B
buffalo
Guest
How does it portray God as a tinkerer? Be more specific
- Status
F
Fatima-Crusader
Guest
God is being itself, He sustains the universe
W
Wesrock
Guest
Intelligent Design as a theological model as put forward by Paley portrays creation and God’s relation to it in a manner inconsistent with the classical theology of St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and the Scholastics, including St. Thomas. As if the natural order can’t account for complex structures, as if it is a mechanical system that require’s God’s intervention to account for complex systems. The natural order doesn’t require God’s intervention or external guidance, as if it’s something that could possibly exist at any moment apart from him. It’s God whose given it, embued its nature, with the very order it proceeds with. If you don’t see the difference, it may help to brush up on both ID and Thomism.Wesrock:
How does it portray God as a tinkerer? Be more specific
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
As put forth by Paley? You realize ID has been around for a long long time.
ID, the philsophy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Everything is known by God from all eternity. What does simply focusing on all living things having the same DNA have anything to do with it? It’s a trivial point that doesn’t prove anything. And what do you mean with this emphasis of at once? At some different time than his knowledge from all eternity about all of the rest of reality? As if his thinking changes?Wesrock:
As put forth by Paley? You realize ID has been around for a long long time.
ID, the philsophy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
It follows that pretty much all living things on earth shares the same DNA because it all developed from the same original, primitive life forms in a manner consistent with the natural order of reality.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a major point. Language always comes from a mind, in this case the mind of God, in the beginning.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Everything comes from God, including all teleology. But it’s not because of some perception of complexity in nature. If all of God’s creation was a single lepton and nothing more, that would be sufficient for needing God to exist.Wesrock:
It is a major point. Language always comes from a mind, in this case the mind of God, in the beginning.
B
buffalo
Guest
Including teleologic evolution?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
You’re not making the point you want to make. All things that aren’t God come from God.Wesrock:
Including teleologic evolution?
E
edwest211
Guest
Complexity and design are obvious in nature. That is why scientists, without realizing it, it seems, have discarded evolution and are using devices to break apart and study the genome. They have no other choice.
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s go back to did Adam look as God planned? Was Jesus made in the image of God and Adam made in the image of Jesus?
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’m a Thomist. If you don’t know what that entails about my beliefs in God’s providence and omniscience, so be it. You’re not leading me anywhere with this line of questioning.Wesrock:
Let’s go back to did Adam look as God planned? Was Jesus made in the image of God and Adam made in the image of Jesus?
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I haven’t read the whole thread, so forgive me if I’ve overlooked something.
Are we to believe that all existing humans are made from the very same atoms that built the bodies of Adam and Eve? Roughly 250-300 pounds of matter make up the whole human species?
This notion is absurd on its face. The fact that the modern human population is comprised of more physical matter than what was contained in the bodies of Adam and Eve is not a stumbling block for even the most literal interpreter of Scripture. The matter, the physical atoms, are not the issue at hand when discussing descent from our first parents; we never presume that offspring are made from the very atoms of their parents, even though we know that there is real inheritance and descent from parent to child.
There were two first humans, imbued by God with spiritual souls who possessed a rational mind not found among any kind of animal, even their closest genetic relatives. They had children, namely Cain, Able and perhaps others, and all of us discussing this today can claim them as our ancestors. The fact that their children were built from matter that did not come directly from their bodies does not change the fact that these children are direct descendants from them, just as the fact that you reading this are not built from the same atoms as your mother’s body does not make you any less her direct offspring.
My bones are not my mom’s bones, but I am her son. My bones come from calcium that was claimed from spinach, cow’s milk, and many other non-human sources, but I am still a man and the child of my mother. Likewise, the offspring of Adam and Eve may have produced offspring with other creatures that were biologically identical to them, but lacked the immortal soul. These children would be human, children of Adam and Eve just as I am the son of my mother and father, but they would be built out of matter that didn’t come directly from the parents.
This really isn’t complicated.
Peace and God bless!
Are we to believe that all existing humans are made from the very same atoms that built the bodies of Adam and Eve? Roughly 250-300 pounds of matter make up the whole human species?
This notion is absurd on its face. The fact that the modern human population is comprised of more physical matter than what was contained in the bodies of Adam and Eve is not a stumbling block for even the most literal interpreter of Scripture. The matter, the physical atoms, are not the issue at hand when discussing descent from our first parents; we never presume that offspring are made from the very atoms of their parents, even though we know that there is real inheritance and descent from parent to child.
There were two first humans, imbued by God with spiritual souls who possessed a rational mind not found among any kind of animal, even their closest genetic relatives. They had children, namely Cain, Able and perhaps others, and all of us discussing this today can claim them as our ancestors. The fact that their children were built from matter that did not come directly from their bodies does not change the fact that these children are direct descendants from them, just as the fact that you reading this are not built from the same atoms as your mother’s body does not make you any less her direct offspring.
My bones are not my mom’s bones, but I am her son. My bones come from calcium that was claimed from spinach, cow’s milk, and many other non-human sources, but I am still a man and the child of my mother. Likewise, the offspring of Adam and Eve may have produced offspring with other creatures that were biologically identical to them, but lacked the immortal soul. These children would be human, children of Adam and Eve just as I am the son of my mother and father, but they would be built out of matter that didn’t come directly from the parents.
This really isn’t complicated.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I don’t think anyone in this topic, whether materialist, atheist, young earth creationist, intelligent design advocate, Thomist, or anything else, has even suggested this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are there atoms added at conception?
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
That’s the point. It’s a rhetorical question.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
At conception, and afterwards as well. Did you eat this morning?
W
Wesrock
Guest
I just going to head this off. People eat food. They’ve done so since the beginning. They incorporate new matter and atoms and molecules into themselves over a lifetime and lose other matter while being the same beings. Through this food intake, an excess of nutrients can be obtained and directed towards the reproduction of a new person. And so on…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Welcome to CAF, @Meg1!
Evolution wouldn’t posit either of Adam (if it were able to talk about ensouled humans at all). It would posit that humans evolved from monkeys and from sub-humans.
“Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” aren’t assertions about the Biblical Adam and Eve!
Science doesn’t talk about souls. It can’t address the question of Adam and Eve.
That’s not true. Belief in evolution doesn’t require one to not believe that there were literally two first true human parents.
And there’s the rub. When we talk about “human beings”, in a theological framework, we’re talking about ensouled humans. Biology isn’t equipped to talk about ‘souls’. So, when they say “there were never two human beings”, they’re not talking about the same thing that the Church is talking about, with respect to Adam and Eve.
No more strange than “sin proceeds from eating an apple”.
If Adam were a ‘monkey’ or a ‘sub-human’, then he wouldn’t be our first true human parent.
Evolution wouldn’t posit either of Adam (if it were able to talk about ensouled humans at all). It would posit that humans evolved from monkeys and from sub-humans.
Oh, here we go again.
“Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” aren’t assertions about the Biblical Adam and Eve!That’s the whole point.
Science doesn’t talk about souls. It can’t address the question of Adam and Eve.
Kinda what evolution says, isn’t it? Life forms from organic building blocks – the ‘dust of the earth’, as it were – and does not pop up, fully formed, as existing beings. Scripture, itself, doesn’t claim that Adam was created ex nihilo. Nice harmony, there.
B
buffalo
Guest
It requires that we deny Eve coming from Adam’s rib.
- Status