''Did Darwin Kill God?''

[VociMike]

Not one soul has been lost to God for believing in direct creation.

Of course we have no idea if this is true or not. But what is undeniable, based on actual testimony, is that a great many people have rejected Christianity because they think it rejects the plain truths revealed by science. They have rejected Christianity because they think it makes a mockery of our ability to learn about the world around us. So let us include those poor souls in your tally as well.

And as this documentary makes clear, “direct creation” was never taught by the Church, and is a Protestant “barnacle”, a Protestant error which developed very late in the life of Christianity. It is no more Catholic than the altar call or the symbolic Eucharist or sola scriptura.

 

[ConallCernach]

This documentary was excellent, I appreciate you posting it. I definitely coincide with what the presenter is saying. I’m glad that not everything on the BBC is rubbish! I was actually surprised by the quality of the content, such is uncommon in the media today. Before posting in this thread, I would suggest taking a look at the videos.

Pax

 

[cassini]

Of course we have no idea if this is true or not. But what is undeniable, based on actual testimony, is that a great many people have rejected Christianity because they think it rejects the plain truths revealed by science. They have rejected Christianity because they think it makes a mockery of our ability to learn about the world around us. So let us include those poor souls in your tally as well.

And as this documentary makes clear, “direct creation” was never taught by the Church, and is a Protestant “barnacle”, a Protestant error which developed very late in the life of Christianity. It is no more Catholic than the altar call or the symbolic Eucharist or sola scriptura.

Yes, we can include those souls in our tally but they fell/fall under the Devil’s plan to steal as many souls away from truth as possible. Were it not for evolution theory those souls might possibly have been/be saved. This further tally simply endorses my statement - evolutionism is a product of the Devil. Anything that steals souls from God is of the Devil.

Now to your assertion that ‘direct creation’ was not taught by the Church etc. as taught by the BBC.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.’ (De fide)

If this isn’t a dogma of direct creation then my great grandfather’s 1000th ancestor was a monkey, if you pardon my pun.

 

[VociMike]

Yes, we can include those souls in our tally but they fell/fall under the Devil’s plan to steal as many souls away from truth as possible. Were it not for evolution theory those souls might possibly have been/be saved. This further tally simply endorses my statement - evolutionism is a product of the Devil. Anything that steals souls from God is of the Devil.

It’s really disturbing to hear such fundamentalism from Catholics.

Now to your assertion that ‘direct creation’ was not taught by the Church etc. as taught by the BBC.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.’ (De fide)

If this isn’t a dogma of direct creation then my great grandfather’s 1000th ancestor was a monkey, if you pardon my pun.

Your quote doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, or the formation of stars, or anything else that explains the process by which God brought into existence the world in which we live. Did God, for example, produce your automobile in its whole substance out of nothing? If you answer yes (a fair answer), does that mean that automobiles are not assembled from already-existing materials according to plans, but simply spring full-blown into existence?

 

[ConallCernach]

Yes, we can include those souls in our tally but they fell/fall under the Devil’s plan to steal as many souls away from truth as possible. Were it not for evolution theory those souls might possibly have been/be saved. This further tally simply endorses my statement - evolutionism is a product of the Devil. Anything that steals souls from God is of the Devil.

Now to your assertion that ‘direct creation’ was not taught by the Church etc. as taught by the BBC.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.’ (De fide)

If this isn’t a dogma of direct creation then my great grandfather’s 1000th ancestor was a monkey, if you pardon my pun.

Nice pun, but is it better to only know a little about God (given that we only know a little about God, I’m speaking in comparison with what humans can know)? Or is it the purpose of people to contemplate God?

Pax

 

[cassini]

It’s really disturbing to hear such fundamentalism from Catholics.

Your quote doesn’t even begin to challenge evolution, or the formation of stars, or anything else that explains the process by which God brought into existence the world in which we live. Did God, for example, produce your automobile in its whole substance out of nothing? If you answer yes (a fair answer), does that mean that automobiles are not assembled from already-existing materials according to plans, but simply spring full-blown into existence?

Wow, Jesus must have you really, really disturbed so. ‘You are either with me or against me.’ And what did he say to the ‘bad’ Jews? ‘You are of your father the DEVIL.’

All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance, created out of nothing, in the beginning, by God, the Blessed Trinity. (D 1805)

This dogmatic statement sums up previous ones and adds the note secundum totam suam substantiam (in its whole substance).

