Creationism and life in general

[grannymh]

Rossum, StrawberryJam and Razredge have already given the answer. The spiritual realm is simply not part of science – by definition, since the natural sciences solely look for natural causes for effects in nature (this methodology was invented by the first scientists who were all believers, by the way). I do too as a scientist, and there is no difference whatsoever between the methodology of theist and atheist scientists.

Thus, complaining that science excludes any recognition of the spiritual realm is confusing science with philosophy – confusing the value-neutral methodology of science (a methodology which is really just a tool) with the philosophical worldviews of atheist scientists (who in turn may confuse science with their philosophical worldviews, oh well).

Since when is stating a fact complaining? If one can’t stand the heat, maybe one should leave the kitchen,

---

How would the text as it stands not suggest that, when including the phrase “whether as individuals or in populations”, God may have infused a soul simultaneously into all or several of the members of a population?

---

There is no doubt in my mind about Original Sin according to Catholic teaching. The polygenism issue is not the first to attack God and it won’t be the last.

May God have mercy.

 

[grannymh]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

CHAPTER ONE
HUMAN PERSONS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

1. As the witness of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium makes clear, the truth that human beings are created in the image of God is at the heart of Christian revelation. This truth was recognized and its broad implications expounded by the Fathers of the Church and by the great scholastic theologians. Although, as we shall note below, this truth was challenged by some influential modern thinkers, today biblical scholars and theologians join with the Magisterium in reclaiming and reaffirming the doctrine of the imago Dei.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

---

As seen above, you and I are created in the Image of God. We are the pinnacle of creation. This is the heart of the International Theological Commission’s report known as “Communion and Stewardship”. You are encouraged to read the whole document.

 

[razredge]

---

As seen above, you and I are created in the Image of God.

Yes, I agree - this is relevant how?

We are the pinnacle of creation.

Well, of all the creation that we know of so far

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have never, never implied that science is the enemy of God. In fact, I sincerely respect the professionals involved in science. When I disagree with some of the scientific research, that is part of the give and take which makes science better.

I do realize that there are scientists who express anti-Catholicism. This is where it becomes necessary to explain both Catholicism and science. While I am not always successful, I do try.

Blessings,
granny

John, Chapter Six

Respecting professionals involved in science is not going to get the poison out of the well.
Making it sound that science is ignoring your God and your human nature thingy, is very dishonest.
You can disagree, and should with anything cogent about your objections to the means and methods and whatever else you want to add to the pile.

Express your objections in a clear manner.

 

[fhansen]

1. God designed the laws of nature, thus He designed all the processes of evolution: physical evolution of the universe, chemical evolution leading to the origin of life, biological evolution leading to development of life and to higher species. Without that design, evolution would not exist.

Maybe I don’t understand the ID argument so well but doesn’t the above concept still beg the question really? I mean the God who could create the universe with its complex laws of nature and processes of evolution, etc, would still certainly know how anything that unfolded afterwards* came to be*.

When we observe the apparent design of a bird, say, isn’t the real bottom-line question, ultimately, ‘is there necessarily reason-a mind- behind that design?’ And time wouldn’t be a significant factor since the time it may’ve taken for that bird to come into being- to evolve from lower life forms-would not be time at all for an eternal God…

 

[inocente]

While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe. -
Communion and Stewardship

There seem to be just a few issues with the notion that we’re made in the image and likeness of God. The phrase appears in Genesis which many people don’t take as literal anyway. The text (1:26) then says we have dominion over all other creatures, which may have been reassuring to Bronze Age readers but could be a bit off base now that we’ve subdued and ruled other species to the point of extinction.

Or being in the image of God could mean we share His nature (yet we are fallen), or both we and God are spiritual (yet we are material), or we alone can form a relationship with God (yet for angels).

Or we lost the likeness after the Fall, or Christ the eternal Son restored it to us as the second Adam, or we only regain it after death.

Think of any interpretation you like and a theologian will have got there before you. Over the years it seems to be a major battleground between Judaism and Christianity, and between Catholics and Lutherans.

