EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[hecd2]

In the US we enjoy freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Really? So you are free to express belief in any bizarre religious idea that you might wish, but not free to reject theism? I think you are wrong. The founding fathers of the USA included non-theists.

In any case the Church enjoys the high moral ground because she is the most competent.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Really? So you are free to express belief in any bizarre religious idea that you might wish, but not free to reject theism? I think you are wrong. The founding fathers of the USA included non-theists.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

In America we are free to reject any religion.

You don’t understand - there is no state religion, but religion can influence the state.

The Church has established herself as a competent authority.
She has EARNED the right to be heard.

In your scientific community you hail those that have credentialed themselves.

 

[hecd2]

In America we are free to reject any religion.

You are also free to reject all religions.

You don’t understand - there is no state religion, but religion can influence the state.

Of course.

The Church has established herself as a competent authority.
She has EARNED the right to be heard.

Of course - I agreed to that way up the thread - I am not seeking to silence the Church. The Church should be heard in ethical matters of the application of science. The Church is a competent commentator on ethics and morals, but she has no special objective competence with respect to others. She is only one of many - the Church should not be the sole arbiter of ethics - the views of other Christian denominations, other religions and secularists must also be considered.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Your claim was “institutional science - slow to change and accept dissent”. I showed you the vast changes in science since 1900. What on earth has that got to do with philosophy?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Scientists Rail Against AIDS Dissent

 

[buffalo]

You are also free to reject all religions.

Of course.
Of course - I agreed to that way up the thread - I am not seeking to silence the Church. The Church should be heard in ethical matters of the application of science. The Church is a competent commentator on ethics and morals, but she has no special objective competence with respect to others. She is only one of many - the Church should not be the sole arbiter of ethics - the views of other Christian denominations, other religions and secularists must also be considered.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I will let it rest here - I understand why you can go no further for it would take you to belief in God.

 

[grannymh]

Of course not. The tragedy of literalism is that Genesis 1 and 2 is a precious insight into the human condition, trivialised and devalued by the insistence on the literal interpretation of the story.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

It is late and my thinking may be blinking or whatever your comment was. It is my hope that this post doesn’t sound as crabby as I feel. I hate it when Monday mornings continue all week.

Please note that the Catholic Church does not teach that literalism is the only way to interpret Scripture. There is a link or maybe it is the CAF library that has info on interpreting Scripture. Also, please understand that on this website, people tend to assume that when the word faith is used, it means the Catholic Church. When faith is used like a generic word (as in faith and science) people can get insulted.

Next, on my cranky list. I figured out at a young age that day, as in Genesis, did not necessarily mean 24 hours. However, I believe that it is possible that Eve and Adam were real people. Somewhere there is a post that points out that there are still a lot of questions to be answered. The jury is still out. Human beings are so different from everything else that it is hard for me to think that they are following the same pattern in its entirety.

This reminds me that in a thread where posts kept saying that everything is predetermined (someone didn’t like the idea of free will) I had to flat out refuse to be considered in the same class as a determined rock in a determined universe.

Another point. I was attempting to follow the posts on Catholicism and ethics. Granted that there are other moral or ethical systems. However, most of these are based on wobbly relativism.

Final comments. This is an equal opportunity forum, so there.
Seriously, I’m hoping that those who choose other spiritual paths won’t think that respect for life is just a Catholic thing. Alec, I read your post 242. I wish you would get the full story on FOCA,
especially how it will affect the “right of conscience”. There are already people willing to lose their jobs because of some state laws. Imagine what FOCA will do to religiously affiliated hospitals on a national level.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Scientists Rail Against AIDS Dissent

Yeah, people have given Holocaust deniers trouble for the same reason. It isn’t harmless “dissent;” it kills people. Anyone who says you don’t have to worry about HIV is encouraging risky behavior that kills people.

Unbelievable.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In the US we enjoy freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Let’s take a look…

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, **

Freedom from religion.

**or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

Freedom of religion.

You can neither impose religion on people, nor deny them the right to practice religion as they see fit.

