religious. When we deal with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the presence of something holy and sacred. For that is what human beings are: we are created in the image of God (Gn 1:27).
Economic Justice for All, #28
Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy
U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1986

Wherefore, whatever the progress in technology and economic life, there can be neither justice nor peace in the world, so long as men fail to realize how great is their dignity; for they have been created by God and are His children.
Mater et Magistra #215
Mother and Teacher
Pope John XXIII, 1961

Human persons are willed by God; they are imprinted with God’s image. Their dignity does not come from the work they do, but from the persons they are.
Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II
Centesimus Annus #11

The human person is the clearest reflection of God’s presence in the world; all of the Church’s work in pursuit of both justice and peace is designed to protect and promote the dignity of every person. For each person not only reflects God, but is the expression of God’s creative work and the meaning of Christ’s redemptive ministry.
The Challenge of Peace, #15
U.S. Bishops, 1983

Life, especially human life, belongs to God; whoever attacks human life attacks God’s very self.
Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae, #9

At the center of all Catholic social teaching are the transcendence of God and the dignity of the human person. The human person is the clearest reflection of God’s presence in the world; all of the Church’s work in pursuit of both justice and peace is designed to protect and promote the dignity of every person. For each person not only reflects God, but is the expression of God’s creative work and the meaning of Christ’s redemptive ministry.
The Challenge of Peace,
U.S. Bishops, 1983 #15

Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator” (GS 12 § 3). He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake” (GS 24 § 3), and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
Catechism of the Catholic Church #356

You might want to read Gaudium et Spes which has an entire chapter on the Dignity of the Human Person:

The root reason for human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. For man would not exist were he not created by Gods love and constantly preserved by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator. Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.
Gaudium et Spes #19

Every single person is created in the image of God. Therefore, they are invaluable and worthy of respect as a member of the human family. The dignity of the person grants them inalienable rights – political, legal, social, and economic rights.
caritas.org.nz/?sid=95

There is inherent dignity in the human person because all people are created in the image of God.
University of San Diego
Catholic Social Teachings
sandiego.edu/es/socialteaching.php

believing humans are made in the image and likeness of God,[7] Catholic doctrine teaches to respect all humans based on an supposed inherent dignity. According to John Paul II, every human person "is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God
Wikipedia
Catholic Social Teaching
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching

 

[SacredHeartFan]

The Simplist answer that no one has yet wrote:

** ONLY GOD KNOWS! **

 

[reggieM]

ricmat – thanks for your quick reply. I missed it while collecting some additional quotes.

I’d say that Wildleafblower was a bit mistaken here, as you pointed out.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate. We are foolish for even trying to converse with him.

We should just concede the debate before we even start.

Apparently, he has won the debate on whether God exists or not also – right, Wildleaf?

 

[edwest2]

The Simplist answer that no one has yet wrote:

** ONLY GOD KNOWS! **

This answer is not adequate. It affects the lives of people today. There are those that place man in the “We’re just animals” camp and those that recognize our true origin from God.

It should be obvious by now that a repackaged atheism is being promoted around the world. Just by saying “science tells us this or that” does not answer fundamental questions about human life and why it is important. Man is complete in himself, long before expert middlemen appeared on this earth to tell us how to negotiate life by giving us their answers. In reality, as the Catholic Church teaches, each one of us is able to discover God on our own.

God bless,
Ed