creationism and evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter doris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
buffalo:
Yup! Here they are:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE


Now pay attention to the pronouncements by prior Popes and infallibility.
Buffalo! Why didn’t you post this sooner? Have you posted this in these forums before?

Oh! The hours I’ve spent trying to formulate my beliefs on this matter…and here in this one link is the summation of everything my heart has been suggesting to me! My discussions with wanerious and others herein has been an unsuccessful attempt to recreate what this man has already done.

Orogeny, Philvaz, you guys have got to read this. I would love to hear your responses.

Wanerious, I think you would find it enlightening as well, but as a Protestant I realize that you have the liberty to judge the truth in all these matters based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible. Orogeny and Philvaz, like myself, do not have that liberty.

Thanks buffalo !!! 👍
 
Chris W:
Buffalo! Why didn’t you post this sooner? Have you posted this in these forums before?

Oh! The hours I’ve spent trying to formulate my beliefs on this matter…and here in this one link is the summation of everything my heart has been suggesting to me! My discussions with wanerious and others herein has been an unsuccessful attempt to recreate what this man has already done.

Orogeny, Philvaz, you guys have got to read this. I would love to hear your responses.

Wanerious, I think you would find it enlightening as well, but as a Protestant I realize that you have the liberty to judge the truth in all these matters based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible. Orogeny and Philvaz, like myself, do not have that liberty.

Thanks buffalo !!! 👍
:bounce::bounce: :bounce:🙂
 
ChrisW << Orogeny, Philvaz, you guys have got to read this. I would love to hear your responses. >>

I’ve read them, Living Tradition has some of the best traditional stuff on the subject. Buffalo (and others) have posted that before. It’s very good I agree, but now read this:

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Especially, paragraphs 62, 63, 64 of this document. Here are some important parts:

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism [around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago]. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.” (Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, paragraph 63)

On this document: The theme of “man created in the image of God” was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication.

Who is right, Fr. Brian Harrison or Cardinal Ratzinger? Looks like Cardinal Ratzinger has no problems with either a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and the evolution of man, and that all life is related by descent with modification. Therefore, what Fr. Harrison has been quoting from the Popes may not be infallibly defined after all. :confused: I’m no theologian, but the head theologian responsible for doctrine has no theological problems. I’ll print out that Fr. Harrison article and look at it carefully.

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
I’ll print out that Fr. Harrison article and look at it carefully.

Phil P
Sounds good. I’ll do the same with your suggested reading.

I’ll be away from the computer tomorrow (this whole “work” thing really interferes with my personal stuff 😃 ). But I’ll check back hopefully this weekend, and we can compare notes, so to speak.

Peace,
Chris
 
40.png
buffalo:
Yup! Here they are:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Now pay attention to the pronouncements by prior Popes and infallibility.
I think you have sent me to that article before. Anyway, it is an interesting academic paper. I think that the Vatican would disagree with the good father.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Who is right, Fr. Brian Harrison or Cardinal Ratzinger?
well, to be fair, that’s not really the right question to be asking, since harrison’s essay is a collation and analysis of historical (patristic and papal), theological and doctrinal sources for the eve-from-adam’s-side hypothesis, while ratzinger’s line about common descent is not only a straightforward scientific synopsis, but one which is given by a prelate only in his capacity as…what? private biologist? geologist?
Looks like Cardinal Ratzinger has no problems with either a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and the evolution of man, and that all life is related by descent with modification.
to be fair again, nothing about harrison’s article suggests that he is not amenable to those things, either: his thesis specifically concerns the special and miraculous origin of eve from the flesh of adam. something which god may directly have arranged 12 or 13 billion years after the big bang while the first man lay sleeping in the shade on some prehistoric savannah somewhere.
Therefore, what Fr. Harrison has been quoting from the Popes may not be infallibly defined after all.
true enough. but whether or not it has been so defined has got nothing at all to do with science. or the scientific opinions of one cardinal.
 
