Evolution and Eve?

[cassini]

The devils work? I think a quote from Thomas Aquinas will help here, “Truth cannot contradict Truth” (also found in cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Evolution is the best theory out there, vestigal organs all but prove this. Whales have pelvises, we have appendixes, for what? We don’t know, but we have them. As stated before, I believe God created everything, however, he is God. He is not limited to a literal interpretation. God can create life however he sees fit.

If anything I could argue that the Devil is trying to stop Christians from finding truth. ( Hes not but it can be argued). I’ve been called many things for believing in Theistic evolution, but never a devil worshiper (as you imply).

And To Buffalo: That post you made is 90 percent of you explaining the definition of the words you use, and only 10 percent substance. I do not have time to find that 10 percent.

it is interesting to note how theistic-evolutionists always quote passages from the great Fathers and doctors of the Church that are meaningless in the context of evolutionism and the death of traditional theology. The fact that all these Fathers fully accepted the literal interpretation of the Scriptures - just as God gave them to us - is rarely mentioned. Indeed these same Fathers actually compiled much of the magnificent theology derived from a literal account. These Fathers truly believed in ex nihilo creation. They knew that God created all whole and entire according to its kind. The theology of God as Creator demands this complete and finished creation, for doesn’t Genesis tell us that the creation was good and finished on the fifth day. They believed it happened only six thousand years ago. They fully believed in a global flood. They believed that Eve was literally created from Adam’s side. The idea that anyone would quote one of these fathers in a way that suggests they can be used in an evolutionary scenario is bringing Catholic Tradition and theology into disrepute. Go quote Teilhard de Chardin instead of the Fathers if you want to argue your case. You cannot make Catholic belief depend on human reasoning, nor of theories, hypotheses or metaphysical assumptions. Take for example the mother of evolution, the Big Bang. If - like Pius XII did - you claim it shows the world had a beginning, so Genesis is correct - and some day the theory, hypothesis, metaphysical assumption or call it what you like, is found to be incorrect - as many scientific theories, hypotheses etc., are - then one finds a theistic Big Bangist doctrine for creation is proven false also.

As for those who think one can list 4 things we are supposed to believe, and claim even a lunatic origin story can concord with these dogmas, you bring the dogmas into disripute.

TRUTH can only exist where the origins are PERFECTLY in accord with the theology. Dogmas do not exist in isolation, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry theology to explain them. Albert Pike and his Luciferian Freemasons knew that human pride in ‘science’ could destroy the simple faith of Catholicism while at the same time give the world an atheist philosophy for those who wanted rid of God altogether. Proof of that is here for any to see. Anything that destroys Catholic faith or theology is of the Devil.

 

[cassini]

I will not get into a discussion about evolution, which is currently under a temporary ban. Rather I will talk about the relation between science and scripture.

Science is the study of the material world. Physics, biology, chemistry etc. all deal with the material world. Since, in Catholic theology, God made the material world then the study of that world is also the study of God’s work, as in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1. The truths of God’s world and of God’s word cannot contradict each other. God is not inconsistent.

We cannot say that the word always overrules the word; nor can we say that the world always overrules the word. For an obvious example of the world overruling the (literal) word see Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,”

We use our knowledge of the world – we can see that trees do not have hands – to allow us to interpret the words of Isaiah as metaphor. Nobody I think interprets those words literally and accuses atheist scientists of a massive anti-Christian conspiracy to hide the fact that trees actually have hands.

However there are those who take the references to the six days of creation as literal and accuse scientists of just such a conspiracy. That is nonsense. There is no conspiracy; it is merely another case where scientists studying God’s world have enabled a better interpretation of God’s word.

Evolution can be seen as God’s way of making man’s material body. The Catholic Church allows, though it does not require, this interpretation. Those who say that God’s word always overrules God’s world have to explain why trees do not have hands.

rossum

Rossum, yes science is a discipline that examines how things work. But there comes a point where empiricism ends and something else begins, a ‘faith in reasoning’ if you like. Given science cannot determine the point at which God created, it leaves God out of it and hands the origin of all not to a divine beginning but what I call a ‘Godless’ beginning. It has to reason back purely on materialistic grounds. In other words, faith and science have long since parted ways.
But along came theistic evolutionists who wanted to keep their faith cake and have their scientific cake also. So they began to try to compose an evolutionary scenario for Catholics, looking for theories that will fill in gaps no matter how absurd. What they have come up with is a theology and science that is an insult to both faith and science.

