EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[The_Barbarian]

No doubt the first guy to make fire was greeted by claims that he was going to burn up the whole world.

BTW, Buffalo should probably remember this is a message board. If he thinks the video has some good points, he should tell us what they are, so we can discuss them.

If he doesn’t know enough about it to tell us what they are, I’m wondering why he thinks it’s worth watching.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wheel, fire, and electricity are not in the same class as the Hadron Collider.

grannymh, can you explain why they are not? These three have all had an extraordinary impact on the cultural evolution of our species, without which religion, science, art, education, and any number of other things would not be as they are.

StAnastasia

 

[Discerner]

I’m being charitable…

Trust me, that was kind…QUOTE]

Uh huh.

 

[Discerner]

I’m being charitable…

Trust me, that was kind.

:yup:

 

[Discerner]

I’m being charitable

Trust me, that was kind.

:yup: :clapping:

 

[Discerner]

To calm any you I might have stupendously offended, I’ll clarify that I was referring to some Catholic evolutionists who won’t consider that God may have worked outside the natural laws of our fallen universe, not all. Apparently, my statement was taken as a direct assault on our beloved Holy Father himself. Sheesh.

I repent! :bowdown:

 

[The_Barbarian]

To calm any you I might have stupendously offended, I’ll clarify that I was referring to some Catholic evolutionists who won’t consider that God may have worked outside the natural laws of our fallen universe, not all.

Which ones? I can’t think of any. I’d really like to know.

Apparently, my statement was taken as a direct assault on our beloved Holy Father himself. Sheesh.

Maybe, you should be more careful with accusations in the future. Meantime, I think it’s time for you to answer the question.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, can you explain why they are not? These three have all had an extraordinary impact on the cultural evolution of our species, without which religion, science, art, education, and any number of other things would not be as they are.
StAnastasia

Of course wheel, fire, electricity, internet, etc. have an extraordinary impact but that does not answer the original question.

It would be helpful to go back to post 791. The question which still has not been answered is: What exactly is the potential gain of the Hadron Collider? – What is its huge positive gain?

Post 794 only asked another question. It did not reply to Post 791 original question. BTW I don’t know the answer to the original question. And I haven’t seen any feasible solution to some of the latest claims regarding evolutionary theory of humanity.

Blessings,
granny

All human life has a right to existence

 

[StAnastasia]

It would be helpful to go back to post 791. The question which still has not been answered is: What exactly is the potential gain of the Hadron Collider? – What is its huge positive gain?

The potential gain is great in terms of our knowledge of the fundamental structure of the universe.

 

[ricmat]

The potential gain is great in terms of our knowledge of the fundamental structure of the universe.

Here’s an overview of the theory.

And here’s what really happens

PS both images from this article.

 

[Namesake]

Here’s an overview of the theory.

And here’s what really happens

PS both images from this article.

Just for some additional information.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7893689.stm

 

[Discerner]

Which ones? I can’t think of any. I’d really like to know.

Maybe, you should be more careful with accusations in the future. Meantime, I think it’s time for you to answer the question.

First of all, I sincerely apologize I offended you and I will be more careful. But it wasn’t an accusation, it was a deduction I made because most modern Catholic scientists and theologians overwhelmingly accept evolution and I wonder why they’re not more open to the possibility that the entire pre-fallen world may have been literally of a higher supernatural order than our own. I think it would be easier for someone to name those Catholic scientists and theologians who are open to the traditional patristic understanding these days rather than those who aren’t. Creation scientists weren’t even allowed to present their case at the Vatican.

I’ve showed that the traditional Church teaching has always been that bodily death itself began with man’s sin and did not exist prior. I’ve provided multiple quotes from the Catechism that illustrate this clearly. Great popes including our own have stated that there is no contradiction. I’m merely trying to understand how they come to that conclusion theologically because evolution necessarily means that God created death and suffering. That is significant. I don’t think it’s a sin to ask these questions. My brain is the size of a raisen compared to Pope Benedict. Please, I’m just trying to seek real answers and I’m not trying to accuse or offend anyone. We are all brothers and sisters seeking the truth. Let’s do it with love.

