Creation or Evolution

[NoelFitz]

Beeliner,

essentially we are saying the same thing that the OT has different strands interwoven.

 

[beeliner]

1. The Catholic Church does not agree with this fact as you call it.
2. I am aware of all the Sumerian and other references but the Bible writers were inspired by God
3. …and the Church tells me the writings are infallible.
4. In recent years, a Bible Explanation Industry has arisen that takes Biblical miracles and offers mundane explanations for them. I’m sure this is a great comfort for modern atheists and helpful for those trying to spread the atheist belief system (usually in the form of manifestos and similar), but it denies to God one of His abilies, that is, to perform miracles.
5. As written in Humani Generis, the Church warns against those who seek novelty or those who attempt new interpretations outside the realm of established divine revelation. It also gave strict instruction about the work of the theologian which must be done in a spiritual as well as intellectual manner.

1. Neither does it dispute nor deny it.
2. "Inspired by God’ does not mean ‘literally true’, but rather whatever the user of the phrase wants it to mean.
3. No, it does not tell us that, in the sense in which you are trying to present it. The modern Church leaves such matters in the hands of its scholars.
4. Actually, the exact opposite is true. It is the literalists who devise and invent the most ridiculous ‘explanations’ of how the various errors of fact in the Bible might be reconciled. Those who are aware of the Bible’s true origins and history take such errors, inconsistancies and contradictions as a matter of course.
5. It may include one or more warnings of a purely religious nature, but it also recognizes the evolution of species as a bulwark of modern biology and offers no condemnation nor repudiation thereof. None. Nada. Zee-ro.

 

[beeliner]

And I have suggested at several points along the line that new, more specific threads should be originated, but so far no one has done so.

It is now universally accepted within SERIOUS Bible scholarship that Genesis was painstakingly woven together during the Exile by the best Hebrew scholars from four major and several minor sources. The Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible provides a verse-by-verse source identification, even in some cases splitting a verse, as Genesis 2:4.

That does not stop the literalists from claiming that Moses wrote every word of it, including the description of his own death and burial at the end of Deuteronomy, and all of the scholarship simply has to be wrong.

While you are correct that the thread has gone off topic, in another sense it’s all part of the same phenomenon: enlightened reason versus blind superstition.

 

[bnapgh]

If it can be proven to my satisfaction that no atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945? A little bit of film fakery. The victims shown had suffered injuries from incendiaries as opposed to an atomic blast and the rest of the evidence was similarly manipulated.

I’ve seen this type of question before and it is part of those involved in the Bible Explanation Industry.

Peace,
Ed

So are we to conclude that if any word in the Bible were poetical rather than historical, then you might indict the validity of the entire work? If not where do you draw the line?

Does the Church not explain one of Christ’s promises that certain things would happen in the lifetimes of the Apostles, things that have yet to occur, as a sort of semantical difference?

If in Revelation John were able to preview 21st Century warfare (say a six-engined bomber or six-gunned helicopter) and if John then described it in his own lexicon as a seven-headed dragon (6 plus cockpit), would that invalidate the revelation?

In your opinion, must God’s revelation have been dictated word-for-word, like the Book of Mormon purports to have been?

Is it possible that God revealed concepts to Moses who was then charged with putting them into words his flock would understand?

Are there not two biblical forms of ‘‘knowledge’’: understanding and personal experience?

How deleterious would it be to our Faith if the Holy Spirit had intended ‘‘infallibility’’ to be understood as ‘‘unfailing’’ in terms of the flocks’ reliance or assurance or confidence, rather than in terms of some human form of ‘‘factual’’ accuracy?

Is this imposiible?

Please note my signature quotes.

Thanks for your patience and tolerance.

 

[bnapgh]

universally accepted

SERIOUS Bible scholarship

all of the scholarship

enlightened reason versus blind superstition.

Were these adjectives and adverbs chosen with the intent of accord or discord?

 

[edwest2]

With enough imagination and a few skillfull lies, I think one could cast doubt on almost any event - lawyers do it in courtrooms all the time.

However, in the matter of the Bible, what everyone has ignored is the spiritual aspect. A real, factual aspect. Scholarship, human scholarship, is superficial at best regarding the Bible.

"Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

“It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.”

– Humani Generis

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

[msg. 351)
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.
wildleafblower;3870148:

[msg.352]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.
ricmat;3870290:

[msg.353]Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate. We are foolish for even trying to converse with him.

[msg.359]
Yep, he is brillant and wins every debate! He likes to debate. Don’t be shy. Remember he is a scientist and knows all about SCIENCE.
ricmat;3871982:

[msg. 365]Unless you are claiming that Alec is God, he might be wrong. There are scientists who disagree with his views.