Oh by the way, a little thing, but the Church does not permit you to believe in an evolution of the body. According to Humani Generis, the only semi-official teaching on the matter says quite clearly you can ARGUE your case but that as yet the Church has not granted Catholics permission to believe in it.

 

[jimmy]

Yes. You are right. But what has happened in the last 15- 20 years or so is that some interpretations of various scientific studies of the human anatomy are being used against various Catholic teachings.

When in doubt, Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

Science should be interpreted in line with the bible? If that is the case, should we be geocentrists? What do you mean when you say divine revelation trumps? If future science contradicts the present teaching of the Church, are we supposed to reject science?

 

[buffalo]

Science should be interpreted in line with the bible? If that is the case, should we be geocentrists? What do you mean when you say divine revelation trumps? If future science contradicts the present teaching of the Church, are we supposed to reject science?

Revelation (that is information from outside our frame) gives us necessary guidance.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=6274

 

[jimmy]

Revelation (that is information from outside our frame) gives us necessary guidance.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=6274

Where is the picture from?

I accept that revelation gives us necessary guidance, but what happens when your reasoning and your sense perception contradict what is supposedly declared as revelation? Aquinas (and all of scholastic and Catholic theologians until the 20th century) believed that our knowledge comes through our senses. Considering this, what happens when a dispute arises between revelation (or an interpretation of revelation) and science? I can’t deny what my senses and reason tell me about the world; that is insanity. We must live according to reality, and if our senses tell us something about the world then we must accept it.

What is interesting is that the early Christians used reason against the pagan religions. Reason was on the side of Christian faith, and it opposed paganism which was just a collection of myths. Socrates was a Christian before the Christians. Now what some Christians want to support is an idea that contradicts reason. They try to support a 6000 year old earth, and a literal six day creation. They do this by denying science and reason its proper place.

 

[cassini]

Science should be interpreted in line with the bible? If that is the case, should we be geocentrists? What do you mean when you say divine revelation trumps? If future science contradicts the present teaching of the Church, are we supposed to reject science?

Yes Jimmy, little do you know how correct you are. First you correctly infer the Bible reveals geocentrism and given spatial relativity prevents empirical science from determining that it is not geocentric, and given the Church defined and declared this interpretation is revealed, then yes, we should be geocentrists. Aren’t you?

 

[jimmy]

Yes Jimmy, little do you know how correct you are. First you correctly infer the Bible reveals geocentrism and given spatial relativity prevents empirical science from determining that it is not geocentric, and given the Church defined and declared this interpretation is revealed, then yes, we should be geocentrists. Aren’t you?

Relativity shows that the earth isn’t the center of the universe just as Copernicus and Gallileo did, and the Gravitational equations of Newtonian physics. Geocentrism is a denial of reality.

 

[buffalo]

Where is the picture from?

I accept that revelation gives us necessary guidance, but what happens when your reasoning and your sense perception contradict what is supposedly declared as revelation? Aquinas (and all of scholastic and Catholic theologians until the 20th century) believed that our knowledge comes through our senses. Considering this, what happens when a dispute arises between revelation (or an interpretation of revelation) and science? I can’t deny what my senses and reason tell me about the world; that is insanity. We must live according to reality, and if our senses tell us something about the world then we must accept it.

What is interesting is that the early Christians used reason against the pagan religions. Reason was on the side of Christian faith, and it opposed paganism which was just a collection of myths. Socrates was a Christian before the Christians. Now what some Christians want to support is an idea that contradicts reason. They try to support a 6000 year old earth, and a literal six day creation. They do this by denying science and reason its proper place.

I drew it. See the area where faith and reason intersect? When your sense perception casts doubt on Revelation we must double and triple check our reasoning.

In answer to the deceiver God charge often made here, think about this. If one is walking on the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see what should he conclude? There are several answers. However if there is a witness and the witness revealed what happened should we still believe what our senses are telling us, even if different?

 

[jimmy]

Buffalo, you have to remember though that we are not fideists either. We don’t just accept it and reject our reason. If there is a matter that can be investigated by science, and science shows that it happened under certain conditions it would be foolish to reject it. Our faith can not be irrational. The scholastics including Aquinas applied this to their understanding of God even. God is simple, without parts, He is everywhere, and etc. We don’t accept the faith just because someone told us to (even though witness is a part of it). As I said above, the pagan myths were laughable to the Christians whose faith was reasonable.

By the way, your example sounds like a Kantian type example. Kant argued that we can only understand the world in as much as we can experience it. We don’t experience the whole, so the senses can easily be decieved. Modern science follows Kant with its experimental method and argues that things aren’t always as they appear so you must test them time after time. Through continual testing we gain a greater grasp of the reality.