 

[grannymh]

The potential gain is great in terms of our knowledge of the fundamental structure of the universe.

If I wrote that answer when I was working, I would have been fired on the spot.

No matter. I understood what you meant. Right now, I’m more interested in Catholic Lent considering all I’ve learned about human evolution from posters. And I do need to finish reading Scientific American, January 2009, and National Geographic, February 2009. Do like to keep up with what evolutionary facts and speculations are being presented to the ordinary person on the street.

Blessings,
granny

All human life has a purpose beyond the structure of the universe.

 

[grannymh]

First of all, I sincerely apologize I offended you and I will be more careful. But it wasn’t an accusation, it was a deduction I made because most modern Catholic scientists and theologians overwhelmingly accept evolution and I wonder why they’re not more open to the possibility that the entire pre-fallen world may have been literally of a higher supernatural order than our own. I think it would be easier for someone to name those Catholic scientists and theologians who are open to the traditional patristic understanding these days rather than those who aren’t. Creation scientists weren’t even allowed to present their case at the Vatican.

I’ve showed that the traditional Church teaching has always been that bodily death itself began with man’s sin and did not exist prior. I’ve provided multiple quotes from the Catechism that illustrate this clearly. Great popes including our own have stated that there is no contradiction. I’m merely trying to understand how they come to that conclusion theologically because evolution necessarily means that God created death and suffering. That is significant. I don’t think it’s a sin to ask these questions. My brain is the size of a raisen compared to Pope Benedict. Please, I’m just trying to seek real answers and I’m not trying to accuse or offend anyone. We are all brothers and sisters seeking the truth. Let’s do it with love.

Well said. Guess which story I read to my grandkid which puts into perspective the observation of a raisin-size child

I also think that entire pre-fallen world may have been literally of a higher supernatural order than our own. Preternatural is the word. Evolution does not necessarily mean that God was the one Who created death and suffering. In a pre-fallen world, an animal could cease to exist without suffering.

IMHO (Did I get those letters right?) The problem is that very few dare to question the evidence of genetics when it comes to humans. The first analytic question should be “What is missing?”

John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, started a sentence in his January 2009 column with: “Then something happened: some unidentified combination of environmental circumstance and genetic novelty triggered crazy diversification in the variety and complexity of…” This was in reference to the “so-called Cambrian explosion” which he tied into the explosion in evolutionary thought touched off by Charles Darwin of 200th birthday fame.

I’ll bet if an analytic mind looks closely at evidence, one will find an unidentified something which triggered something here and there. If there isn’t something else to be discovered, a lot of scientists will be unemployed except for those exceptional ones who find work in Hollywood or on the lecture circuit making fun of people’s religious beliefs.

Blessings,
granny

All human life comes from a loving Creator.

 

[The_Barbarian]

First of all, I sincerely apologize I offended you and I will be more careful. But it wasn’t an accusation, it was a deduction I made because most modern Catholic scientists and theologians overwhelmingly accept evolution and I wonder why they’re not more open to the possibility that the entire pre-fallen world may have been literally of a higher supernatural order than our own.

With no scriptural or scientific evidence for that, it’s going to be a tough sell.

I think it would be easier for someone to name those Catholic scientists and theologians who are open to the traditional patristic understanding these days rather than those who aren’t.

I gather than means you don’t actually know of any Catholic scientists who think God is limited to natural things?

If you do, now, would be a good time to tell us about them.

Creation scientists weren’t even allowed to present their case at the Vatican.

Neither were IDers, scientologists, and Voudun practicioners. For the same reasons.

I’ve showed that the traditional Church teaching has always been that bodily death itself began with man’s sin and did not exist prior.

You’ve asserted it. But the evidence from scripture does not support that. Indeed, Genesis shows that it is not the case.

I’m merely trying to understand how they come to that conclusion theologically because evolution necessarily means that God created death and suffering.

Isaias 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Without affliction, there can be no goodness with us. God could have, if He had chosen, created a world and people without evil or the potential for it.

Life is not a permanent thing, nor is suffering a cosmic evil.

That is significant. I don’t think it’s a sin to ask these questions.

No, it’s not. But it is very important to tell the truth to the best of one’s abilities. If there is an answer for you, it is in the truth.

