E
edwest21
Guest
It is in "the believe or if not, you get to wear an ‘ignorant’ sign for the rest of your life. Shunned by those in the know, small dogs, etc.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. At that point, I think my reply would be to make the distinction between the science of evolution and the theology of undirected creation. I can accept the science while still rejecting the theology that claims to proceed from it.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Survival of the fittest is the opposite of what Jesus teaches.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… Jesus doesn’t have a teaching on how genes are passed down from generation to generation, and what corresponding effect that has on the gene pool.
(You realize that the whole point of “survival of the fittest” is merely to make the claim that the healthier, stronger, faster, smarter individuals are the ones who actually survive long enough to reproduce and keep their genes in the gene pool… right? And, recognizing that, you realize that there’s no moral or theological content to that claim, right?)
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Long story short, the Church doesn’t really comment on whether Evolution is true or not, as it is a scientific theory outside of the realm of faith and morals. However, it does permit Catholics to believe in Evolution. Thus, if it thought that there was anything that contradicted the Catholic faith then it would not allow that position. Obviously, it would deny an atheistic evolution that denies God’s existence… However, it would allow the possibility of some kind of theistic evolution. It’s not just Catholics that can accept Evolution, but also other Christian groups like some Evangelicals for instance.
Here is an article by Jimmy Akin on the subject. He says there are some models of Evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith, but not all are.
Also, for those of you interested in a possible Catholic interpretation of the book of Genesis here is a very interesting interview with Jimmy Akin that I recommend.
Here is an article by Jimmy Akin on the subject. He says there are some models of Evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith, but not all are.
Also, for those of you interested in a possible Catholic interpretation of the book of Genesis here is a very interesting interview with Jimmy Akin that I recommend.
Last edited:
E
edwest21
Guest
That’s the point: no moral or theological content. Yeah, that works…
E
edwest21
Guest
My question is - and will always be - where does the theistic part occur? How does it fit in at all?
T
Techno2000
Guest
It’s just a dog eat dog world.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
It is a longstanding Catholic belief that God works through secondary causes. At one time in salvation history it was thought that God worked to cause everything directly. (I think the Muslims may still hold this view). So if you got a cold God caused it. Or if the sun rose in the sky then God was directly causing that too. However, as our understanding of the world and of God matured theologians understood that God works through secondary causes, while still remaining the first cause of all that exists. This means that God doesn’t have to directly cause everything that happens in the world in order for it to happen. He can create certain natural laws that material things must obey and have certain patterns of behavior that they must follow. For instance the behavior of atoms and molecules. Or the law of gravity and entropy.
So if you are asking when secondary causes stop and God starts this is something that Aquinas talked about in his 5 ways. We can see God as the First Cause in a chain of secondary causes. This is illustrated by considering a coffee cup being held up by a table. The table is holding up the cup. So the table is the cause of the cup being help up. But, what holds up the table? The floor is the cause of the table being held up. Similarly, the earth is the cause of the floor being help up. In this example, we can consider the earth to be the first cause of this sequence of causes. And, there can not be an infinite number of secondary causes without a first cause. Since without the first cause none of the secondary causes could have any power to hold up the cup. Each secondary cause derives its powers from the the first cause, the earth. The table derives it power to hold up the cup from the floor which derives it power to hold up the table from the earth. Thus, without the earth none of these secondary causes could have any powers to hold up the cup.
Similarly, when I consider what is the cause of my existence at any moment, it is similar kind of process that must have a first cause. For instance, I could say the cause of my existence is the organs working together in my body. But, what is the cause of the organs? I could say that their cause is the cells in my body. I could continue this line of reasoning and say the cause of my cells are the atoms that make them up. And the cause of the atoms is the quarks and so on. Ultimately, like in the cup example, I have to come to a first cause. Now, the first cause in such an example must be something that is uncaused and for which its essence is its existence. That is its essence is to exist. Since it can not derive from anything else or it could not be the first cause of my existence. So this first cause must be an uncaused cause that is existence itself. It must be eternal and uncaused. This is what we call God. So God is the ultimate or first cause of my existence at any moment, from which all other secondary causes derive their power.
