Evolution In The Classroom

[reggieM]

Deism
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to … reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs, such as by miracles and revelations.
Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or “The Supreme Architect”) has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The deists …[agreed] to cast off the trammels of authoritative religious teaching in favour of a free and purely rationalistic speculation. Many of them were frankly materialistic in their doctrines; while the French thinkers who subsequently built upon the foundations laid by the English deists were almost exclusively so. Others rested content with a criticism of ecclesiastical authority in teaching the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, or the fact of an external revelation of supernatural truth given by God to man. In this last point, while there is a considerable divergence of method and procedure observable in the writings of the various deists, all, at least to a very large extent, seem to concur. Deism, in its every manifestation was opposed to the current and traditional teaching of revealed religion.
newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

 

[brandymmiller]

There is a reference in the Bible to mountains “skipping like rams”- would a geologist be “crossing the line into religion” and God by stating that mountains can’t do that?

Ever heard of an earthquake?

 

[buffalo]

Sure – If genetics can show that felines share genetic similarities, I’ll accept that. But that doesn’t mean anything regarding the biblical "kinds Noah supposedly brought on board the ark.

StAnastasia

How do you know?

 

[buffalo]

1. God is omnipotent and is interested in our actions
2. Observations strongly suggests speciation is accounted for by natural selection
3. Given that God has the ability (omnipotence) and motive (interest in us), we would assume that God had some “stake” in evolution’s outcome and would assure His will was done.

Again, when you take both the beliefs in an omnipotent God and knowledge of evolution, it’s a simple conclusion.

If you flip a coin 100 times you get chance results. If you flip it 100 times and the outcome is always heads chance no longer plays a part. If you repeat this over and over it is designed that way.

I agree - God sustains His creation

If God knew what Adam and Eve looked like and that is how He wanted them to look, it suggests more than chance. That means it is guided and non-materialistic. That would mean the path of man was directed right from the start.

The inevitable question is why God needed the time?

 

[tjm190]

If you flip a coin 100 times you get chance results. If you flip it 100 times and the outcome is always heads chance no longer plays a part. If you repeat this over and over it is designed that way.

I agree - God sustains His creation

If God knew what Adam and Eve looked like and that is how He wanted them to look, it suggests more than chance. That means it is guided and non-materialistic. That would mean the path of man was directed right from the start.

The inevitable question is why God needed the time?

Who’s to say God cared what Adam and Eve looked like? Would Christ not have died for us if we had wings? This line of discussion is of course moot- we have no solid basis on which to speculate whether or not God desired us to look as we do, although I do believe that God did desire us to achieve a level of ‘sentience’. I also believe that God is capable of achieving His ends via the weather- but it is FAITH that leads me to that conclusion not science, so I do not demand meteorology be taught as “guided and non-materialistic.”

And nobody ever claimed God “needed” time.

 

[tjm190]

Ever heard of an earthquake?

Because an earthquake makes mountains skip around? If the quote was “shivered like freshly sheered rams in the winter” there’d be a case. And in context that would mean something to the extent of God causing an earthquake when the Jews were freed… to show how good that was?

 

[edwest2]

Who’s to say God cared what Adam and Eve looked like? Would Christ not have died for us if we had wings? This line of discussion is of course moot- we have no solid basis on which to speculate whether or not God desired us to look as we do, although I do believe that God did desire us to achieve a level of ‘sentience’. I also believe that God is capable of achieving His ends via the weather- but it is FAITH that leads me to that conclusion not science, so I do not demand meteorology be taught as “guided and non-materialistic.”

And nobody ever claimed God “needed” time.

Please stop the science fiction. There is no science behind sentience as you call it. It is a wish that is not supported by any science at all.

God was a direct, causal agent in Creation. That, at least, is supported by the Church, not some atheist nonsense about “sentience.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Because an earthquake makes mountains skip around? If the quote was “shivered like freshly sheered rams in the winter” there’d be a case. And in context that would mean something to the extent of God causing an earthquake when the Jews were freed… to show how good that was?

What was the author trying to convey?

 

[buffalo]

Who’s to say God cared what Adam and Eve looked like? Would Christ not have died for us if we had wings? This line of discussion is of course moot- we have no solid basis on which to speculate whether or not God desired us to look as we do, although I do believe that God did desire us to achieve a level of ‘sentience’. I also believe that God is capable of achieving His ends via the weather- but it is FAITH that leads me to that conclusion not science, so I do not demand meteorology be taught as “guided and non-materialistic.”