If theology wants a conflict with science, or else to make inroads, it would be neat if theologians could at least get a grip on the meaning of squidgy terms like “image and likeness of God” and “soul” before laying down the law.

Also, in passing, I’m sure either Ratzinger or an official document somewhere describes theology as a science but the above passage says it isn’t. What’s a girl to do? (or boy in this case).

Interviewed outside her ruined house after the Lorca quake, a woman said “God will get us through this”. Simplistic perhaps, but for once that was a theology worth hearing.

(Sorry about all that everyone, couldn’t help myself. )

 

[inocente]

When we observe the apparent design of a bird, say, isn’t the real bottom-line question, ultimately, ‘is there necessarily reason-a mind- behind that design?’ And time wouldn’t be a significant factor since the time it may’ve taken for that bird to come into being- to evolve from lower life forms-would not be time at all for an eternal God…

There are so many issues with the intelligent design platform. Beyond relegating God solely to a role of intelligent (as if it needs to be pointed out) designer (as if that’s the reason to believe and all God that does), any human designer knows that a most intelligent method is to allow a design to evolve, as you say. But even that assumes birds are designs, which in turn implies birds and all other species each have a designed purpose, a purpose not assigned by God or by the species themselves but by humans intent on proving a very dubious point.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I agree - this is relevant how?

I am suppose to be relevant?

 

[grannymh]

Interviewed outside her ruined house after the Lorca quake, a woman said “God will get us through this”. Simplistic perhaps, but for once that was a theology worth hearing.

I totally agree.

 

[grannymh]

There are so many issues with the intelligent design platform. Beyond relegating God solely to a role of intelligent (as if it needs to be pointed out) designer (as if that’s the reason to believe and all God that does), any human designer knows that a most intelligent method is to allow a design to evolve, as you say. But even that assumes birds are designs, which in turn implies birds and all other species each have a designed purpose, a purpose not assigned by God or by the species themselves but by humans intent on proving a very dubious point.

Speaking for myself, I have issues with ID because there is more to life in general than creationism.

(Did you catch my personal twist to the thread title?)

 

[fhansen]

Speaking for myself, I have issues with ID because there is more to life in general than creationism.

(Did you catch my personal twist to the thread title?)

But the point of recognizing Gods handiwork or reflection in creation is not to conclusively prove all the attributes of a Christian God-rather it would seek, I’d think, simply to prove the necessity of a mind, greater than our own, behind the whole endeavor, i.e., some sort of god.

(that was a nice twist)

 

[grannymh]

More relevant info.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge
62. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

---

Gentle Reader,

As an alternative to creationism, apparently some like the scientific concept of polygenism.

To those who are sincerely exploring polygenism and consequently and continually are presented with paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” – Please read the section above and those following.

Here is a totally out-of-context, yet interesting quote from one of the following paragraphs.

“The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society”.”

 

[grannymh]

But the point of recognizing Gods handiwork or reflection in creation is not to conclusively prove all the attributes of a Christian God-rather it would seek, I’d think, simply to prove the necessity of a mind, greater than our own, behind the whole endeavor, i.e., some sort of god.

(that was a nice twist)

I understand the necessity of a mind greater than our own. But I am not content with some sort of god. Though I do start with the concept of “some sort of god” in ancient peoples as a path leading to a recognizable spiritual soul in one’s own being.

It was the p.s. at the end of this ID link which turned me off.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

 

[StAnastasia]

Or we lost the likeness after the Fall, or Christ the eternal Son restored it to us as the second Adam, or we only regain it after death.

Inocente, nonmythologically can you explain (1) the Fall, and (2) how human “lost the likeness”? What does this mean to you? When did it happen, and what does it mean?

Interviewed outside her ruined house after the Lorca quake, a woman said “God will get us through this”. Simplistic perhaps, but for once that was a theology worth hearing.

Very nice!

