Creationist Catholic 2007

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on God creating “the appearance of age.”
If He acted in that way, He would certainly be deceiving, since the vast majority of scientists and other Christians would have been fooled. And He would have been very aware of that, before He did it.

That makes no senes.

It makes perfect sense. If God produces the appearance of age, and does it sufficiently well, it would fool us. And being very competent, He could do that very well.

Maybe the scientists are just misinterpreting the evidence.

Remember the issue is the appearance of age. If He did that, we would be fooled, and He would know that we would be. But He is not that kind of God.

God has not guaranteed that science is the perfect arbiter of truth nor that scientists are infallible in their interpretations.

Of course not, but when one sees rings in a tree, it would be obvious that they reflected growing seasons, or when one sees breakdown of radioactive isotopes, it is obvious that they reflect a certain amount of time, unless God faked their age.

I will not speak too much on this topic, but in the case of geocentrism, science is misinterpreting the evidence explicitly because of the philosophical foundations they have laid for the express purpose of interpreting the evidence. Their assumptions lead them to interepret it a certain way, while other equally valid assumptions (which they will not consider for “philosophical reasons”, or in one case out of “modesty”) would lead to other interpretations.

Sorry, there is no rational way to accept geocentrism.

Again, I point out that astronomers in previous ages interpreted what they saw as geocentrism.

Actually, Aristarchus of Samos demonstrated Heliocentrism, using mathematics and geometry only a few years after Aristotle (for religious and philosophical reasons) announced that the Sun orbited the Earth.

Was God a “great deceiver” then? What makes today’s astronomers less fallible then yesterday’s

Well, they don’t have a religion that requires the Earth to be at the center of the universe, for one. And they have observations from outside the Earth itself, that verifies such things, and they have the observation that Venus has phases like the moon, according to it’s apparent size variations, which could be true only if the Earth and Venus went around the Sun, and Venus was closer to the Sun than the Earth.

And a lot of other reasons. Obviously, these facts were not available to ancient astronomers, but even then, one got it right.

Do you think God is that impressed with the Hubble telescope?

I think God gave us reason and curiousity to find out things that we have discovered by the Hubble telescope.

 

[edwest2]

What some here have is a great worship of the human mind, created by mutating genes. And they have surrounded themselves with teachers; other human minds from whom they gain knowledge but what of the knowledge conveyed by God? If it is beyond the grasp of the human mind to analyze as it sees fit, such knowledge is rejected.

The Creationist is placed into a category box, the different varieties labeled and relabeled. The unity of thought regarding God’s Creation is discarded, only the human mind, freed of any Biblical statements, is free to examine what, to some, are various types of Creationists. When these Creationists diverge from the teachings presented in books other than the Bible, they are severely criticized.

Cardinal Ratzinger, a very learned and perceptive man, stated the issue correctly: “But now there is a temptation to view as reasonable and therefore as serious only what can be corroborated through experiment and computation. This means that the moral and the holy no longer count for anything. They are considered to belong to the domain of what must be transcended, of the irrational. But whenever the human being does this, whenever we base ethics on physics, we extinguish what is particularly human and we no longer liberate the human being but crush him or her.”

It is proper to include the fact that divine providence, not naturalistic processes alone, account for all we see around us. The project that is the universe was initiated by an Intelligence, and an Intelligence that has made itself known to human beings directly. None of this information is presently available from what is referred to as science. And what is science? It is limited human beings looking at and taking and manipulating what they see around them. Sometimes, this knowledge is used to gain or improve their ability to get food, clothing and shelter; heat, light and transportation. Most of the time, this knowledge is used for military purposes, with the highest inventions being used first in this manner before some are selectively trickled down into use among the civilian population.

As a Catholic, it is important to realize that our relationship with God is not fictional or imaginative, but a relationship with two living beings, one containing flesh and spirit that is imperfect, and with the one who is true God and true man who is perfect, Jesus Christ.