And nobody ever claimed God “needed” time.

The only way out of this is that God rolled dice. This is counter to clear Catholic teaching and understanding.

 

[carinapir]

Deism
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to … reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs, such as by miracles and revelations.
Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or “The Supreme Architect”) has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The deists …[agreed] to cast off the trammels of authoritative religious teaching in favour of a free and purely rationalistic speculation. Many of them were frankly materialistic in their doctrines; while the French thinkers who subsequently built upon the foundations laid by the English deists were almost exclusively so. Others rested content with a criticism of ecclesiastical authority in teaching the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, or the fact of an external revelation of supernatural truth given by God to man. In this last point, while there is a considerable divergence of method and procedure observable in the writings of the various deists, all, at least to a very large extent, seem to concur. Deism, in its every manifestation was opposed to the current and traditional teaching of revealed religion.
newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

I assume that what you are responding to here is the question of “what is it that those who believe in theistic evolution are agreeing to?”

It is not fair to assume that someone who believes in theistic evolution also is a deist. Belief in evolution does not take away ones believe in the possiblity of God or Jesus having performed miracles. The wine at Cana? The Resurection? The Immaculate Conception? No argument from me there. The great flood? Well, maybe there is a natural explination and maybe the whole world was not flooded but it was God’s will so ultimately it was His doing. As St. A indicated in a prior post TE’s don’t all hold exactly the same believes regarding God’s influence. Besides, there is nothing wrong with certain deist ideas. I, for one, reject the idea of God being a great puppet master in the sky who controls everything at every moment. Deism is a reaction to that kind of belief, but, yes, deism taken too far and you end up with an indifferent God and I don’t believe that either.

Also, as I’ve stated before, I agree with Cardinal Schonborn that pure science can lead certain people away from God because of how its methods work and how the human mind works when studying it. I think that personal reflection and some study of philosophy is also needed for many people to come to believe in God or continue their belief.

I believe that you and others assume a lot when you point the finger at TE.

 

[StAnastasia]

How do you know?

How do I know what?

 

[buffalo]

How do I know what?

you - But that doesn’t mean anything regarding the biblical "kinds Noah supposedly brought on board the ark.

me- How do you know?

 

[buffalo]

**Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

** “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).[1] He created the light, which He separated from the darkness; the waters, the sky, and the land; the plants and the trees; the sun, the moon, and the stars; the fish, the birds, and the animals (Gen 1:2-25). “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25). Then, as the crowning jewel of His creation, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). God gave man dominion over all the other creatures that He created (Gen 1:28). “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
In this article, I will carefully examine the origins of man and will discuss the plausibility of theistic evolution—specifically, the notion that man evolved from a lower animal species. I will show that in light of Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and sound reason, the theory of evolution, though perhaps remotely possible in a very restricted sense, is nevertheless not truly plausible.
The “theory of evolution” is actually a collection of several different theories, each with its own variations. As Father Brian Harrison points out,[2] each of these theories generally falls under one of six major categories. I will now present these categories in order, from the most radical to the least:

more…

 

[carinapir]

Please stop the science fiction. There is no science behind sentience as you call it. It is a wish that is not supported by any science at all.

God was a direct, causal agent in Creation. That, at least, is supported by the Church, not some atheist nonsense about “sentience.”

So, we are not sentient and science cannot prove that we are? Weird.

I suppose what you are trying to say is that science cannot measure sentience in fossils just like they cannot determine the existance of a soul. They can only use indirect indications of sentience because they do not have a live subject to test. So, therefore God gave us sentience. There is no diagreement here, TEs would also say that God gave us sentience. He just might have chosen to do so via a process. But He also might have magically gifted it to us one day, we will never know for sure.

You are trying to shoehorn God in where ever He will fit and decide how He must have done things because it’s in the Bible. TE says that God already made His decision on how to create things. We are merely observing the effects of that decision.

Yes, God was a direct, causal agent in evolution!

 

[edwest2]

So, we are not sentient and science cannot prove that we are? Weird.

I suppose what you are trying to say is that science cannot measure sentience in fossils just like they cannot determine the existance of a soul. They can only use indirect indications of sentience because they do not have a live subject to test. So, therefore God gave us sentience. There is no diagreement here, TEs would also say that God gave us sentience. He just might have chosen to do so via a process. But He also might have magically gifted it to us one day, we will never know for sure.

