B
buffalo
Guest
No, He simply wills it. But willing man, He thought Him into existence, in His image.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.
Who you gonna call?
Heretic Busters - coming soon to theaters near you.
starring drpmjhess and his band of merry heretics and Buffalo trampling them.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian on demoting God to “designer.”
No. You’re assuming that. God is not a little demiurge designer. He is the omnipotent Creator, who does not have to figure out things.
No. You’re assuming that. God is not a little demiurge designer. He is the omnipotent Creator, who does not have to figure out things.
Thank you. I understand why ID uses “designer”; they hope to sneak God in the back door in public schools. But it is a terrible insult to Him.
B
buffalo
Guest
The universe smacks of design. Very few will deny this. This implies a designer.
R
rossum
Guest
No. The human brain is good at detecting design when no design is present - we see faces and shapes in clouds that look designed but actually are not. What you are seeing is not actual design in the universe, but the perception of design overlaid onto the universe by your brain.
No, because you have not shown objectively that the universe is designed. A subjective opinion will not cut it in science. How can we detect design? How can we determine what is designed and what is not designed? So far ID has not been able to come up with a successful method. Without a reliable and objective method of detecting design ID cannot make it as science. “It sure looks designed to me” does not suffice.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Gee, how many times has the deceiving od argument been used on these threads? So we are deluded?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So far, whenever we find out the immediate cause of any natural thing, it is a natural cause. So far, no design has been found, unless it’s an artifact made by thinking creatures.
I know you want to make God out as a designer, but it’s not merely wrong, it’s disrespectful.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Buffalo, what was this event? Did it involve an apple? Did it involve fruit of some kind? When was the beginning of the history of humankind? Can you put a year on it? Can you put a location on it? Since what we know from paleontology and genetics allow of no clear-cut “beginning” of Homo sapiens, where do you draw the line in determining this primeval event? Is it merely an arbitrary choice of a year? An arbitrary choice of some hominid that you decide suddenly became human, even though its parents were not human?
Alternatively, would you like to explore a theological interpretation of the “Adamic Fall” that is both (1) theologically honest with respect to the intent of the Hebrew composers of scripture, and (2) scientifically honest with respect to what we know from biology, genetics, and paleontology?
Faithfully yours,
Petrus
E
edwest2
Guest
I invite everyone to read this article, with an emphasis on the last sentence.
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6528
The Church knows about the attempts at manipulating its followers to believe something other than the truth.
God bless,
Ed
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6528
The Church knows about the attempts at manipulating its followers to believe something other than the truth.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Let’s look at that statement…Hmmm… this is a telling admission…
**the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." **
Since no Darwinian theory denies divine providence, explicitly or otherwise, that’s no problem for evolution as it’s accepted by science.
How could it be otherwise? Darwin explicitly attributed the origin of life to God in “The Origin of Species.”
**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. ** - Charles Darwin 1872 edition
A few misguided athiests and creationists suppose evolutionary theory denies God, but they are profoundly ignorant of the theory and its foundations.
**the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." **
Since no Darwinian theory denies divine providence, explicitly or otherwise, that’s no problem for evolution as it’s accepted by science.
How could it be otherwise? Darwin explicitly attributed the origin of life to God in “The Origin of Species.”
**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. ** - Charles Darwin 1872 edition
A few misguided athiests and creationists suppose evolutionary theory denies God, but they are profoundly ignorant of the theory and its foundations.
E
edwest2
Guest
Every Darwinian theory attributes nothing to God.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Hmm… Every plumbing manual attributes nothing to God. However, Darwin’s book attributes the origin of life to God.
Of course no scientific theory is about God. Science, like plumbing, is too weak a system to deal with God. But you can have flush toilets in your home without denying God.
If that was holding you back, call the plumber, Ed.
Of course no scientific theory is about God. Science, like plumbing, is too weak a system to deal with God. But you can have flush toilets in your home without denying God.
If that was holding you back, call the plumber, Ed.
B
buffalo
Guest
Since you have no teaching authority, I am content to read the Catechism as it states right now.
And I am very well up to date on the latest musings.
