"Early Hominids" and Catholic Teaching?

[TMC]

Acknowledgment of “a case” for something may be interesting to some, but is a long way from inclusion in the Faith of the Church.

It is certainly an acknowledgment that such a belief in consistent with the faith. The Church does not require Catholics to follow the science on this (or any) topic, but the Church certainly allows it.

 

[phil3]

I will take fact over truth any day of the week.

 

[fide]

Acknowledgement of “a convincing case” means the Faith of the Church cannot exclude it. If there is a conflict, the case is not convincing or the Faith is not understood well enough. God is never understood well enough.

I would say that the Faith of the Church has not excluded it. It does not mean that the Church cannot exclude it. Heresy can take time to discern.

 

[fide]

I will take fact over truth any day of the week.

The two words are related, but not identical. Your statement sounds risky to me. Jesus IS the truth, as He declared in Holy Scripture. That is a fact.

 

[fide]

I do not hear that in the statement; I hear silence on that issue. Silence is an affirmation of neither contradiction nor compatibility.

 

[TMC]

I do not hear that in the statement; I hear silence on that issue. Silence is an affirmation of neither contradiction nor compatibility.

But there is not silence. The Church has spoken on the issue any number of times, including in Communion and Stewardship.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

There was sufficient evidence of guilt for many people in prison, who were innocent. Judges and juries can misjudge! Scientists can conclude wrongly.

If scientific study is performed again and again with the same result each time, it is not the scientists who are wrong.

Neither the what nor the how is directly apparent, or measurable, or rationally understandable - not in the age of quantum physics and special/general relativity.

Nonsense. Quantum phenomena and physical laws are completely understandable and measurable. They’re ways humans explain phenomena observed in the universe; they must be understandable.

and most important, He gave us Himself!

And He has seen it fit to leave us to discover the mysteries of the Universe ourselves.

 

[rossum]

Genesis says God formed man from mud… from the dust of the earth. It does not say God created man ex nihilo. Why is it that some Christians find the idea that man is descended from animals - beautiful, living creatures of God - vile and disgusting, but take no issue with the idea that man is literally made from mud?

And animals were made from ‘mud’ as well: “Let the earth bring forth…”

Hence, descent from animals ancestors does not contradict descent from mud: mud → animal → human body. We have mud as our ‘grandparent’.

 

[rossum]

Because if “God did it” is an acceptable answer, there is no need for science.

There is still a need for science, to decide whether the answer is “God did it” or “Vishnu did it”. Different religions make different claims and in some cases, science can study those claims.

See Benson et al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients for one example. The effects of prayer to YHWH, the Christian God, Allah, Vishnu and others could be compared to a control sample who were not prayed for.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

I have no problem with people believing in evolution or what have you, so long as they don’t indicate that it is the default position of the Church.

 

[Dovekin]

I have no problem with people believing in evolution or what have you, so long as they don’t indicate that it is the default position of the Church.

You do not think “physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.“?

Do you accept that the truth that scientists discover cannot conflict with the truth we know by Revelation? Is that an acceptable default position?

 

[phil3]

No, a fact is that water is H2O. You and I can not measure God.

 

[fide]

In this post I’m merely announcing I’m walking away from this thread. For exactly the same reason I walked away from science, some years ago. Physics is acceptable as a hobby, but not a way of life. Life is found in God, and God is found in prayer, prayer being, as St. John Vianney said, “nothing other than union with God.” Science ought not be taken too seriously,
certainly not religiously.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Trusting that science can answer certain questions about the world is not “taking it religiously.” Such anti-science attitudes among the faithful severely hamper our ability to reach and evangelize the reasoned and logical among our population.

I, for one, am glad the Church disagrees with your statement that:

Science ought not be taken too seriously

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

I think that the Church says it is not a matter of salvation. If you feel it necessary for your faith to read the creation story in a mostly symbolic or allegorical manner, then the church says there is no problem.

My only issue is when people are denigrated in their faith when they profess a belief in a literal application of the creation story. I believe in the creation story. I also believe in its symbolic or allegorical applications as well.

 

[phil3]

If there is any proof, that can measured, there is a God, it will be done through science

 

[Rau]

Acknowledgment of “a case” for something may be interesting to some, but is a long way from inclusion in the Faith of the Church.

No one suggests the Faith of the Church makes reference to the emergence of man 150,000 years ago. The point is that the Faith of the Church does not take a position contrary to the scientific conclusions.

A number of your posts on this thread have been characterised by a tendency to challenge matters not in debate.

 

[whatistrue]

Life is found in God, and God is found in prayer, prayer being, as St. John Vianney said, “nothing other than union with God.”

And science does not dispute or diminish that in the slightest.