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is no doubt in my mind about Original Sin according to Catholic teaching. The polygenism issue is not the first to attack God and it won’t be the last.

May God have mercy.

No Catholic here doubts the doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic Church is unthinkable without it. However, it is doubtful if it has to be tied to genetic monogenism.

 

[tonyrey]

                 [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7870620#post7870620)
*That is precisely what I had in mind when I made the point that God intervenes far more frequently than we are aware! The tremendous odds against survival on this dangerous planet and the development of immensely complex organisms demand a more convincing explanation than **natural ***selection
So in the earthquake last week in Lorca, our nearest city, where nine people died and many were left homeless, God was unsuccessful in stopping pressure between the African and Eurasian tectonic plates from causing a quake?

God was not unsuccessful because it would defeat the purpose of creating the physical universe if He prevented every natural disaster. The simple fact is that events are not under His direct control.

God not only made an imperfect world…

Only God is perfect in every respect.

… where quakes happen but also has to battle continuously against nature and sometimes loses?

God never loses because He knows what is best for us in the long run. You could say Jesus lost the battle against both man and nature…

To be fair it’s not just you tonyrey, having read through the thread I’ll admit to not understanding any of the theology. In summary it sounds like the modern trend is to replace simple faith in God Almighty with an intricate belief in a vaguely incompetent tribal mascot who embarrassingly has to intervene all over the shop, only of course not whenever a scientist is looking on.

It is unreasonable to believe that in an immensely complex universe we are going to find simple solutions…

But this is just me being too thick to understand such sophisticated philosophy.

Do you really believe what I have written is too difficult to understand?

 

[tonyrey]

But the point of recognizing Gods handiwork or reflection in creation is not to conclusively prove all the attributes of a Christian God-rather it would seek, I’d think, simply to prove the necessity of a mind, greater than our own, behind the whole endeavor, i.e., some sort of god.

The key words no Christian can deny are “recognizing Gods handiwork or reflection in creation”.

 

[inocente]

To those who are sincerely exploring polygenism and consequently and continually are presented with paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” – Please read the section above and those following.

Having written documents in committee, this one has all the hallmarks. Individually those guys could each have made a cogent case, but committees should limit themselves to writing bullet points (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty good) or else the process always ends in tears. Para. 70, second sentence - the curious idea that gaps can be either causal or explanatory while at the same time neither are “gaps” . Followed by the extraordinary business of “non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world” with God “acting indirectly through causal chains” .

 

[inocente]

Inocente, nonmythologically can you explain (1) the Fall, and (2) how human “lost the likeness”? What does this mean to you? When did it happen, and what does it mean?

It’s not what I believe, just one of the many ways “image of God” has been interpreted over the centuries. Thinking about it, I’ve never met anyone in real life who’s ever once mentioned the “image of God” or the Fall, neither seems to play any part in the faith of ordinary folk.

The woman I quoted (“God will get us through this”) is undoubtedly a Catholic, virtually everyone in Spain is, although only a minority regularly attend church. But I’ll lay a big bet that her perfectly ordinary faith is a zillion light years away from every piece of philosophy ever written, in favor of something far deeper that can’t be written down.

*All this talk about holiness now
It must be the start of the latest style
Is it all books and words
Or do you really feel it?
Do you really laugh?
Do you really care?
Do you really smile
When you smile?

Woman Of Heart And Mind – Joni Mitchell*

 

[inocente]

God was not unsuccessful because it would defeat the purpose of creating the physical universe if He prevented every natural disaster. The simple fact is that events are not under His direct control.

It sounds like God neither sustains Creation nor allows it to run its course, but meddles and tinkers around.

God never loses because He knows what is best for us in the long run. You could say Jesus lost the battle against both man and nature…

Don’t understand, how would Jesus lose?

Do you really believe what I have written is too difficult to understand?

By no means just you, the trend seems to be towards intricate convoluted explanations that allow God to conveniently hide in our back pocket. All these issues might disappear if we think of big, make it a zillion times bigger, and God is a zillion zillion times bigger still.