The great ecstasy felt by some over many books and many peer reviewed journals should pale against the love of God and His desire that we follow Him and be like Him. But, for some, the ‘joy’ of ‘science’ overshadows this. Science is only a tool that provides some understanding, God is the rest of the real, factual answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That makes no senes. Maybe the scientists are just misinterpreting the evidence. God has not guaranteed that science is the perfect arbiter of truth nor that scientists are infallible in their interpretations.

This is beautifully stated hildegaard.

If one is going to claim that God somehow deceived them because he allowed them to misinterpet the existing body of data, then the person who claims deception on God’s part is arrogantly assuming that they know the entire existing body of data even better than God himself.

I will not speak too much on this topic, but in the case of geocentrism, science is misinterpreting the evidence explicitly because of the philosophical foundations they have laid for the express purpose of interpreting the evidence. Their assumptions lead them to interepret it a certain way, while other equally valid assumptions (which they will not consider for “philosophical reasons”, or in one case out of “modesty”) would lead to other interpretations.

That’s a very good point. Aristotle’s philosophical thoughts on geocentrism fairly well dominated the ‘filter’ of western science for nearly two millennium. One’s philosophical outlook does indeed affect how they engage in scientific investigations.

Again, I point out that astronomers in previous ages interpreted what they saw as geocentrism. Was God a “great deceiver” then?

I would agree with you that he was not a “great deceiver” at all, since people interpretting the data simply misunderstood the data. And blaming God for our own misunderstandings simply doesn’t make for a solid foundation for clear theological thought.
Jeremiah 20:7:

O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived ; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.

What makes today’s astronomers less fallible then yesterday’s such that God owes them clear vision, which was (apparently) denied to yesterday’s?

Going forward, how much more will we know in the next 500 years for that matter?

When they eventually discover so much more than we could dream of, what will make our future astronomers less fallible than today’s such that God owes them clear vision, which was (apparently) denied to our day?

Do you think God is that impressed with the Hubble telescope?

I do think he is impressed to be honest-- but impressed in the same way that our father is impressed when his children discover something “new” that our father already knew long ago.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“Stop wasting so much time…”?

Honestly, Phil. I don’t write this stuff because I’m bored or lazy.

Ed

No Ed, sadly we know you dont do it because you are bored. You do it because you are so intensely angry with the Church for not seeing things your way you are determined to keep pretending and raising and conceding the same things again and again. Don’t bother to tell me you are not angry. It’s too obvious. There really is nothing to say to you. Except the one thing that is so ironic. As someone mentioned on another thread, some will criticize others for not adhering to church doctrine and call them heretics, yet they feel more than right to ignore Church teaching on their pet issue and somehow its okay. You know in your heart that the Church is not where you are and is never going to retreat to your position. Believe what you need to Ed. just stop this please. sigh…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s interesting. 600 years ago the same community (maybe under a different name) thought the same thing about geocentrism!

So why is the opinion of a large community of learned men valid today, but invalid 600 years ago? What makes today’s opinions so different that you would bet your Church on it?

Funny, 600 years ago, the Church sided with the learned men, today it has not made such a statement (though some unofficially do have that opinion, obviously).

Is it because we “evolved” since then?

**It’s one of those weird things of science you might have missed. We tend to build on knowledge. Today’s opinons about a lot of things are undoubtedly false, but they are usually false about new areas not old ones. We don’t get dumber over time, but we appear much smarter. Our cumulative proven data becomes the base of further study which we get right or not right, but over time a firm layer is built of solid fact. That is always growing, and expotenially. **

 

[edwest2]

Mr. Ex Nihilo,

You may think it unfair that I bring up Marxism in connection to science but I think you are aware of the real negative consequences of believing in evolution. See this article:

wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/geno-a15.shtml

Separate from any science involved in this subject is its use as a tool of social engineering; the desire by a small group of technocrats to order society as they see fit. Capitalism is considered a problem, but the true goal has always been a Technocracy where the mind of man is exalted and all gods and superstitions are eliminated. As an animal, they are justified to treat you like one. You become only a laborer or a soldier, and you will spend your money now because this is all there is.

The dignity of the human person is opposed by science which sees only mechanism and, of course, “cannot speak” about love, an afterlife or the existence of anything supernatural. We, meaning Catholics, believe in something supernatural. You should realize that the ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd has made a commitment to promote not just science but an associated belief system. I don’t think I need to spell out what that is.