The left foot prints do tell you something of the reality though, even though you might not be able to make an all encompassing theory that would explain it. You might be able to eliminate certain things as false and narrow down the possibility. Maybe the person hopped across the beach on his left foot. Or maybe he wiped away the right foot as he went. We can say that he didn’t hop across the beach on his right foot. If someone told me that he hopped across the beach on his right foot I would say that it was a lie or a deception.

 

[cassini]

Relativity shows that the earth isn’t the center of the universe just as Copernicus and Gallileo did, and the Gravitational equations of Newtonian physics. Geocentrism is a denial of reality.

Sorry Jimmy, you take scientific licence here. But first back to your original post that asks a good question.

Jimmy asks What do you mean when you say divine revelation trumps? If future science contradicts the present teaching of the Church, are we supposed to reject science?
The answer to that Jimmy is a test of our belief in the teaching of the Church. If the Church teaches it, positively or negatively, true science will never contradict it. That I believe, and if ever proven wrong, then I am in big trouble for then my faith is not the true faith. But so far so good. Every claim of science that seems to be a contradiction, falls flat on its face when examined carefully. What say you when science tells you Eve could not be created from some of Adam’s flesh? Which do you believe?

And thus this leads to your reply above. Relativity allows anywhere to be the centre from a scientific or empirical point of view. But the limits of science is not superior to reality. Just because science cannot establish which of the cosmic bodies are at the centre of the universe - if any one of them is at the centre - this does not rule out one of them being at the centre. Thus for man to KNOW what that centre is, it HAS TO BE REVEALED BY GOD TO US
. And you know what Jimmy, He did that in the Scriptures and that was defined and declared by the Church.

As for Copernicus and Galileo showing us that the earth is not the centre of the universe, well they did no such thing, they simply believed it was, a different kettle of fish.
Finally Newtonian gravitation showing us the earth is not as Scripture says. Well Copernicus gave us the mathematical system for a heliocentric world - a far cry from proof of one or a falsification that the earth is not at the centre. Galileo proved the planets orbit the sun, but could not prove the earth orbits the sun. And finally Newton. Well all Newton did was devise a gravitation theory for heliocentrism, nothing more. Why De Sage also devised another gravitational theory at the time that was just as good as Newton’s - a pushing gravity. But devising gravitational theories and giving them a maths does not prove any one of them is true.

 

[grannymh]

Science should be interpreted in line with the bible?

Science should be interpreted in line with methods, materials, protocol, basic evidence, supporting evidence, past discoveries, etc.

My personal bias is that the Catholic Church safeguards Divine Revelation found in Scripture.

If that is the case, should we be geocentrists?

Geocentrism is not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. So the choice is yours.

What do you mean when you say divine revelation trumps?

My actual wording was: “When in doubt, Divine Revelation trumps.”

Take Adam as an example. Some theories like to do away with his human nature and call him a symbol. For a Catholic, Adam as some kind of symbol doesn’t sit right. In that case, Catholic dogma should trump. I say “should” because I am reading lots of posts which dispute Catholic teaching. Note: Divine Revelation does not depend on everyone’s affirmation.

If future science contradicts the present teaching of the Church, are we supposed to reject science?

My apology. But the threat of rejecting science is phony.

Future science, as well as current science, should be interpreted in line with methods, materials, protocol, basic evidence, supporting evidence, past discoveries, etc. I should add that each of the preceding needs to be evaluated for validity.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

Yes Jimmy, little do you know how correct you are. First you correctly infer the Bible reveals geocentrism and given spatial relativity prevents empirical science from determining that it is not geocentric, and given the Church defined and declared this interpretation is revealed, then yes, we should be geocentrists. Aren’t you?

Oh dear. Here we go on how the visible Catholic Church operates in its realm of faith and morals. It was individuals, including high ranking clergy, who favored geocentricism. They were not speaking in the voice of God. One is free to be a geocentrist or a carpenter or not.

Now can we get back to the thread’s topic?

 

[jimmy]

Sorry Jimmy, you take scientific licence here. But first back to your original post that asks a good question.
…
And thus this leads to your reply above. Relativity allows anywhere to be the centre from a scientific or empirical point of view. But the limits of science is not superior to reality. Just because science cannot establish which of the cosmic bodies are at the centre of the universe - if any one of them is at the centre - this does not rule out one of them being at the centre. Thus for man to KNOW what that centre is, it HAS TO BE REVEALED BY GOD TO US
. And you know what Jimmy, He did that in the Scriptures and that was defined and declared by the Church.