As St. Thomas says: Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles but it means that the composite is
created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles. (ST, I, Q 45, a 4, ad 2)

It may be inferred that “its whole substance and the composite with all its principles” refer to the nature of a thing including its genetic limitations
as well as its genetic potential, and correspond to the “kind” of Genesis One. Such an inference, if correct, would certainly preclude the
evolution of one kind into another kind in the course of time and thus the origin of entirely new beings, new substantial forms, new kinds, in the
course of time after Creation Week. St. Thomas may be quoted further in support of this thesis: Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by
God, but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the work of the six days. (ST, I, Q 73, a 1, ad 1) God is said to have
rested on the seventh day, not from all work, since we read (John 5:17): My Father worketh until now; but from the creation of any new genera
and species, which may not have already existed in the first works … Something can be added every day to the perfection of the universe, as to
the number of individuals, but not as to the number of species. (ST, I, Q 118, a 3, ad 1 and ad 2)

This view of the “fixity of species” does not, for the contemporary creationist, preclude the development of many varieties within the originally
created kind. But it does, most clearly, preclude the evolution of one basic kind into and from another basic kind. And it is equally clear, it
seems to us, that the theistic evolutionist is in direct contradiction to the constant teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that is, to
Catholic Tradition, and also in very deep trouble with this statement of Vatican I (1870), as with all previous and following statements of the
Magisterium on the doctrine of Creation.

 

[pixie]

When did we change the meaning of Immortal and forget to tell everyone

 

[cassini]

Nice pun, but is it better to only know a little about God (given that we only know a little about God, I’m speaking in comparison with what humans can know)? Or is it the purpose of people to contemplate God?

Pax

Sorry Conall, I don’t quite follow your question. What I will say is that the Church and its followers have compiled a MOUNTAIN of theology and philosophy about God. Indeed I would say Catholicism knows more about God than man knows about the universe around him. No, I will go even further. Given the paramaters of ‘science’ wherein according to natural philosophers we can know little for certain about the workings of the world about us, I know we know more about God than science knows about His creation.

‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict it.’
— S. Hawking, Brief History, p.10.

Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God: When a man hath done, then shall he begin: and when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss. (Ecclus 28:5-6)

For the works of the Highest only are wonderful, and his works are glorious, secret, and hidden. (Ecclus 11:4)

And I understand that man can find no reason for all those works of God that are done under the sun. and the more he shall labour to seek, so much the less shall he find: yea, though the wise man shall say, that he knoweth it, he shall not be able to find it (Eccl 8:17)

As for Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Pope Benedict XIV onwards, well here is God telling them all that only HE knows the order of the universe, and only if HE reveals it will we know. And you know what? He did reveal it was geocentric, and the Church of 1616 confirmed He revealed it was geocentric.

‘Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep?’ — (Job. 38:33-37).

So, how about that for fundamentalism.

 

[masterjedi747]

Darwinism suggests that man is a product of evolution that began with ‘natural’ life sparked into existence by the sun or some other worldly happening and transformed; one part becoming rats the other (only by chance mind you) becoming men and women.

…so I guess you think nature and chance are somehow not subject to Divine Providence?

Millions have been deprived of faith because of their indoctrination and acquired belief in evolution.

Even if such a hyperbolic claim were true, it amounts to little. If their faith was that fragile, then it obviously wasn’t very well-founded on solid principles, was it? Rather reminds me of a certain parable…

Modernists like yourself want the best of both worlds, intellectual pride whilst remaining ‘Catholic’

I think your god is your own ‘bright mind’ and you consider that more important than anthing else.

This is ridiculous. “Intellectual pride” has nothing to do with it. I want the truth, plain and simple.

Science tells us that the solar system is heliocentric? Fine. Science tells us that the Earth is several billion years old? Fine. The Church tells us that Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden were real? Fine. The Church tells us that Eve was miraculously created from Adam’s rib? Fine. I’ve got absolutely no problem keeping my source of authority on science separate from my source of authority on faith and morals. Do you?

…so you invented a new religion called ‘theistic evolution’, an ideology or philosophy so full of contradictions that threads of a 1000 posts have not reached any Catholic position, only compromise after compromise on doctrines of the Catholic Church and the theology based on them as taught by the Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church…

…and you wonder why these threads get to 1000 posts, when claims like that being made?

Regardless, I find it funny that John Henry Newman, Christoph Schönborn, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all seem to have reached a solid Catholic position on the matter… (or are they all “modernists” suffering from “intellectual pride” as well?)

Why anyone professing to be Catholic would want to destroy belief in direct creation and replace it with a belief that can be shared with God-haters is a mystery.

Show me one “God-hater” who shares my belief that Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden were real, and that evolution is wholly subject to Divine Providence, and I’ll get back to you on that one.