I am encouraged by Pope Benedict who wants to vigorously engage science in true dialogue. I welcome whatever he has to say, but I find little to trust about the other group.

I hope you understand.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

It’s not a done deal for evolution

That is true. I would say also that the deal which is Darwinism is done.

 

[reggieM]

“Is He real then? The living, as in actually living, God?”

“Sure, but technically, that’s a theological question.”

We need to weigh how much time and effort is spent in our lives comparatively either learning to know the nature and teachings God, to love Him more – or to pretending to understand the mysteries of the universe from a strictly materialist-scientific perspective.

Which approach will be of most value at the last judgement?

 

[reggieM]

That makes no senes. Maybe the scientists are just misinterpreting the evidence. God has not guaranteed that science is the perfect arbiter of truth nor that scientists are infallible in their interpretations.

Yes, that is an excellent point. We can see the number of changes in various scientific theories over time. Things that were claimed as “certain facts” are later proven to be false.

This has happened far too many times in the evolutionary theory.

 

[reggieM]

— We don’t get dumber over time, but we appear much smarter.—

I would argue that we are much, much dumber in applying ourselves to the things of God. We have, unfortunately, allowed science to substitute for God’s providence – and God has been essentially eliminated from minds and hearts of millions on this basis.

 

[reggieM]

As a Catholic, it is important to realize that our relationship with God is not fictional or imaginative, but a relationship with two living beings, one containing flesh and spirit that is imperfect, and with the one who is true God and true man who is perfect, Jesus Christ.

Very good. In fact, God is the ultimate reality.

The great Catholic scientists of the past (who invented what we know as science) did not look at science as an end in itself as so many do today. Science was always studied in reference to God’s will and with reverence for His power over all (and in all) creation.

We now have scientists who believe that nature can be studied as if it is not a creation of God, and as if one does not need to know anything at all about the author of nature.

It’s like wanting to study a novel but refusing to admit that knowlege of the author and his intentions will have an enormous impact on understanding what was written.

 

[inthecloud]

While I understand Ed preocupation with the use by materialists of the theory of evolution.
Going the protestant fundamentalist way and deny the theory as they do with lies half truths is hurting christianity more that any Marxist campain. “Creations science” is not science at all, if fundamentalist protestant indoctrination and does do not belong in any classroom. Period. The CC have been largely exemplary in adressing the evolution issue and the non literality of Genesis 1-3 without going the liberal protestant pig and choose from the Bible since all is symbolic.
Those children that after being indoctrinated into creationism suddently see the truth will become agnostics and atheists.
A Church should not lie to their members. The CC is acting OK in evolution, facing a challenge it has adapted and went foward. Alson like guided by the Holy Spirit (oh wait! She was!)
Too bad that some people is determinant to remain mired in the station with the protestant fundies.

 

[edwest2]

And here is an example of the current scientific viewpoit: “Stop lying to your children, tell them the truth.” And what “truth” is that? “See, naturalist evolution brought you here, nothing else did.”

“See, you are liberated now from the supernatural and man will soar to new heights!” And the serpent spoke to Eve: Genesis 3:5
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

About man: “We will become more powerful than any god we can imagine!” Transhumanism, Ray Kurzweil. The coming of spiritual machines.

Read The Aboilition of Man by C.S. Lewis, because that is what man wants; to go from a biological mechanism to one composed of metal and circuits. That way, when his mind is transferred into the artificial body he will have completed running away from God. And become the Terminator, transcending all right and wrong, abolishing his humanity in the process.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

We now have scientists who believe that nature can be studied as if it is not a creation of God, and as if one does not need to know anything at all about the author of nature.

Apparently, this is true, because both theists and atheists have made important discoveries about nature. Science is completely unable to address the supernatural. It is a method that is too weak to consider God.

Fortunately, there are other ways to do that; science can’t consider God, but scientists can.