So if you are asking when secondary causes stop and God starts this is something that Aquinas talked about in his 5 ways. We can see God as the First Cause in a chain of secondary causes. This is illustrated by considering a coffee cup being held up by a table. The table is holding up the cup. So the table is the cause of the cup being help up. But, what holds up the table? The floor is the cause of the table being held up. Similarly, the earth is the cause of the floor being help up. In this example, we can consider the earth to be the first cause of this sequence of causes. And, there can not be an infinite number of secondary causes without a first cause. Since without the first cause none of the secondary causes could have any power to hold up the cup. Each secondary cause derives its powers from the the first cause, the earth. The table derives it power to hold up the cup from the floor which derives it power to hold up the table from the earth. Thus, without the earth none of these secondary causes could have any powers to hold up the cup.
Similarly, when I consider what is the cause of my existence at any moment, it is similar kind of process that must have a first cause. For instance, I could say the cause of my existence is the organs working together in my body. But, what is the cause of the organs? I could say that their cause is the cells in my body. I could continue this line of reasoning and say the cause of my cells are the atoms that make them up. And the cause of the atoms is the quarks and so on. Ultimately, like in the cup example, I have to come to a first cause. Now, the first cause in such an example must be something that is uncaused and for which its essence is its existence. That is its essence is to exist. Since it can not derive from anything else or it could not be the first cause of my existence. So this first cause must be an uncaused cause that is existence itself. It must be eternal and uncaused. This is what we call God. So God is the ultimate or first cause of my existence at any moment, from which all other secondary causes derive their power.
Last edited:
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
God could have created a world directly and without secondary causes. However, he chose to create a world that required a vast universe of stars and galaxies from which we derive the elements that make up our own bodies. In doing so he illustrates his great majesty to us in a way that could not be seen if He had chosen not to create us in such a majestic display. The vastness of the universe shows us the greatness of God. How else could we come to know better such greatness?
Secondary causes is one way also in which we better understand the problem of evil. It’s not that God is directly causing children to get sick for instance. They get sick for natural reasons. And, not because God wills them or desires them to be sick.
Secondary causes is one way also in which we better understand the problem of evil. It’s not that God is directly causing children to get sick for instance. They get sick for natural reasons. And, not because God wills them or desires them to be sick.
Last edited:
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Another thing to consider here is that because God is immaterial we can not see his action in the world with perfect certainty. Even if God did a major miracle everyday that would convince even the most hardened skeptic there is no absolutely certain proof that God himself did it since we can not see God. And, thus can not trace the miracle back to him with absolute certainty. Thus, the skeptic could always deny any miracle is from God. Such a skeptic has no way to know if God exists even if God did exist and was trying to reveal himself to him.
Consider a 3 dimensial being trying to reveal himself to a 2 dimensional being. At best the 2 dimensial being could see only a slice of the 3d being as it passed through its plane of existence. The 2d being would only ever see a distorted view of the 3d being.
Now God is an immaterial being that is existence itself. Thus, God is even higher above us than a 3d being is above a 2d being. Now, God can effect things in our world and cause miracles. However, we can never really ‘see’ God as he is. The best we will have will be the beatific vision, but even that we will be subject to limitation. Someone explained it to me that the beatific vision would be like watching a movie screen that has no edges to the screen so that it goes off in all directions infinitely. Everywhere we look we will see an aspect of God, but will be unable to see the entire screen at one time. In order to know God in this life we have to be able to derive his existence from reason, from our experiences, and from other sources of revelation to us.
Consider a 3 dimensial being trying to reveal himself to a 2 dimensional being. At best the 2 dimensial being could see only a slice of the 3d being as it passed through its plane of existence. The 2d being would only ever see a distorted view of the 3d being.