 

[masterjedi747]

As St. Thomas says: Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles but it means that the composite is
created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles. (ST, I, Q 45, a 4, ad 2)

It may be inferred that “its whole substance and the composite with all its principles” refer to the nature of a thing including its genetic limitations
as well as its genetic potential, and correspond to the “kind” of Genesis One. Such an inference, if correct, would certainly preclude the
evolution of one kind into another kind in the course of time and thus the origin of entirely new beings, new substantial forms, new kinds, in the
course of time after Creation Week. St. Thomas may be quoted further in support of this thesis: Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by
God, but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the work of the six days. (ST, I, Q 73, a 1, ad 1) God is said to have
rested on the seventh day, not from all work, since we read (John 5:17): My Father worketh until now; but from the creation of any new genera
and species, which may not have already existed in the first works … Something can be added every day to the perfection of the universe, as to
the number of individuals, but not as to the number of species. (ST, I, Q 118, a 3, ad 1 and ad 2)

Alright. I have been at an orthodox Catholic college full of hard-core Aristotelians and Thomists for three years now, and I have yet to hear the slightest hint from anyone that Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. In fact, I’ve pretty much been hearing quite the opposite, even from the ones who aren’t convinced that evolution is true. I can virtually guarantee that your argument is, at the very best, relying upon a spectacular and embarrassing misinterpretation of what Saint Thomas is saying.

 

[sodak]

I just checked. Darwin is still dead, and God is still alive. So no, Darwin didn’t kill God.

 

[Namesake]

I just checked. Darwin is still dead, and God is still alive. So no, Darwin didn’t kill God.

Darwin’s elegant theory is more vibrant than ever even though the man is long since dead. God seems to be doing fine too. Isn’t that a neat deal?

 

[StAnastasia]

Millions have been deprived of faith because of their indoctrination and acquired belief in evolution. …Modernists like yourself want the best of both worlds, intellectual pride whilst remaining ‘Catholic’ so you invented a new religion called ‘theistic evolution’, an ideology or philosophy so full of contradictions

Cassini,

(1) Actually, millions are being deprived of the faith by your position, because they are told they cannot accept evolution and believe in God. Since the evidence for evolution is so obvious as to smack one in the face, the conclusion is that your antique version of God must be a fiction. It is sad when people are faced with this choice, and wrongly reject God.

(2) There is no such religion as “theistic evolution.” Most of us on this thread are Catholic, although some non-Catholics find TE to be a sound philosophical orientation.

StAnastasia

 

[cerad]

I just checked. Darwin is still dead, and God is still alive. So no, Darwin didn’t kill God.

So are you saying that Darwin did not have an immortal soul? No afterlife for him? Does this represent a change in Catholic dogma?

And of course Darwin didn’t kill God. It was those pesky Jews and Romans who committed the dastardly deed.

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

As for Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Pope Benedict XIV onwards, well here is God telling them all that only HE knows the order of the universe, and only if HE reveals it will we know. And you know what? He did reveal it was geocentric, and the Church of 1616 confirmed He revealed it was geocentric.

So, how about that for fundamentalism.

The Sun revolves around the Earth?

Excuse me, did you just say that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

 

[Orogeny]

The Sun revolves around the Earth?

Excuse me, did you just say that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Yes, he did. Welcome to the wild and wacky world of CAF.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

The Sun revolves around the Earth? Excuse me, did you just say that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Cpl Ferro, indeed it does. I watched the sun rise over the hills to the east of here this morning, and tonight it will fall below the hills to the west. Does it not repeat this pattern where you live?

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

Yes, he did. Welcome to the wild and wacky world of CAF.

Peace

Tim

Are you calling the Church of 1616 ‘the wild and wacky world of CAF’, whatever CAF means?

 

[Orogeny]

Are you calling the Church of 1616 ‘the wild and wacky world of CAF’, whatever CAF means?

Nope.

Peace

Tim

ps - CAF = Catholic Answers Forum

 

[StAnastasia]

Cpl Ferro, indeed it does. I watched the sun rise over the hills to the east of here this morning, and tonight it will fall below the hills to the west. Does it not repeat this pattern where you live? StAnastasia

Proof of geocentrism:

“The father, Phoebus” when he saw the earth beginning to glow, and the Moon preparing to retire, ordered the Hours to harness up the horses. They obeyed, and led forth from the lofty stalls the Steeds full fed with ambrosia, and attached the reins. Then the father bathed the face of his son with a powerful unguent, and made him capable of enduring the brightness of the flame. He set the rays on his head, and, with a foreboding sigh, said, “If, my son, you will in this at least heed my advice, spare the whip and hold tight the reins. They go fast enough of their own accord; the labour is to hold them in. You are not to take the straight road directly between the five circles, but turn off to the left. Keep within the limit of the middle zone, and avoid the northern and the southern alike. You will see the marks of the northern and the southern alike. You will see the marks of the wheels, and they will serve to guide you. And, that the skies and the earth may each receive their due share of heat, go not too high, or you will burn the heavenly dwellings, nor too low, or you will set the earth on fire; the middle course is safest and best.* And now I leave you to your chance, which I hope will plan better for you than you have done for yourself. Night is passing out of the western gates and we can delay no longer. Take the reins; but if at last your heart fails you, and you will benefit by my advice, stay where you are in safety, and suffer me to light and warm the earth.”