 

[edwest2]

And this means what? Science is this perfect thing from which all good comes? This means what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ed writes, quoting the Serpent:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Barbarian writes, quoting God:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

The Serpent told a bit of truth, a bit of falsehood. Adam ate from the tree, and yet did not die physically, even though God told him he would die the day he ate from it. (the serpent was a Biblical literalist; the death God spoke of was spiritual, not physical)

But it is true that gaining the knowledge of good and evil make humans like God, as God Himself so acknowledges.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And this means what?

Science is merely a way of learning about the physical universe; nothing else we do comes close to being as effective for that. It has been useful in making our lives better, but it is primarily just for learning about this world.

But it can’t address the supernatural. Just can’t. The supernatural can’t be tied down to evidence and inferences from it.

Science is this perfect thing from which all good comes?

Of course not. Indeed, the imperfection of science is what allows it to grow and become more successful. The method is so constructed that even failures become useful additions to knowledge (e.g. Edison: “I’ve learned many ways not to make a light bulb”)

This means what?

It is pointless to expect science to show you God. It cannot.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting. The old “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

That has been my point all along. The naturalist, materialist, this is all there is, way of viewing human origins is bankrupt without the very necessary connection to the hand of God.

This will always be my point. But the atheist rhetoric that points people away from that is rather loud here. Without science, you don’t have things. Well, without God, you don’t have people, scientists, who recognized His hand in their work. But, comments like yours only causes needless separation, a harmful separation that does not deal with the complete human person.

This is Catholic Answers, and I want to see that Catholics here get the Catholic perspective. I understand that science is only a tool that is useful to a point. Yet atheist forums tell me that science and naturalism and materialism are all there is. I want Catholics to avoid making the mistake of thinking like that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo,

You may think it unfair that I bring up Marxism in connection to science but I think you are aware of the real negative consequences of believing in evolution.

Well, that’s the thing though-- I can definitly see the spirit of antichrist in Marxism. For example, the Catechism speak in such way…

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

Bearing these words in mind, I think Communism fits this description perfectly.

See this article:

wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/geno-a15.shtml

That’s an interesting article Ed. And I have no doubts that, if in the wrong hands, this kind of techology would devastate life on earth as we know it.

Separate from any science involved in this subject is its use as a tool of social engineering; the desire by a small group of technocrats to order society as they see fit. Capitalism is considered a problem, but the true goal has always been a Technocracy where the mind of man is exalted and all gods and superstitions are eliminated. As an animal, they are justified to treat you like one. You become only a laborer or a soldier, and you will spend your money now because this is all there is.

It’s certainly true that some peope can (and will) use it this way. We can only speak out against those who do abuse it. But not everyone who believes in evolution has these aims in mind.

The dignity of the human person is opposed by science which sees only mechanism and, of course, “cannot speak” about love, an afterlife or the existence of anything supernatural. We, meaning Catholics, believe in something supernatural. You should realize that the ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd has made a commitment to promote not just science but an associated belief system. I don’t think I need to spell out what that is.

If we’re searching for the devil in the details, I can definitly hear an echo of that old serpent saying, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil…” but coming from the technocrats and social engineers.

I would even suggest that any who subscribe to the idea that God is intentionally “deceiving us” when he allows us to arrive at false scientific conclusions is merely parroting that old serpent’s half-truth spoken long ago too-- even if they are not aware of the danger of the words they speak.

I am encouraged by Pope Benedict who wants to vigorously engage science in true dialogue. I welcome whatever he has to say, but I find little to trust about the other group.

I hope you understand.

God bless,
Ed

As I have noted already, I definitely see a very big difference between Pope Benedict XVI’s approach to theistic evolution and Miller’s, Dobzhansky’s and Collins’ approach to theistic evolution. Upon further reflection, Collin’s argument for the sanctity of life, based solely on biological terms, seems to nearly fall apart when he introduced the discovery of stem cells within human skin into his discussion (I’ll have to search for the quote to get it in the proper context).

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

— We don’t get dumber over time, but we appear much smarter.—

I would argue that we are much, much dumber in applying ourselves to the things of God. We have, unfortunately, allowed science to substitute for God’s providence – and God has been essentially eliminated from minds and hearts of millions on this basis.

G.K. Chesterton would agree with you.