 

[c659smith]

That’s true, but science is competent to comment on claims by the religious, in sacred books or from religious leaders or lay people that intersect the naturally world and are testable (such as the existence of a global flood, or human descent from two individuals). Science is incompetent to discuss claims that lie outside the natural world, (but then I might argue that no-one is competent to determine such things).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

What does science do when they cannot explain the natural world?

The Shroud?

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.?

The Incorrupt Body of St. John Vianney.

The Incorrupt Bodies of St. Juliana Falconieri and St. Antoninus.

The Incorrupt Body of St. Bernadette Soubirous

To name a few.

 

[grannymh]

What does science do when they cannot explain the natural world?

The Shroud?

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.?

The Incorrupt Body of St. John Vianney.

The Incorrupt Bodies of St. Juliana Falconieri and St. Antoninus.

The Incorrupt Body of St. Bernadette Soubirous

To name a few.

They call the Lanciano miracle an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[c659smith]

You are also free to reject all religions.

Of course.
Of course - I agreed to that way up the thread - I am not seeking to silence the Church. The Church should be heard in ethical matters of the application of science. The Church is a competent commentator on ethics and morals, but she has no special objective competence with respect to others. She is only one of many - the Church should not be the sole arbiter of ethics - the views of other Christian denominations, other religions and secularists must also be considered.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Secularists are to be considered but this is a democracy and the votes of the few now outweigh the votes of the many.

Not very Democratic huh?

Govt. or I should say Judges have violated the constitution by making laws as it relates to Religion in order to pander to the few.

This is another subject but ethics such as abortion has been turned into rights according to the courts. if voted on by the states or the American People would be outlawed except in cases of affecting the natural life of the mother.

Lets put Marriage between a man and woman as a constitutional Amendment with the peoples ( vote) choice. I bet when it passes the Judges would overturn the will of the people.

They would be Quoting a letter from Thomas Jefferson and not seen at all in the constitution.

You must note that the Supreme Court startes God save this court this has not been outlawed nor the ten commandments dismantled there.

What is good for the Goose here is not good for the Gander.

Our Goverment has taken prayer out of schools but not out of goverment.

Could you imagine the secularist if we wanted to put a chapel in a high-school?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Secularists are to be considered but this is a democracy and the votes of the few now outweigh the votes of the many.

Actually, it’s a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. So the rights of the few are not subject to the whim of the many.

Not very Democratic huh?

No, thank God. Remember, Catholics are a minority. And from time to time, we’ve been oppressed by those who violated the Constitution.

Govt. or I should say Judges have violated the constitution by making laws as it relates to Religion in order to pander to the few.

They’ve pointed out that the Constitution applies to everyone. It outrages some, but that is what the Founders intended.

This is another subject but ethics such as abortion has been turned into rights according to the courts. if voted on by the states or the American People would be outlawed except in cases of affecting the natural life of the mother.

Well, not yet. But we’re working on it. When that comes, we won’t need the courts; abortion has been most effectively curtailed by changing hearts and minds. I think God wants it that way.

Lets put Marriage between a man and woman as a constitutional Amendment with the peoples ( vote) choice. I bet when it passes the Judges would overturn the will of the people.

Unless the amendment was worded to conflict with some other part of the Constitution, they couldn’t.

They would be Quoting a letter from Thomas Jefferson and not seen at all in the constitution.

The Founders asserted that the government should stay completely out of religion. It hasn’t always been that way. But that we have done wrong in the past is not license to do it now.

You must note that the Supreme Court startes God save this court this has not been outlawed nor the ten commandments dismantled there.

Those are what Madison wrote were “de minimus” violations that were not worth arguing about.

What is good for the Goose here is not good for the Gander.

Could you imagine the secularist if we wanted to put a chapel in a high-school?

If it were possible, and Satanists decided they wanted one, too, then they would also be allowed to do it. You sure you want that?

 

[StAnastasia]

Next, on my cranky list. I figured out at a young age that day, as in Genesis, did not necessarily mean 24 hours. However, I believe that it is possible that Eve and Adam were real people. Somewhere there is a post that points out that there are still a lot of questions to be answered. The jury is still out.

grannymh, do you mean that “Adam” (Hebrew for “man”) and “Eve” (Hebrew for “mother of all”) were individuals? The terms certainly are symbolic.