It is strange that a Roman Catholic woman who loves the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be pushing pride instead of humility.

“He has shown the strength of his arm. He has scattered the proud in their conceit. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly.” Luke 1:51-52.

Late concert last night so I’ll deal with this particular subject matter which I’ve noted above. I always like to gather my thoughts for a few days before commenting. Ricmat, I never said Alec was God. I resent the fact that you would even suggest such a silly notion. And I remind you that you did state, “Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate.” Yes, the truth is, pseudo-scientists do disagree with Alec’s views and he does use his knowledge of science to win the debate. That is a fact. There is plenty evidence of that here on Catholic.com and elsewhere. Ricmat, as a Roman Catholic lady please in the future refrain from *pushing * your blind ignorance unto me by quoting scripture that is irrelevant since there was absolutely not an ounce of conceit within my postings. (A big smile by me within the context of my postings denotes a friendly open gesture.) I can’t help it if your mind travels in the opposite direction though it now occurs to me that you like to use biblical text (msg.362) to use a strong hand when putting down a woman. Bible thumping me into a submission doesn’t cut the rug with me. I only recognize your failed attempt to publicly dehumanize me though others may not.

[msg. 365]Unless you are claiming that Alec is God, he might be wrong. There are scientists who disagree with his views.
hecd2;3879144:

[msg. 415]I obviously am imperfect like everyone else, I might indeed be wrong and there are scientists who disagree with some of my views.

I am embarrassed by and deplore the personal comments by others which lead you to rightly post this comment.

Alec

Cute. A little male bonding. Alec, I was delighted that you appeared to me to have compared yourself to God and realized that you are imperfect as is every human being. This is wonderful! If you were “embarrassed” and filled with “regret” perhaps you may consider biting your tongue until I have an opportunity to air my views and present a paper trail of exchanges.

Obviously, there are times when men don’t think like women. My major concern is women do play an important role in science and every other issue they wish to pursue. Men do at times tend to dominate every facet of life. At least with most of boards that I have been involved in on the Internet. I’m left blinded at times and confused. Recently, I noticed a scientist (not Alec) on the Internet that I endlessly helped with research material, who didn’t know I was a Catholic, publicly announce he was anti-God. I was crushed to pieces. Can I separate the Science from the attitude? Truth is, time will only tell. I most definitely pray and wonder about it, realizing peoples views may change or soften to a degree. What I have noticed is I’m not frail. I’m a very strong willed individual that quickly forgives. I’m a survivor though still convinced that MEN ARE FROM MARS and WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS! Well, we are all evolving and persisting.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, I never said Alec was God. I resent the fact that you would even suggest such a silly notion.

I said that “Unless you are claiming that Alec is God…” So you are not claiming that. Good!

And I remind you that you did state, “Yes, and we know Alec is brilliant. And he wins every debate.” Yes, the truth is, pseudo-scientists do disagree with Alec’s views and he does use his knowledge of science to win the debate. That is a fact.

One of the difficulties of writing in these forums is that sarcasm is sometimes not evident. In this case, it apparently was not evident to you.

Also, there are scientists, not just “pseudo-scientists” who disagree with Alec. It seems that you believe that anybody who disagrees with Alec must by definition be a “pseudo scientist.” That of course is not true.

There is plenty evidence of that here on Catholic.com and elsewhere. Ricmat, as a Roman Catholic lady please in the future refrain from *pushing * your blind ignorance unto me by quoting scripture that is irrelevant since there was absolutely not an ounce of conceit within my postings. (A big smile by me within the context of my postings denotes a friendly open gesture.)

Wildleafblower - you misunderstood my remarks. I believe that there is not an ounce of conceit in you, or your postings. My concern is not for you, but for Alec. Before I continue, I’d like to mention that Alec has “toned down significantly” in a good way recently. But it seems to me to be a bad idea for anyone to pump up someone elses pride. That is not good for THEIR soul. I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that you love him very much. Don’t tempt him into hell!

I can’t help it if your mind travels in the opposite direction though it now occurs to me that you like to use biblical text (msg.362) to use a strong hand when putting down a woman. Bible thumping me into a submission doesn’t cut the rug with me. I only recognize your failed attempt to publicly dehumanize me though others may not.

Really, you are way off base here. I was not putting you down. I was putting down those whose pride is puffed up. That’s not you! Maybe it’s not even Alec!!

Although we disagree on some things, I admire your faith, and your love. I believe that “random mutations” were not all “random”, and you believe that they were. So we can agree to disagree there.