john doran:
you know, i’m really trying to understand, but i’m afraid i just don’t get it: i can see that you feel newton made some kind of calculational error with regard to kepler, but, for the life of me, i can’t comprehend what you’re saying it is.

thanks for your patience.
I do not have patience,I have learned to live with my impatience.It is perfectly fine to say that you cannot comprehend these things but I assure you that I am capable of taking this anti-Catholic Newton to pieces and demonstrating as best I can what he did wrong and how he cooked the astronomical books.If I have to do this astronomical forensics on my own then so be it.

sparknotes.com/biography/newton/section7.rhtml

This material is’nt even difficult and a Catholic might even surprise himself/herself by recognising what exactly went wrong through a bit of effort.

Do you see this animated graphic comparing circular motion
with elliptical motion.

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/PageMill_Resources/ellipse.gif
Circular and Elliptical Orbits Having the Same Period and Focus

The circular orbit does not exist in actuality for Keplerian motion is elliptical in shape and the orbital rotation rate varies over the course of an annual orbit.

So,what is wrong with the following picture which justifies the rotation rate of the Earth as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.
hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

http://www.nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103_files/AACHCIR0.JPG

The correct rate for the rotation of the Earth on its axis through 360 deg is and always will be 24 hours exactly due to the INTRICATE principles which support that value.

Newton used brute reasoning based on Flamsteed to switch the rotation rate of the Earth from 24 hours through 360 deg to 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

If you have difficulty comprehending this I would not know how to proceed further save writing out in large letters what makes our race the dumbest ever to set foot on the planet in terms of astronomy and investigation of celestial phenomena.

SCIENTISTS HAVE CHOSEN THE WRONG ROTATION RATE OF THE EARTH TO BASE THEIR THEORIES ON.IT BEGAN WITH NEWTON’S PRINCIPIA IN 1687.

Is that clear enough.

.
 
40.png
rossum:
You are wrong. Half-lives can be verified by just weighing and counting.

1 Take a lump of pure Uranium-238, or any other radioactive isotope, and weigh it.
2 Look up the atomic weight of Uranium-238 and work out how many atoms of U238 there are in your lump.
3 Put some Geiger counters around your lump of Uranium and count the number of atoms that decay in one hour.
4 You now know how many atoms there were at the start and how many of then decayed in a period of one hour. This gives you enough information to work out how long it would take for half the number of atoms originally present to decay.
5 Congratualtions! You have just found the half-life of Uranium-238.

Your argument fails because it is based on the non-verifiability of half lives, which is a false premise. Any argument based on a false premise fails.

Please bear in mind that scientists do not just pull these numbers out of a hat. They are worked on very hard by many scientists, measuring and re-measuring to ever greater accuracy. If you have a difficulty with the consequences of these numbers then that is your problem. The numbers are correct to within the stated limits.

Not that I don’t agree with you, but do concede the unstated premise of your argument, which is that a measurement today and a measurement tomorrow will produce the same result. Don’t think that even relativity takes care of that.

rossum
 
It seems obsurd to suggest in evoluation in the sense that we started out as single celled organisms, and then slowly evolved into other things. There seem to be examples in creation that suggest that evolution is not what it seems. Take for instance the bombardier beatle. I will leave it to you to do research as im sure there are two sides to every story. What it boils down to is this though; how is arguing over evolution bring other people to knowledge and faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ?

Sure i like to get into these heated intellectual discussions, but at times they become like endless geneologies…fruitless…Lets work with what we do know…More will be revealed…
peace
 
When these discussions become heated, it is no longer about God, or bring people to Christ, but rather it becomes about pride, pride in our intelect, and the greatness of science or humanity. The truth is that Science has blinded us in many ways. You can not deny that. secular science has fueled the greatest lie ever told.

Remember: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind strength and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Peace
 
wait…how did we evolve as spiritual creatures…?
Are other creatures spiritual? I think not…
 
Steve Anderson said, and I quote:

“No, evolution is not a matter of faith. There is nothing there to believe. Just things you can measure.”