 

[Discerner]

You’ve asserted it. But the evidence from scripture does not support that. Indeed, Genesis shows that it is not the case.

Okay, now you’re coming through clear. You’re admitting you believe the traditional Church teaching is wrong - that’s fine, and it helps me see where you’re coming from. You’re saying that we in the enlightened age now have evidence in Scripture that must have been elusive to the Patristic tradition. That is a serious claim and you seem so flippant about it as if it’s so obvious. If it is you must now show me. Show me where this evidence is from scripture that you speak of that contradicts those Catechism quotes and please consider the following as well.

Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII).

**The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I). **

Infallible statement:
We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

But, I’m sure you will ignore these as well and insist that I give you names of the people I’m referring to. I don’t know what difference it makes to you because as I said, they are the majority! How bout Rahner, Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, and all their disciples for starters which are teaching in just about every Catholic university in the world? Does it only count if I know them personally? C’mon, man.

 

[Discerner]

I gather than means you don’t actually know of any Catholic scientists who think God is limited to natural things?

That’s putting words in my mouth. I never claimed Catholic scientists deny the supernatural. I’ve been speaking specifically about those who believe as you do that the pre-fallen creation was no different than we know it today and humankind developed with with suffering, disease, and death as its building blocks. Obviously there’s no scientific proof for the idea of a universe of original justice because as I said before that would transcend what science is capable of. Do see what I’m trying to say? It’s beyond our rational understanding. It’s in the realm of theology, not science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I gather than means you don’t actually know of any Catholic scientists who think God is limited to natural things?

That’s putting words in my mouth.

Let’s take a look. You said:

Exactly. God doesn’t have to work inside the box of natural laws, but Catholic evolutionists seem to insist that He must.

Name us some.

I never claimed Catholic scientists deny the supernatural. I’ve been speaking specifically about those who believe as you do that the pre-fallen creation was no different than we know it today and humankind developed with with suffering, disease, and death as its building blocks.

What’s that about “putting words in my mouth?”

Of course, for humans, everything changed after the fall. But not for the rest of creation. Why would it? And that “suffering, disease, and death” stuff. Do you really think that is what scientific people who are Catholics think?

Obviously there’s no scientific proof for the idea of a universe of original justice because as I said before that would transcend what science is capable of.

Why is that a problem for you? Much of reality transcends science. It doesn’t bother us. Why should it bother you?

 

[Discerner]

Okay, I’ve gone back over my posts, and I think I see where I could have ruffled some feathers and I want make a public apology to Barbarian or anyone else who took offense. I spoke too generally and too boldly. I should probably bow out of this debate now. I don’t want to be the cause of any more anger or frustration for anyone who supposed to be my brother. I don’t want to be a stumbling block to the peace and joy of Christ.

Barbarian, we may be operating under different worldviews, but we can both agree that we are able to recite the same Creed in unity. Peace be with you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Okay, now you’re coming through clear. You’re admitting you believe the traditional Church teaching is wrong

If I do, so does the Pope.

Maybe you’ve just grafted your personal theology onto the Church.

You’re saying that we in the enlightened age now have evidence in Scripture that must have been elusive to the Patristic tradition.

There is always progress in understanding. Indeed, the “theology of the body” was JPII’s great advance in theology.

That is a serious claim and you seem so flippant about it as if it’s so obvious.

Keep in mind, Papal infallibility is a recent dogma. We do learn over time.

If it is you must now show me. Show me where this evidence is from scripture that you speak of that contradicts those Catechism quotes and please consider the following as well.

It doesn’t contradict them; it merely contradicts your interpretation of them.

God tells Adam he will die the day he eats from the tree. And yet Adam eats and lives on for many years. Adam is not immortal; God even expresses concern that he might become so.

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

Clever dodge, that. St. Augustine pointed out that you could not logically justify six 24-hour days from Genesis. He thought it happened instantly, a creation from which every other thing developed as a consequence of that initial creation.

A remarkably perceptive understanding, given what we now know about the world.

How bout Rahner, Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, and all their disciples for starters which are teaching in just about every Catholic university in the world?

I had no idea they said God was limited to natural laws. Where do I find these statements?