If you study the genetics involved, you’ll discover why it is not possible to avoid a genetic bottleneck if you have only two individuals (or eight Noachians) rather than a breeding population of several thousand from which all succeeding generations descend. Alec has posted loads of information on this in the past. Perhaps he will refresh our memories on this point

StAnastasia

 

[rad314]

If I may gently try to direct, once more, people’s attention to post #64 (p. 5) . . .

No one has attempted to show that this explanation is not consistent with both evolutionist dogma and Church teaching.

 

[StAnastasia]

Alec has posted loads of information on this in the past. Perhaps he will refresh our memories on this point.StAnastasia

Here’s a start: an article from an evangelical thinker: Glen Kuban, “Genetic Diversity Challenges a Recent Global Flood” – paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm.

 

[StAnastasia]

If I may gently try to direct, once more, people’s attention to post #64 (p. 5) . . . No one has attempted to show that this explanation is not consistent with both evolutionist dogma and Church teaching.

Let me re-read and think about this again. Of course, interpreting the Adam and Eve story literally obligates us to account for one of the genetic bottlenecks. Interpreting the Noachian flood story literally obligates us to account for another: human genetic diversity and post-diluvian animal diversity, a thing difficult to account for in only a few thousand years.

 

[reggieM]

I am not seeking to silence the Church. The Church should be heard in ethical matters of the application of science. The Church is a competent commentator on ethics and morals …

That is a more honorable and balanced position than I expected. The fact that you accept the Church as at least one possible source for moral assesments is very good to see - very commendable.

I still find it hard to reconcile your acceptance for the need for moral and ethical norms with atheistic-evolutionary materialism though.

I would think that morality implies some “should” – an obligation from people. I can’t see how random mutation and natural selection brings any obligation with it.

Additionally, morality points to a purpose. We “should” or “shouldn’t” do things for a reason. When we question those reasons, we find various purposes described. But those purposes move up the steps of authority and value to some ultimate or highest reason.

I cannot see how that can be reconciled with materialism which proposes that there are no real purposes and therefore no reason that we should observe moral or ethical laws.

 

[buffalo]

Let me re-read and think about this again. Of course, interpreting the Adam and Eve story literally obligates us to account for one of the genetic bottlenecks. Interpreting the Noachian flood story literally obligates us to account for another: human genetic diversity and post-diluvian animal diversity, a thing difficult to account for in only a few thousand years.

Unless…

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, do you mean that “Adam” (Hebrew for “man”) and “Eve” (Hebrew for “mother of all”) were individuals? The terms certainly are symbolic.
StAnastasia

Dear StAnastasia,

You are on point. The names were meant to be symbolic. Adam is pictured as the representative of humankind. Like the President signing a peace treaty on behalf of the American people. Typology, as in the study of types or prefigurative symbols in scriptural literature, is one of the many ways to study a complex body of literature such as the Bible. Using this method, one sees the continuity between the Old and New Testaments when Paul refers to Jesus as the new Adam.

Somewhere there might have been a post–I do know I got this message in spades via a pm–that I think differently than other posters.
This is because I rarely employ the “mutually exclusive or”. As a child in the 1940’s, I learned how to walk on both sides of the street up the middle at the same time. Yes, I do accept philosophical, experiential, spiritual, and subjective thinking.

Consequently, I am comfortable with viewing the individuals Eve and Adam as both symbolic and literal at the same time that I consider the word “day” in Genesis as primarily a literary tool used for instructing.

Blessings,
grannymh

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

That is a more honorable and balanced position than I expected. The fact that you accept the Church as at least one possible source for moral assesments is very good to see - very commendable.

I still find it hard to reconcile your acceptance for the need for moral and ethical norms with atheistic-evolutionary materialism though.

I would think that morality implies some “should” – an obligation from people. I can’t see how random mutation and natural selection brings any obligation with it.

Additionally, morality points to a purpose. We “should” or “shouldn’t” do things for a reason. When we question those reasons, we find various purposes described. But those purposes move up the steps of authority and value to some ultimate or highest reason.

I cannot see how that can be reconciled with materialism which proposes that there are no real purposes and therefore no reason that we should observe moral or ethical laws.

How about placing moral decisions on one basic principle?

All human life is worthy of profund respect.