The problem with radiometric “dating” is it is not measuring time it is measuring the ratio between two radioisotopes. Radiometric “dating” makes assumptions about what the ratio was long ago without being able to observe or prove what that ratio was when the rock was formed.
It has been shown that varying amounts of radioactive Potassium and its daughter element Argon exist in newly formed rocks. Rocks tested from young volcanoes showed up with varying ages, some millions of years old and some hundreds of thousands and some thousands of years old. If the theory of radiometric dating is correct these rocks should have all dated young (less than 100 hundred years old for some volcanoes and in some other cases only 10 years old, ie Mount St. Helens).
It has been demonstrated through scientific investigation that the quantity of Potassium and Argon at the creation of a rock is not known. However, the pseudo science of evolution refuses to acknowledge this and continues to purport false data. The evolutionist allows their own bias and belief systems to adversely effect their reasoning and scientific interpretations of data.
 
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s *Evolution *series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There **is **scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard. www.discovery.org

(scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position)

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

**“**Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown, Asst. Prof. of nvironmental Studies, Trinity Western (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences • .William Pelletier, Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of hemistry, U. of Georgia • Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of Georgia • Ken Smith, Prof. of Mathematics, Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology, Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller, PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College • Donald F. Calbreath, Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad. School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson, William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton • Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas • Chris Grace, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State • Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science, M.I.T. • Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor
 
SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM CONTINUED

John L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie, Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering, Seattle PacIfic U. • David Berlinski, PhD Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineering, U. of Auckland • John Bloom, Assoc. Prof., Physics, Biola U. • James Graham, Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner, Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science, Biola U. • Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas • Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri • Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Huntington College • Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington • Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U. • Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College • Jed Macosko, Postdoc. Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley • Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht, Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska • Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M • David Prentice, Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U. • Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley • James Tour, Chao Prof.of Chemistry, Rice U. • Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M • Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College • Vincente Villa, Prof. of Biology, Southwestern U. • James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U. • Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U. • Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science-Cambridge • Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago • Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute
 
Edwin Taraba:
The problem with radiometric “dating” is it is not measuring time it is measuring the ratio between two radioisotopes. Radiometric “dating” makes assumptions about what the ratio was long ago without being able to observe or prove what that ratio was when the rock was formed.
It has been shown that varying amounts of radioactive Potassium and its daughter element Argon exist in newly formed rocks. Rocks tested from young volcanoes showed up with varying ages, some millions of years old and some hundreds of thousands and some thousands of years old. If the theory of radiometric dating is correct these rocks should have all dated young (less than 100 hundred years old for some volcanoes and in some other cases only 10 years old, ie Mount St. Helens).
It has been demonstrated through scientific investigation that the quantity of Potassium and Argon at the creation of a rock is not known. However, the pseudo science of evolution refuses to acknowledge this and continues to purport false data. The evolutionist allows their own bias and belief systems to adversely effect their reasoning and scientific interpretations of data.
I’m afraid that you don’t really understand how radiometric dating works. This has been posted before in this thread, but in case you missed it, here is a link to an explanation of radiometric dating by a Christian physicist.

asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

He discusses the K/Ar issues you cite.

Peace

Tim
 
Edwin Taraba:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s *Evolution *series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There **is **scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard. www.discovery.org

(scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position)

Does this really mean anything? I can play that game too. Here is a link to Project Steve, a list of PhDs whose first name is Steve who support the following statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.
talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

I would list the names, but it would take way too many replies to get them all in.

Peace

Tim

**
**
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Does this really mean anything? I can play that game too. Here is a link to Project Steve, a list of PhDs whose first name is Steve who support the following statement:

talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

I would list the names, but it would take way too many replies to get them all in.

Peace

Tim

The creationists make easy targets and it is a no-brainer to formulate arguments based on their conceptions of natural development ,either animate or inanimate however when attension is drawn to deficiencies in the physical picture of geological evolution based on the development of terrestial surface features by mainstream geologists,they prove to be no better than their creationist counterparts.

