Creationism and life in general

[grannymh]

This could be interpreted as the rise of the soul among humanity - though I don’t know much about anthropology so could be wrong and there might be a perfectly natural explanation for this - what do you think Al?

The natural explanation for “rise of the soul” a concept shared by millions and millions of people, probably for centuries, is the basic, human friendly, all-purpose philosophy of natural materialism.

 

[grannymh]

But I have noted here how selective Catholics are when it comes to choosing the Church documents that appear to support their prejudicial thinking and how easily they neglect those that do not. It is rather exasperating, I must say.

Unfortunately, your comments cut across the board to the point that I no longer have to read posts favorable to polygenism because these posts use the same tactics as religious, non-scientific geocentrists.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unfortunately, your comments cut across the board to the point that I no longer have to read posts favorable to polygenism because these posts use the same tactics as religious, non-scientific geocentrists.

I have answered to this on page 4 of the thread “Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve”, since it fits the topic.

 

[tonyrey]

You are setting up a false dichotomy. To a Christian, how can anything that exists be inconsistent with God? If God sustains everything then everything is consistent with God. A natural explanation is merely an examination of how God is acting through nature: “Let the earth bring forth …”

It appears to be you that is restricting God to using solely miraculous means.

rossum

Ah, but you’re mistaken. God uses **every means **at His disposal - including those we are not even aware of. Your concept of the Christian God is far too small!

 

[tonyrey]

NeoDarwinists associate natural selection with abiogenesis

                            Agreed, but that does not contradict the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are separate processes with different explanations.One without the other wouldn't meet the demands of the zealous atheist - although a few Catholics on this forum are heading in the direction of a receding Deity. Perhaps it's only a question of time...

Suffice it to say that you reject God because you believe natural causes are a sufficient

and adequate explanation of the universe. Occam’s Razor! For you God is redundant …
Your mind reading powers have failed you. I do have my reasons for not accepting the Abrahamic God, but not the reasons you state.You mean you do believe natural causes aren’t a sufficient and adequate explanation of the universe! Miracles never cease…

 

[Al_Moritz]

This thread reminds me more and more of discussions of Democrats with Republicans . . .

 

[Al_Moritz]

One without the other wouldn’t meet the demands of the zealous atheist - although a few Catholics on this forum are heading in the direction of a receding Deity.

Well, we have discussed the ‘receding deity’ issue already, haven’t we?

Perhaps it’s only a question of time…

What? For me to become an atheist? Dream on, ain’t gonna happen. It’s gonna happen now with less likelyhood than ever before, and most certainly with less probability than when I was still a naive ID proponent. At that time I was vulnerable, now I am not (by God’s grace).

From your perspective you may not understand that, perhaps one day you will.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I realize, Razredge, that I still owe your a reply. Tomorrow. Good night everyone.

 

[grannymh]

I have answered to this on page 4 of the thread “Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve”, since it fits the topic.

And granny is replying with posts 55 & 56 in the appropriate thread “Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve”,

 

[razredge]

What? For me to become an atheist? Dream on, ain’t gonna happen. It’s gonna happen now with less likelyhood than ever before, and most certainly with less probability than when I was still a naive ID proponent. At that time I was vulnerable, now I am not (by God’s grace).

From your perspective you may not understand that, perhaps one day you will.

Yes, if anything (and I have seen this firsthand myself) it is those with a simplistic view of God who are most prone to losing their faith if they encounter personal tragedy or a prosyletizing atheist.

The other thing I’ve noticed is that very few people seem to understand what a transcendant God actually is, from my experience many believers conception of God is more akin to the Wonderful Wizard of Oz than anything else - God is not and man in white robes who lives in the clouds.

And if you do believe in a transcendant God then it is obvious that evolution (both cosmic & biological) agrees far more with this than the account in the book of Genesis or ID - it is actually this that leads to a ‘receding deity’ by limiting God to what human experience and intuition is comfortable with accepting.

By the way, it may be no coincidence that one of the best promoters of classical A-T metaphysics (metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas *) today, Edward Feser, dismisses “irreducible complexity”-type Intelligent Design.

I actually think that Intelligent Design is in some ways a more distasteful proposition than even literal 6 day creation.

ID proponents accept the gradual evolution of life but believe that natural selection is not sufficient and that God must intervene in the case of ‘irreducibly complex’ systems.