Yes, you are actually correct about relativity here. There is no center of the universe, and mass time spreads from every point. This is what the big bang theory possits. Every point of the universe is the center and space is expanding at every point. But the fact is that objects of greater mass distort the space time continuum to a greater degree and cause a greater gravitational force. So according to Relativity the earth would be orbiting the sun, not the other way around. Space-time is often shown with the example of a sheet on a bed. If you place an object on top it distorts the shape of the surface according to the mass of the object. Smaller objects would fall toward the larger one if there within range. Similarly, in the universe a smaller object orbits a larger object. A planet orbits a star, a star might orbit a black hole.

As for Copernicus and Galileo showing us that the earth is not the centre of the universe, well they did no such thing, they simply believed it was, a different kettle of fish.
Finally Newtonian gravitation showing us the earth is not as Scripture says. Well Copernicus gave us the mathematical system for a heliocentric world - a far cry from proof of one or a falsification that the earth is not at the centre. Galileo proved the planets orbit the sun, but could not prove the earth orbits the sun. And finally Newton. Well all Newton did was devise a gravitation theory for heliocentrism, nothing more. Why De Sage also devised another gravitational theory at the time that was just as good as Newton’s - a pushing gravity. But devising gravitational theories and giving them a maths does not prove any one of them is true.

Math is a pretty good judge of reality. Newton provided the mathematic support for an understanding of Gravity. Small objects orbit large objects. All you have done is deny reality. If you are going to deny Newtonian theory, you should atleast attempt to prove the equations for Gravitation false. Here is the Gravitational equation.



G equals 6.67x10 to the -11.

 

[jimmy]

Oh dear. Here we go on how the visible Catholic Church operates in its realm of faith and morals. It was individuals, including high ranking clergy, who favored geocentricism. They were not speaking in the voice of God. One is free to be a geocentrist or a carpenter or not.

Now can we get back to the thread’s topic?

Interestingly, Galilleo is buried in a Catholic Church in Rome. That should reveal something about what is thought of Galilleo’s scientific accomplishments.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you have to remember though that we are not fideists either. We don’t just accept it and reject our reason. If there is a matter that can be investigated by science, and science shows that it happened under certain conditions it would be foolish to reject it. Our faith can not be irrational. The scholastics including Aquinas applied this to their understanding of God even. God is simple, without parts, He is everywhere, and etc. We don’t accept the faith just because someone told us to (even though witness is a part of it). As I said above, the pagan myths were laughable to the Christians whose faith was reasonable.

By the way, your example sounds like a Kantian type example. Kant argued that we can only understand the world in as much as we can experience it. We don’t experience the whole, so the senses can easily be decieved. Modern science follows Kant with its experimental method and argues that things aren’t always as they appear so you must test them time after time. Through continual testing we gain a greater grasp of the reality.

The left foot prints do tell you something of the reality though, even though you might not be able to make an all encompassing theory that would explain it. You might be able to eliminate certain things as false and narrow down the possibility. Maybe the person hopped across the beach on his left foot. Or maybe he wiped away the right foot as he went. We can say that he didn’t hop across the beach on his right foot. If someone told me that he hopped across the beach on his right foot I would say that it was a lie or a deception.

There are always underlying assumptions. We must be certain that these assumptions are correct. If you build your science upon a number of false assumptions there are big problems. It doesn’t matter how many times you test it the same conclusion will be made.

I do not reject right reason. I reject faulty reasoning.

Correct reasoning will always be in conformance with Revelation. It can be no other way. Christians knew the universe to be intelligible for it flowed from an intelligent Creator. That simple guide put them on the right course for modern science to flourish. Now what happens when science disconnects itself from God? There is a divergence that gets larger. Modern science a priori rules out God. Is that faulty reasoning or not? Can we trust it?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, you are actually correct about relativity here. There is no center of the universe, and mass time spreads from every point. This is what the big bang theory possits. Every point of the universe is the center and space is expanding at every point. But the fact is that objects of greater mass distort the space time continuum to a greater degree and cause a greater gravitational force. So according to Relativity the earth would be orbiting the sun, not the other way around. Space-time is often shown with the example of a sheet on a bed. If you place an object on top it distorts the shape of the surface according to the mass of the object. Smaller objects would fall toward the larger one if there within range. Similarly, in the universe a smaller object orbits a larger object. A planet orbits a star, a star might orbit a black hole.