I like you wildleafblower (although I sometimes have difficulty understanding what you are getting at in your posts).

 

[ricmat]

Obviously, there are times when men don’t think like women. My major concern is women do play an important role in science and every other issue they wish to pursue.

For the record, I want to state that my “baby” (daughter, now 19 years old) just got a BS in Physics 2 years early, and is enrolled in a PHD program at a prestigious Eastern university (also in Physics).

So I agree that women can play an important role in science.

MEN ARE FROM MARS and WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS!

If you’re looking for an argument about that, it is unlikely that you’ll get one on this forum!

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

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).

The points I made were not irrelevant and they certainly don’t support your position.

There are two classes of claim that you made. The first is that ID proponents (or cdesign proponentsists as they are more popularly known) publish research in peer reviewed journals. That is the point that is not in question and that I fully agree with.

The second class of claim that you made is that ID, as a theoretical framework is a scientific hypothesis and that there is scientific work done and published in the peer reviewed press that is based on this theoretical framework. That claim is utterly void. ID does no scientific work, adds nothing to the store of scientific knowledge and publishes no papers. This Stylus paper cannot change that conclusion because it does not have any ID content. ID proponents can publish in the peer reviewed press. What they cannot do, because they do not do any science that is based on an ID framework, is publish** ID papers** in the peer reviewed press.

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.

Nonsense. You have made much stronger claims for it than this. I note your disengagement from the technical discussion.

The platform is described in the PLosOne paper. It can be evaluated for the validity of its conceptual framework on that basis. Doing so reveals the fundamental failures in its core that I have already described. Unless you are an expert structural biologist, working with it will add nothing to that (unless it has programming errors that are independent of the concepts it employs. I assume that it is not so grossly inadequate).

The conclusion of all of this is that when we take the existence of this paper into account, we still conclude that Intelligent Design as a framework does not contribute to our theoretical or empirical scientific knowledge. It has failed, as a scientific endeavour at every turn and it continues to do so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

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.

Agreed, that secular (and ecclesiastical) power sometimes over-reaches itself and becomes malevolent, but the problem is that one man’s “supreme unchangeable authoritative law” is another man’s anathema. We live in a pluralist society with Catholics, Protestants, Christian fundamentalists, non-Christian theists, deists, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists; and the written (USA) and unwritten (UK, for example) constitutions of modern societies have accorded each view equal rights to exist and to influence the social order. I think that is good thing, but you would plunge us back into theocracy, or at least that is how it seems.

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?

Well yes, Singer’s views are at the end of a spectrum - most atheists, most scientists do not agree with Singer. Yet his views, in that they accord rights rather than denying them, are benevolent, and if daft, at least they serve the valuable function of moving the consensus towards a proper consideration of animal welfare.Which, in your rich conception of humanity as Nature’s stewards, you cannot but applaud.

Alec

 

[ricmat]

I think that is good thing, but you would plunge us back into theocracy, or at least that is how it seems.

I haven’t checked the formal definition of theocracy. But let me say that I believe that the government should not impose religion on anyone. But laws have to come from somewhere. I think that the Judeo-Christian heritage provides a good basis for our laws.

Well yes, Singer’s views are at the end of a spectrum - most atheists, most scientists do not agree with Singer. Yet his views, in that they accord rights rather than denying them, are benevolent, and if daft, at least they serve the valuable function of moving the consensus towards a proper consideration of animal welfare.Which, in your rich conception of humanity as Nature’s stewards, you cannot but applaud.

Well it’s good to hear that most scientists are not in communion with Singer.

The responsibilities of stewardship include establishing priorities and a proper balance. The steward of e.g. a vineyard would not say “We can’t pick any grapes because it diminishes their dignity, and they are just as important as humans are.” The steward would say, pick the grapes, use them for purposes which benefit humans (like making wine!), but also be sure to tend the vines, add fertilizer, kill off the boll weevils or whatever it is that kills the vines, and… (I’m not a farmer, but I assume that they do other stuff as well).

Certainly, it is a sin to mistreat animals - for example, for the mere purpose of torturing them.

Although some of Singer’s ideas may be worthy, we can’t let them be the nose under the tent which leads to more acceptance of his general agenda. To reach the point where we must save the plants and snail darters but can kill off 2 year old infants, it seems to me that there has been an inversion of “good” and “evil”.

I hope that Singer comes to see the truth someday, and reforms his agenda.

 

[hecd2]

But how each of us views science is tremendously important in the long run. The worst sin is that of pride, denying our need for God (either as creator, or in a more “personal God” way).