You are trying to shoehorn God in where ever He will fit and decide how He must have done things because it’s in the Bible. TE says that God already made His decision on how to create things. We are merely observing the effects of that decision.

Yes, God was a direct, causal agent in evolution!

You are ignoring the dogmatic statements made here about science.

Science is silent about God.
Science is silent about the supernatural.

Why?

Because Science Cannot Study Either.

But people post here all the time, supposedly using Science, to state God did this or that based on science? Where? How? How can you ever say God did anything based on science which is silent about such things?

It is other people trying to shoehorn God into some unproven scientific assumption that I’m pointing out.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ed_CA]

In reply to some of the postings, it is wrong to put the creation of God into a nice little box like intelligent design. So what if the forms of life arise from mutations and natural selection.
Does it diminish one’s faith that the universe is over 13.5 billion years old and the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago? Must God create directly or indirectly? If God creates indirectly, is not God still the creator of the universe?
Are the ways of God, man’s ways?

 

[carinapir]

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

	“In the  		beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).[1]  		He created the light, which He separated from the darkness; the waters, the sky, and the land; the plants and the trees;  		the sun, the moon, and the stars; the fish, the birds, and the animals (Gen 1:2-25). “And God saw that it was good” (Gen  		1:25). Then, as the crowning jewel of His creation, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;  		male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). God gave man dominion over all the other creatures that He created (Gen  		1:28). “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
	 		In this article, I will carefully examine the origins of man and will  		discuss the plausibility of *theistic evolution*—specifically, the notion that man evolved from a lower animal  		species. I will show that in light of Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and sound reason, the  		theory of evolution, though perhaps remotely possible in a very restricted sense, is nevertheless not truly plausible.
	 		The “theory of evolution” is actually a collection of several different  		theories, each with its own variations. As Father Brian Harrison points out,[2]  		each of these theories generally falls under one of six major categories. I will now present these categories in order,  		from the most radical to the least:

more…

Just like a prior article you provided, this individual has to piece together bits and pieces of things that Popes have said from the 500 AD until now to illstrate his points. And he is right about one thing: the Church is very careful about how it words things. Several Popes have refered to Eve coming out of Adam’s side however they have not speculated as to how that might have occured. Nor have they actually declared it to be literal. If science were to find the bodies of Adam and Eve and prove how she was created, the Church would agree, even if they had to re-evaluate “coming out of his side” as a metaphore or something. Why? Because the Church is highly intelligent and reasonable, not because they were bowing to science. The truth IS the God’s truth and as the Church has said science and religion should not conflict.

 

[StAnastasia]

you - But that doesn’t mean anything regarding the biblical "kinds Noah supposedly brought on board the ark./QUOTE]

Right – it’s nonsense to suppose that Noah brought two dogs on board the ark 4,000 years BCE, and that in a few hundreds years from the “Flood” they evolved into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes, and African wild dogs. And even if speciation this rapid were possible, it forces you to acknowledge the thing you hate above all other things: Evilushun.

 

[edwest2]

In reply to some of the postings, it is wrong to put the creation of God into a nice little box like intelligent design. So what if the forms of life arise from mutations and natural selection.
Does it diminish one’s faith that the universe is over 13.5 billion years old and the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago? Must God create directly or indirectly? If God creates indirectly, is not God still the creator of the universe?
Are the ways of God, man’s ways?

It is not about diminishing faith at all. It is about knowing what the Church actually teaches as opposed to random comments on an internet forum. See the document Communion and Stewardship, and the encyclical Humani Generis, both available online.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I assume that what you are responding to here is the question of “what is it that those who believe in theistic evolution are agreeing to?”

… It is not fair to assume that someone who believes in theistic evolution also is a deist. I believe that you and others assume a lot when you point the finger at TE.

This description from the article that Buffalo posted may help also:

1. Deistic Evolution. This category, like the previous one, contends that the entire visible universe, including the totality of man, evolved from matter. However, in this case, the existence of God is acknowledged as distinct from creation. Yet, God’s role would simply be to create the primeval elements and then let them naturally evolve into various life forms, including man (body and soul).[6] This category also espouses polygenism, and thus gives no credence to the historicity of Adam and Eve.

…The second category, Deistic Evolution, must be immediately rejected as well. In fact, it hardly differs at all from the first category.[12] It still attributes all but the very first spark of creation to purely natural processes, and the inherent Deism in this view has already been condemned by the Church.