For instance,the Pangean supercontinent appears as a form of deferred creationism with no mechanism for explaining how the continent formed and then split apart while simultaneously (and correctly) recognising ongoing superposition.

geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/Plate.html

I could point out to geologists that the Equatorial bulge is generated by the astronomical motion of the Earth but they positively refuse to consider the effects of these motions on crustal motion and develeopment.

Ultimately the creation/evolution ‘debates’ are products of the same unoriginal and silly mindset with one side no better than the other.Thankfully a few participants here recognise the subtleties of distinguishing Darwinism from the trajectory of the development of variations in life forms including humanity which loosely can be called evolution.
 
40.png
RobbyS:
Not that I don’t agree with you, but do concede the unstated premise of your argument, which is that a measurement today and a measurement tomorrow will produce the same result.
If it is an unstated premise, then it is an unstated premise of life as well as of science. In the morning do you try to eat your shoes? Just because they weren’t edible yesterday does not mean that you can assume that they are still inedible today. Do you look in you refrigerator for your socks, and in your sock drawer for the milk? Just because that is where things were last night does not mean that you can assume that they are in the same place this morning. Life without the basic assumption of continuity would be rather different from what we normally observe.

Not just science, but life, would be impossible if we were not allowed to make a few basic presumptions about the way thing work. Scientists have been measuring the atomic weights of lots of elements for a good few years now. During all that time the weights have not changed to within the accuracy of the measurements. Using astronomical data we can confirm that many physical constants have remained unchanged for long periods of time. It is a reasonable presumption that the weights and the physical constants will remain unchanged. When you have evidence that the presumption is wrong, then please bring it forward.

Have a look at this webpage for a fuller discussion of the assumption of the continuity of phenomena.

Tell me, do you expect the Sun to rise in the East or in the North tomorrow?

rossum
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Who is right, Fr. Brian Harrison or Cardinal Ratzinger? Looks like Cardinal Ratzinger has no problems with either a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and the evolution of man, and that all life is related by descent with modification. Therefore, what Fr. Harrison has been quoting from the Popes may not be infallibly defined after all. :confused: I’m no theologian, but the head theologian responsible for doctrine has no theological problems. I’ll print out that Fr. Harrison article and look at it carefully.

Phil P
Okay, Phil, I’ve carefully read both documents. I do not see what you describe as a contradiction between the two documents.

The text you quoted from chapter 63, was prefaced in the first sentence with “*According to the widely accepted scientific account…”*and then again half way thru with “…the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision…”..

It is pretty clear throughout the document that the authors’ objective was to discuss the theology of the image of God from many angles. It has been worded very carefully, in my opinion, so as not to rule either way in the matter of evolution. This is only prudent of the Church, given the history of changing science which has the potential to cause scandel (i.e. Gallilleo).

In fact, this document even creates more questions: For example, it describes in paragraph 9 that the “image of God” is not a spiritual or physical aspect of man, but both together and inseparably. Then, in paragraphs 65 and 66 it discusses the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, desribing it as a personal and intentional act. These statements seem to encourage a more literal reading of Genesis, which would in fact support Fr. Harrison’s work.

In short, I see no contradiction between the two documents. The ITC document clearly leaves the door open for acceptance of evolution of some sort, although it stays vague enough to be non-difinitive. Fr. Harrison’s document doesn’t rule out all types of evolution, but merely proves Eve was the result of direct creation from Adam’s side.

And as Fr. Harrison said in his conclusion, people may disagree with him, but to do so justifiably they need to be able explain where he erred. Can you? (I can’t).
 
40.png
Orogeny:
I think you have sent me to that article before. Anyway, it is an interesting academic paper. I think that the Vatican would disagree with the good father.

Peace

Tim
Why do you beleve the Vatican would disagree? Have you found a flaw in his work? If so, please tell me now, before I get too attached this this beautiful piece of work 😃 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top