Minkymurph, indeed. I wonder how the Antarctic penguins, the polar bear and caribou, and other cold-weather animals lived there. How did the desert sidewinder and gila monster fare in lush eden? The snow leaopard? How did the marsupials get from there to Australia. I suspect Adam and Eve operated lots of cooled and heated habitat buildings.
Rossum, you are right to point this out. It is a pseudo-problem to regard creation and evolution as antithetical. Creation is a theological and philosophical claim, whereas evolution is a scientific theory they cannot conflict, and are in fact complementary for Catholics.
Exactly.
Of course. But the ID/creationist crowd doesn’t seem to get it.
The “ID/creationist crowd”. Are they related to the evolutionist/atheist crowd?
Yeah, I know about the “T” in “Truth.” I made a mistake. I was getting groggy from meds and I was really hoping something like that wouldn’t happen. And when I re-read my post later I realized that it was probably wrong but at that point I was *really * groggy, actually falling asleep and dreaming about these posts I had been reading and so I wasn’t sure and that’s why I didn’t post an addendum (I usually do when I write something dumb like that).
“Groggy” - been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. It happens to everybody at some time or another!Yeah, I know about the “T” in “Truth.” I made a mistake. I was getting groggy from meds and I was really hoping something like that wouldn’t happen. And when I re-read my post later I realized that it was probably wrong but at that point I was *really * groggy, actually falling asleep and dreaming about these posts I had been reading and so I wasn’t sure and that’s why I didn’t post an addendum (I usually do when I write something dumb like that).
That’s why I’m trying to get off the pain meds.
Sorry; I went off topic there. You are indeed correct; Truth never changes. Our understanding of Truth can be clarified over time and science can play a role in this, although there is no proof using scientific method. If there is evidence obtained using scientific method and that evidence is replicated many, many times it counts for something but not proof. Never. But science does lead to breakthroughs in many areas; one is that children born at younger and younger gestational ages are being saved. That is something we can look at and examine and it provides evidence that what the Church has always stated is true: A new human being is formed at conception. The development of ultrasound (definitely a scientific breakthrough) caused one very well-known former Planned Parenthood director to become an avid pro-lifer and also a Catholic.
I know you’re not anti-science. I thought I made it clear that when if scientific findings conflict with Church dogma the scientific findings are thrown out the window. If it comes from God it is Truth and as the Church is the Body of Christ if it comes from the Church as dogma it has come from God and I accept it, even if I can’t understand it for the life of me. Sometimes I have to just accept dogma as something divine that there is no chance I will understand while I’m living here on earth. If it comes from science it’s maybe a significant correlation, evidence, a high probability, but there is always a possibility that the results were obtained because of chance.
I agree with everyone you say. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear.
They in a sense mirror each other, in that both regard evolution and creation as mutually canceling each other out. But that is to make a category mistake, as evolution and creation are not even in the same category of assumption or explanation.
Design should not be associated with creationism because it is confirmed by evolution.
Why? Creationists believe in design.
But many believers in Design do not believe in instant Creation
Where science and Catholicism do conflict is at the point of human origin. Catholicism maintains the reality of Adam and Original Sin.
Only to you, not to Catholic theologians.
In the real world beyond the Ivory Tower, there are many common theologians who wear the Catholic label even though they don’t accept the entire Catholic Deposit of Faith which has been under the protection of the Holy Spirit since the First Pentecost.
The Catholic church has changed (or if you prefer, reinterpreted) its teachings on a number of different issues so I don’t see why a relatively insignificant teaching such as monogenism cannot also change. Especially when it is directly contradicted by modern genetics.
Catholic musers (theologians) have no teaching authority in the Church.