Math is a pretty good judge of reality. Newton provided the mathematic support for an understanding of Gravity. Small objects orbit large objects. All you have done is deny reality. If you are going to deny Newtonian theory, you should atleast attempt to prove the equations for Gravitation false. Here is the Gravitational equation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/c/d/7cdf733b81cd2b83d434160241d6023c.png

G equals 6.67x10 to the -11.

So any point can be the center?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, you are actually correct about relativity here. There is no center of the universe, and mass time spreads from every point. This is what the big bang theory possits. Every point of the universe is the center and space is expanding at every point. But the fact is that objects of greater mass distort the space time continuum to a greater degree and cause a greater gravitational force. So according to Relativity the earth would be orbiting the sun, not the other way around. Space-time is often shown with the example of a sheet on a bed. If you place an object on top it distorts the shape of the surface according to the mass of the object. Smaller objects would fall toward the larger one if there within range. Similarly, in the universe a smaller object orbits a larger object. A planet orbits a star, a star might orbit a black hole.

Math is a pretty good judge of reality. Newton provided the mathematic support for an understanding of Gravity. Small objects orbit large objects. All you have done is deny reality. If you are going to deny Newtonian theory, you should atleast attempt to prove the equations for Gravitation false. Here is the Gravitational equation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/c/d/7cdf733b81cd2b83d434160241d6023c.png

G equals 6.67x10 to the -11.

Since you are interested, what do you think of this?

New Foundation Physics

http://peswiki.com/images/0/0e/Aether_Unit2_250.jpg

 

[jimmy]

There are always underlying assumptions. We must be certain that these assumptions are correct. If you build your science upon a number of false assumptions there are big problems. It doesn’t matter how many times you test it the same conclusion will be made.

I do not reject right reason. I reject faulty reasoning.

Correct reasoning will always be in conformance with Revelation. It can be no other way. Christians knew the universe to be intelligible for it flowed from an intelligent Creator. That simple guide put them on the right course for modern science to flourish. Now what happens when science disconnects itself from God? There is a divergence that gets larger. Modern science a priori rules out God. Is that faulty reasoning or not? Can we trust it?

This comes back to the Galilleo question though. Many in the Church, including bishops, argued that the bible indicated that the sun orbits the earth rather than the other way around. Were they correct in assuming that the sun orbits the earth because it is possibly implied by scripture? Should Copernicus and Galilleo even have considered the possibility of the earth orbiting the sun, or were they wrong from the start? Should they have just accepted that the earth is the center?

Many modern scientists are atheists, but that doesn’t make science itself atheistic. There are Christian scientists who study the same things the atheistic scientists study, but they have a different underlying assumption. Maybe they accept all of the same theories, but they have different understandings of the meaning of it all. Fr. George Lamatre was a Catholic priest, who first developed the theory of the big bang.

But it isn’t necessarily a contradiction between revelation and reason. As you mentioned the creation is the product of an intelligent creator and through it there is a revelation of God. Science can be a subject of revelation. The problem comes in when people start making scientific claims based on the bible. You can’t refute science with the bible.

 

[jimmy]

So any point can be the center?

Not any point, every point is the center. The earth is the center, the sun is the center, the andromeda Galaxy is the center, the furthest galaxy from us is the center. But at the same time Gravitation does still fit in to the Newtonian understanding. The smaller still orbits the larger.

 

[buffalo]

This comes back to the Galilleo question though. Many in the Church, including bishops, argued that the bible indicated that the sun orbits the earth rather than the other way around. Were they correct in assuming that the sun orbits the earth because it is possibly implied by scripture? Should Copernicus and Galilleo even have considered the possibility of the earth orbiting the sun, or were they wrong from the start? Should they have just accepted that the earth is the center?

Many modern scientists are atheists, but that doesn’t make science itself atheistic. There are Christian scientists who study the same things the atheistic scientists study, but they have a different underlying assumption. Maybe they accept all of the same theories, but they have different understandings of the meaning of it all. Fr. George Lamatre was a Catholic priest, who first developed the theory of the big bang.

But it isn’t necessarily a contradiction between revelation and reason. As you mentioned the creation is the product of an intelligent creator and through it there is a revelation of God. Science can be a subject of revelation. The problem comes in when people start making scientific claims based on the bible. You can’t refute science with the bible.

Is it any surprise that Fr LeMaitre, a Catholic put forth the Big Bang. Scripture said the universe began and science caught up thousands of years later. (it also took all the wind out of atheist’s sails)

Sure you can. Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Pope John Paul II

Now we can never know which orbits the other unless we can see from outside this frams. The math works both ways.

One other thing. What makes this solar system special? How about left handedness?