Now God is an immaterial being that is existence itself. Thus, God is even higher above us than a 3d being is above a 2d being. Now, God can effect things in our world and cause miracles. However, we can never really ‘see’ God as he is. The best we will have will be the beatific vision, but even that we will be subject to limitation. Someone explained it to me that the beatific vision would be like watching a movie screen that has no edges to the screen so that it goes off in all directions infinitely. Everywhere we look we will see an aspect of God, but will be unable to see the entire screen at one time. In order to know God in this life we have to be able to derive his existence from reason, from our experiences, and from other sources of revelation to us.
Last edited:
E
edwest21
Guest
That’s true but consider. The Word, Jesus Christ, became flesh and lived among us. He performed miracles like raising the dead, without science.
Romans 1:20
New International Version
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
New Living Translation
“For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”
English Standard Version
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Romans 1:20
New International Version
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
New Living Translation
“For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”
English Standard Version
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Science is simply a method for understanding the world around us. Jesus, the Incarnate Word, created all things including time itself. Science, is a method for what we mere fallible creatures, not God, can use to understand nature, God’s creation better. Jesus assumed a human body and performed miracles in the flesh. However, it still requires faith to believe that Jesus is God as you could not see his divinity just by looking at his human body, just as you can not see the divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist. This faith is what we Catholics believe is a supernatural gift from God and not derived from ourselves alone.
Last edited:
E
edwest21
Guest
In the Eucharist is the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. We do not perceive by our eyes alone. Science should get out of our way.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I don’t see how science is in our way. Please explain.
E
edwest21
Guest
Why do those who believe in evolution post here over and over again? Why the ongoing campaign to convince us that evolution is somehow compatible with our beliefs? Why the continuing commentary that wanders around to create confusion where none should exist?
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Your questions seem to reveal a kind of frustration. Why can’t everything be simple and uncomplicated according to how you would prefer them to be? Believe me we have all felt this. Why can’t everyone be Catholic for instance? Well, the fact is life is complicated. And just because people have a different view than you on this matter that is even still within the scope of acceptable church beliefs does not justify you dismissing them as if they are somehow inferior or less worthy to discuss their views. Especially if people have come to these views over great deliberation. You are under no obligation to believe in science. But then neither is anyone under obligation to believe what you think either especially if it is less reasonable to them. I for one never said evolution was true or not, only that it is an acceptable Catholic position. Nor am I trying to prove evolution. I do not have certainty that Evolution is true, nor do I have certainty that it is not true. And perhaps the truth is not exactly as the theory is today as it is only a model of history and not history itself. The original question was whether Evolution was acceptable to believe as a Catholic and that is what I have tried to answer as well as the questions you posted to me. I hope that I have been of help to others. Especially the links to Jimmy Akin’s material as he has been a huge help to me. I respect your view to believe as you do if that is a literalist view of genesis, which entirely an acceptable position and hope that you are doing ok and that God blesses you in Christ and may you have his peace brother.
Last edited:
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I should just quickly mention something that I just thought of. When I discussed God working through secondary causes I did not mean that He never works directly, or hasn’t worked directly throughout history, like changing bread into the Eucharist, or causing a miracle to happen. He still can and does work directly in our lives. But allowing secondary causes like the laws of nature to be in effect he governs an ordered universe. This is how we recognize a miracle in the first place is that it is first of all unusual and second of all unexplained by science. If miracles were the norm than we would see them as normal and the universe as bending constantly or changing such that we could not recognize a natural order to things.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
I think the real problem with intelligent design defenders insofar as the proponents present their argument as an alternative scientific theory, is that they have bought in to the belief that science is the be all of all human knowledge about the universe. They seem to think that if secondary causes are enough to explain events in the universe this some how diminishes God’s role in creation.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Yes, well I am not sure if that is the case (I would have to think about that some more), but I tried to show that it simply isn’t the case that if God works through secondary causes that he is less necessary, because as the first cause all secondary causes derive their power from the first cause. Thus, without God no secondary causes can derive any power to cause anything at anytime. So its not like God wound up the world and let it go. As First Cause of existence He is constantly in causal relationship to anything in existence today or at anytime.
Last edited:
- Status