E
edwest2
Guest
Darwin’s book is not the Bible. Nothing is holding me back. What I have come to realize is the attempt at establishing an Atheist-Scientific Dictatorship based along Communist lines.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
But in the book in which he laid out his theory, he also attributed the creation of life to God. Pretty much demolishes the argument that Darwinism denies divine providence. It’s his theory, and he gets to decide.
Other than the odd misconception that evolutionary theory denies God. It doesn’t. And can’t. And, as you see, it’s been that way from the start.
Given the communist distaste for evolution, and given the generally libertarian ideas of most scientists, it sounds pretty… um… unlikely.
I’m getting the impression that this isn’t really about God or science for you.
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s about a trend involving the promotion of atheism. You know, Dawkins and the rest.
The Church tells me I’m not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution; that leaves a theistic evolutionary theory. It’s not in the biology textbook.
Peace,
Ed
The Church tells me I’m not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution; that leaves a theistic evolutionary theory. It’s not in the biology textbook.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
(Barbarian note that those who suppose evolutionary theory is about atheism are woefully ignorant of it)
That’s why Pope Benedict is quite comfortable with evolution. It isn’t about atheism.
You might know Dawkins also agrees that evolution is not about atheism.
Great. So you can accept the theory as it is in textbooks. The Church say you’re not allowed to believe those that explicitly deny the role of divine providence. The one you find in textbooks are OK, because they don’t deny divine providence at all.
Or one that’s neither theistic nor atheistic. That’s the one Pope Benedict said was “virtually certain.” That’s the one in textbooks.
B
buffalo
Guest
**The Catholic Church and ID: What’s really happening?
…**Recently the topic of evolution and the church became newsworthy again. First, Benedict XVI chose to mention evolution in the homily of his inaugural Mass as pope: “Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
It was as though he were directly responding to a Darwinist dogma put most clearly in the widely read Meaning of Evolution : “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” That the new pope should mention the theory in such an important context shows that he thinks that it can be taken to have a tremendous (and pernicious) influence on man’s understanding of himself and his relation to God.
and
…
He reviews the history of teachings on the subject, from 1950 to the present, noting that the Church has always cautioned that evolution, if it occurs, is purposeful, and that human beings are endowed by God with a spiritual nature, created directly by God.
(While many pundits ignored these key qualifications, and insisted that “The Catholic Church supports evolution,” key Darwinist Richard Dawkins knew better. The qualifications cut the heart out of Darwinism.)
…**Recently the topic of evolution and the church became newsworthy again. First, Benedict XVI chose to mention evolution in the homily of his inaugural Mass as pope: “Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
It was as though he were directly responding to a Darwinist dogma put most clearly in the widely read Meaning of Evolution : “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” That the new pope should mention the theory in such an important context shows that he thinks that it can be taken to have a tremendous (and pernicious) influence on man’s understanding of himself and his relation to God.
and
…
He reviews the history of teachings on the subject, from 1950 to the present, noting that the Church has always cautioned that evolution, if it occurs, is purposeful, and that human beings are endowed by God with a spiritual nature, created directly by God.
(While many pundits ignored these key qualifications, and insisted that “The Catholic Church supports evolution,” key Darwinist Richard Dawkins knew better. The qualifications cut the heart out of Darwinism.)
E
edwest2
Guest
When man views himself as just another animal, he denies his own dignity and his connection to the Creator God.
Today, worship of man as the sole creator of himself is widespread. Rationality that springs from human thought without considering God is foolishness. The road to destruction is wide and numerous deceptions are layed along the way.
If you are simply a bag of chemicals compelled to successfully reproduce by your selfish genes, then what? If all you have is this life, then nothing?
These fundamental questions have been answered by the Church, through Jesus Christ Himself.
God bless,
Ed
Today, worship of man as the sole creator of himself is widespread. Rationality that springs from human thought without considering God is foolishness. The road to destruction is wide and numerous deceptions are layed along the way.
If you are simply a bag of chemicals compelled to successfully reproduce by your selfish genes, then what? If all you have is this life, then nothing?
These fundamental questions have been answered by the Church, through Jesus Christ Himself.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
We yes, I do have teaching authority, in a variety of Catholic colleges and universities. But read the catechism as you wish. I assume this means you have no answers to the questions I posed in 228.
Petrus
- Status