However, this insults God’s intelligence by suggesting that He is an amateur, incapable of creating a process (ie. evolution) that can achieve his ends without it requiring constant fixing and touch ups on His part.

 

[tonyrey]

ID proponents accept the gradual evolution of life but believe that natural selection is not sufficient and that God must intervene in the case of ‘irreducibly complex’ systems.

However, this insults God’s intelligence by suggesting that He is an amateur, incapable of creating a process (ie. evolution) that can achieve his ends without it requiring constant fixing and touch ups on His part.

You obviously reject the following facts:

1. The universe is not directly controlled by God.
2. There is an element of chance within the framework of order.
3. Many natural events are dysteleological, opposed to God’s purposes.

 

[tonyrey]

At that time I was vulnerable, now I am not (by God’s grace).
From your perspective you may not understand that, perhaps one day you will.

If you believe** every **natural event is directly intended by God and that His intervention is extremely rare you are highly vulnerable…

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Wow! Big words and multi-layered theories. Mine is: God did it, I don’t know how, but he did it.

 

[razredge]

You obviously reject the following facts:

1. The universe is not directly controlled by God.
2. There is an element of chance within the framework of order.
3. Many natural events are dysteleological, opposed to God’s purposes.

I accept all those facts - it fails to follow how I ‘obviously reject them’.

Wow! Big words and multi-layered theories. Mine is: God did it, I don’t know how, but he did it.

You’re wiser than a lot of people here!

 

[tonyrey]

*You obviously reject the following facts:

I’m delighted! It follows that far from being rare events our infinitely loving God is intervening far more frequently than we are aware. Otherwise life on earth would have become extinct several times and natural disasters would occur far more often than they do - without even taking into account His answers to our prayers. Deo Gratias.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And granny is replying with posts 55 & 56 in the appropriate thread “Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve”,

Thank you.

 

[razredge]

I’m delighted! It follows that far from being rare events our infinitely loving God is intervening far more frequently than we are aware. Otherwise life on earth would have become extinct several times and natural disasters would occur far more often than they do - without even taking into account His answers to our prayers. Deo Gratias.

No, not really - accepting those premises does not mean that your conclusion necessarily follows.

Life on earth has nearly gone extinct several times (life on land at least). Something like 90% of life that existed has gone extinct - so you could say that God is either not very good at intervening to stop life from going extinct or he’s not very good at creating life and continually destroys creations of his for whatever reasons.

I don’t know if you’re a ID proponent or a more literal creationist so it’s hard for me to know where you’re going with this.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Originally Posted by** Al Moritz**

Thank you for confirming.

I actually think that Intelligent Design is in some ways a more distasteful proposition than even literal 6 day creation.

ID proponents accept the gradual evolution of life but believe that natural selection is not sufficient and that God must intervene in the case of ‘irreducibly complex’ systems.

However, this insults God’s intelligence by suggesting that He is an amateur, incapable of creating a process (ie. evolution) that can achieve his ends without it requiring constant fixing and touch ups on His part.

Excellent point. As you know, I had already earlier embraced the thoughts in that last sentence, but I had not made the connection with Intelligent Design being in some ways a more distasteful proposition than even literal 6 day creation. Indeed, creating using a deficient process is worse than directly creating without such a process.

We both believe that God creates using a perfect process, and for the spiritual realm that simply and necessarily falls outside that material process, He uses special creation: the creation of the human soul.

(And of course, the realm of angels also falls outside the process.)

 

[grannymh]

And if you do believe in a transcendant God then it is obvious that evolution (both cosmic & biological) agrees far more with this than the account in the book of Genesis or ID - it is actually this that leads to a ‘receding deity’ by limiting God to what human experience and intuition is comfortable with accepting.

Catholics believe in a transcendent personal God Who is a Pure Spirit wIthout restrictions.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, not really - accepting those premises does not mean that your conclusion necessarily follows.

Agreed.

Life on earth has nearly gone extinct several times (life on land at least). Something like 90% of life that existed has gone extinct - so you could say that God is either not very good at intervening to stop life from going extinct or he’s not very good at creating life and continually destroys creations of his for whatever reasons.

Right on. As the Catholic biologist Ken Miller, a staunch opponent of ID and a star witness in the Dover trial against ID, put it: “Are we supposed to believe that the museums of natural history are full of God’s mistakes?”