I view science as the most wonderful way that mankind has devised to uncover truth about the universe in which we live. It is uniquely capable of doing so. It is a genuinely illuminating and liberating way to view our world and our lives.

I cannot agree that the rejection of a personal God is the “worst” sin - worse than murder, worse than indifference in the face of starvation, worse than torture, worse than the denial of human rights, worse than refusal to allow prophylaxis in the face of a continental pandemic? No. There are worse things that mankind can do than abandon the idea of a personal God.

This survey leads me to believe that perhaps science is being used as the ultimate temptation, covering all 3 sin categories simultaneously (inordinate desire for pleasure/material wealth, inordinate desire for fame, and inordinate desire for power.) A threesome that’s hard to resist, and goes hand in hand with pride.

Well, my view is that science and rationalism is the greatest progressive undertaking of mankind, a rational project that illuminates the world in which we live, that has been a greater force to improve the human condition than any other. I am grateful beyond expression that I was not born before anaesthetics, bronchodilators and antibiotics, into feudalism or slavery, or into a world in which my views would have led me to the rack or the pyre.

We all benefit from the radical Enlightenment programmes that established the Rights of mankind - we all take them for granted. We all bristle if they are violated and denigrate dictators for ignoring them. We all vote (well maybe some of us take the trouble to vote), we all support democracy and the determination of the people. Don’t we? We agree, don’t we, that people should be free to follow whatever religion we choose. Where do we think those rights arose? Not with the Church, but with Locke, Rousseau, Franklin and Voltaire

As for an inordinate desire for power, Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors could not be a more perfect example.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

It’s an interesting theological exposition. I appreciate your opinions on Catholic teaching. It’s been a matter of debate whether the Vatican II documents such as Dignatis Humanae can be reconciled with the Syllabus of Errors or not. You’ve drawn a definite conclusion here that they cannot be reconciled. I have to accept that as a matter of conjecture from an untrained, non-Catholic layman but your thoughts certainly have some value to consider.

I don’t know and don’t care whether Vatican II can be reconciled with the Syllabus of Errors.That is a matter for the Church. If the Church feels compelled to attempt to reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with modern Church teaching in the face of what is, according to a plain reading of the documents, unreconcilable, then who am I to challenge that? I appreciate the theological sleight of hand needed to do so.

My point was quite different and historical rather than theological. I was pointing out that the Syllabus of Errors is in direct opposition to the philosophy of the Founding fathers of the USA as documented in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the voice of the people in Parliament and Congress on both sides of the Atlantic and the democratisation of Europeans and Americans. These things have their foundation in Enlightenment values, not in Catholic theology.

The fact that the U.S. Bill of Rights was created in part through Enlightenment principles does not necessarily mean that it is incompatible with traditional Catholic theology to some extent. I was referring only to the text that refers to the origin of man’s rights as coming from the Creator.

Catholicism, at least as established in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries fought against the rights of individuals. That denial culminated in the astonishingly conservative Syllabus of Errors. Had American Catholics taken Pius IX seriously they would have campaigned against the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. That, unfortunately, is a historical fact. The text you are referring to, by the way is in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It is not the Bill of Rights which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

I view science as the most wonderful way that mankind has devised to uncover truth about the universe in which we live. It is uniquely capable of doing so. It is a genuinely illuminating and liberating way to view our world and our lives.

Certainly, it is a useful tool to discover things about the universe which can be used for mankind’s benefit.

I cannot agree that the rejection of a personal God is the “worst” sin - worse than murder, worse than indifference in the face of starvation, worse than torture, worse than the denial of human rights, worse than refusal to allow prophylaxis in the face of a continental pandemic? No. There are worse things that mankind can do than abandon the idea of a personal God.

But it is the rejection of God that allows / permits murder, indifference in the face of starvation, torture, denial of human rights. With regard to prophylaxis, the only sure thing that works is to do it only with another virgin. Which is what God wants.

Well, my view is that science and rationalism is the greatest progressive undertaking of mankind, a rational project that illuminates the world in which we live, that has been a greater force to improve the human condition than any other.

Certainly, science has been a tool for good. I’m an engineer, after all. That’s what I tried to do for a living. But it is also a tool for evil (atom bombs, germ warfare, etc.)

I am grateful beyond expression that I was not born before anaesthetics, bronchodilators and antibiotics,

me too

into feudalism or slavery, or into a world in which my views would have led me to the rack or the pyre.

I’m not sure how science prevented these things. BTW I would also agree that religion can be used for both good and evil purposes.

We all benefit from the radical Enlightenment programmes that established the Rights of mankind - we all take them for granted.

But in the US, our rights originate with God, not science. Or so says the Declaration of Independence.

We all bristle if they are violated and denigrate dictators for ignoring them. We all vote (well maybe some of us take the trouble to vote), we all support democracy and the determination of the people. Don’t we? We agree, don’t we, that people should be free to follow whatever religion we choose. Where do we think those rights arose? Not with the Church, but with Locke, Rousseau, Franklin and Voltaire

The Declaration of Independence says they originated with God. And we have freedom of religion.

And the most enlightened countries of Great Britain and France both have state churches to this day.

I won’t comment on Protestant churches, or Islam, or anything but Catholicism. Catholics are called to evangelize others, for the benefit of those others. And a forced conversion is not really a conversion. I know of no Catholics that would force anyone to be Catholic.

As with most things, there were some good things that the “enlightenment” brought forth. But it is highly overrated

With regard to what Christianity has done for the world, a good book is “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” It has a few chapters on science which you might enjoy, even if you found the rest of the book boring.

 

[buffalo]

I view science as the most wonderful way that mankind has devised to uncover truth about the universe in which we live. It is uniquely capable of doing so. It is a genuinely illuminating and liberating way to view our world and our lives.

I cannot agree that the rejection of a personal God is the “worst” sin - worse than murder, worse than indifference in the face of starvation, worse than torture, worse than the denial of human rights, worse than refusal to allow prophylaxis in the face of a continental pandemic? No. There are worse things that mankind can do than abandon the idea of a personal God.
Well, my view is that science and rationalism is the greatest progressive undertaking of mankind, a rational project that illuminates the world in which we live, that has been a greater force to improve the human condition than any other. I am grateful beyond expression that I was not born before anaesthetics, bronchodilators and antibiotics, into feudalism or slavery, or into a world in which my views would have led me to the rack or the pyre.

We all benefit from the radical Enlightenment programmes that established the Rights of mankind - we all take them for granted. We all bristle if they are violated and denigrate dictators for ignoring them. We all vote (well maybe some of us take the trouble to vote), we all support democracy and the determination of the people. Don’t we? We agree, don’t we, that people should be free to follow whatever religion we choose. Where do we think those rights arose? Not with the Church, but with Locke, Rousseau, Franklin and Voltaire

As for an inordinate desire for power, Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors could not be a more perfect example.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

If one does not accept God of course human endeavors are most important. It comes as no surprise that you wouldn’t care. So??? If you do not believe why spend the energy trying to convince others? You could spend your time doing more heroic things like saving the world.

Science (a subset of reason) is a wonderful way to discover the world around us and unlock mysteries.

It is not the only way. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. We are limited by the dimensions we live in, and our senses.

All these rights come from above. We would have no rights without a creator.

When you die you will be either right or wrong. If you are obstinately convinced there is no God you won’t spend eternity with Him. If you have faith (opening one’s mind and heart to God) then you have a much better chance at bliss.

At the time of reckoning you just might wish you were born at a time where you were not completely seduced by science and your own arrogance.

Have you read the Irrational Atheist yet?

 

[hecd2]

Please accept my apology for the hyperbole I employed in my comment.

No apology needed given the circumstances that led to your comment. I would have taken the same tack as you did.

I have clear views, and I believe that they are right, and warranted by the facts, but no-one should regard me as an authority or take what I have to say without critical consideration or study.

I’m sure you won’t

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

For the record, I want to state that my “baby” (daughter, now 19 years old) just got a BS in Physics 2 years early, and is enrolled in a PHD program at a prestigious Eastern university (also in Physics).

So I agree that women can play an important role in science.

Congratulations. That’s fantastic. I know *exactly *how you feel. Care to share what field of research she is working in?

Alec

 

[ricmat]

Congratulations. That’s fantastic. I know *exactly *how you feel. Care to share what field of research she is working in?

Alec

My daughter will be working in “condensed matter” physics. What we used to call “solid state” physics.

 

[hecd2]

I haven’t checked the formal definition of theocracy. But let me say that I believe that the government should not impose religion on anyone. But laws have to come from somewhere. I think that the Judeo-Christian heritage provides a good basis for our laws.

Of course you don’t think that the government should impose religion. I was misled by your statement about the primacy of absolute morality and the unchanging moral law. I am not sure that we, in UK and USA, do live by laws that are primarily “Judeo-Christian” but rather by the Anglo-Saxon conception of individual rights (as enshrined in Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right, and the Enlightenment values of Paine’s Rights of Man) - very few of these, are at bottom, supported by Judeo-Christian theology. Anglo-Saxon and, eg, Italian, jurisprudence are fundamentally different.

Alec
evolutionpages.com