S
StAnastasia
Guest
Evolution is neither more nor less godless than the theory of gravity.
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
If God didn’t design the mechanisms of evolution (as you seem to believe), then by definition it’s Godless.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is why spokesmen for the New Atheism use the same mountains of evidence for evolution to ‘prove’ there is no God. Richard Dawkins on TV: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”
I would suggest you exercise a bit of caution when you talk about what is honest. God does perform miracles and because of man, the devil, an actual being, was given permission in creation for a time. There was an exorcist I heard interviewed on Catholic Radio, but too many believe in the mind of man more than the reality of God and the Devil. The Congregation for Saint’s Causes is investigating miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II, or is that just a fiction to you? If you are Catholic, you need to stop, and understand, that God still, today, actively works in the world. You should look into the miracles attributed to Lourdes and Fatima as well.
A symbolic God is no God at all.
Peace,
Ed
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
I wonder whether you believe in God at all. Why would God set in place a system whereby all these screw-ups are possible? In any event, macro-evolution is nothing but a grand hoax. Witness the dearth of explanations for the formation of even a single cell, let alone an organ or organism.
There are other forces in this world besides God. Christ cast out demons, after all. I believe that God does not see death as we humans do. He has given enough evidence in nature to prove to all willing to see that He is sovereign. He demands love and faithfulness from humanity, and He'll manage the rest. :) Rob
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course God created evolution – it’s an integral part of creation! “Let the earth bring forth living creatures…”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Right – Dawkins fails to realize that his atheism is a philosophical presupposition, rather than a scientific deduction. He is not very philosophically sophisticated, as John Haught has pointed out in his critique of the new atheism."
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Absolutely!
R
ricmat
Guest
I didn’t say “create”, I said “design.”
Kids “create” artworks, and many other things. Design involves more than that.
Jmcrae noted the following in another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4272138&postcount=123
“Design consists of balance, harmony, colour, line, shape, form, and function, where form and function operate harmoniously.”
Certainly, all of creation is in balance & harmony (i.e. the physical fine-tuned constants of physics), and the “colour, line, shape & form” are beautiful.
Whatever evolution really does (or to what extent it does something) is not an accident. It is part of a plan (or design, in other words) that originated with God. God is the intelligent designer of this plan.
Why you cannot bring yourself to say that, and give glory to God’s intelligently designed project (Pope’s words), is beyond me.
R
ricmat
Guest
Here’s an article that appeared yesterday in Inside Catholic magazine. It directly addresses your comments above. The article starts out as follows:
How ironic that you use arguments which are the bedrock of atheism.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Just out of curiosity, why do we say “Maker of Heaven and Earth” in the Nicene Creed and “Creator of Heaven and Earth” in the Apostle’s Creed rather than “Designer of Heaven and Earth”? Wouldn’t a synonym of “Maker” be “Creator”?
Peace
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
The distinction between “creator” (and/or maker), and “designer” is not one that I actually think is all that important. It seems to be VERY important to some, like StA. I think of God as creator, and maker, and designer (and savior, and bridegoom…) As most Catholics do.
But to me, create indicates a generic sort of all-encompassing activity, but lacking specifics. Design indicates purpose and an action done by an intelligent agent - not randomness. Repeating the quote I used earlier:
“Design consists of balance, harmony, colour, line, shape, form, and function, where form and function operate harmoniously.”
Design is not a “lesser” (as in unworthy of an omnipotent God) activity than “create”. Its a different way of going one step deeper. Rather than saying “God created things. End of Story.” we can say instead “God created things. Look at this wonderful, harmonious design for this universe that God enabled us to comprehend.”
A
atassina
Guest
Holly: I understand that the site is sponsored and maintained by Protestants. This is more a scientific discussion and not a theological discussion. Truth is truth.You do realize that this is a Protestant web site right?
A
atassina
Guest
Tim: If you design something, you did not necessiarily create or make it. I enjoy designing homes, neighborhoods and cities in my head. Haven’t built anything or made anything. Simply designed ideal cities etc.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Then part of God’s design must be Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, and ingenious disease that gradually turns all of a person’s muscle into a second skeleton. Death is inevitable, and horrible (a colleague of mine has a daughter dying of this disease). Does FOP fit under the “balance” or “harmony” part of your designer’s work?
O
ohioszo
Guest
There is a natural sort of ossification that occurs in one’s body. There was a show on a health channel about a baby that was calcified, being outside the uterus and having not been delivered some 48 years ago: Her body calcified the dead fetus. Similarly, when we are mending from a broken bone. Online it seems to say that it is caused by a problem of a mutation in the genes. Well, you can trace mutations to man’s harm to the planet, if you like. I feel very sorry for your friend’s child’s disease; I know that God loves her so very much. When a person *without *this mutation falls, it may bring upon death, or it may mean a long convalescence. Let’s think of those who cannot fall … falling would mean worse for them … when we suffer the same.
O
Orogeny
Guest
So God didn’t create everything, He just designed it? I don’t understand what point you are making.
Peace
Tim
A
atassina
Guest
Dear StAnastasia:
This is my first reply to you. I have read through the thread and realize that you desire the truth. Yet, you seem to be avoiding full answers to some of the questions. For example, you still haven’t answered the central problem of evolution:
-How did life evolve from non-animate material? The universe has not existed long enough to mathematically explain the random chance possible combinations and permutations for the existence of life. Mathematically we should not exist.
-Your questions about diseases are not scientific questions. Science by definition can have no opinions about the effects of a natural process. Science merely states the observed condition. People have opinions. Opinions come from Philosophy. How do you form your philosophy? What are your first principles? Why?
-There are no examples of true evolution from species to species. We have no examples of a fish becoming a dog, or a flower becoming a bird. All the examples to which you refer in the museums are pure speculation and not observed conditions. This is doing science on a gamblers hunch: Something must have caused it, so why not evolution. This is not real science. It is a type of religion because its fundamental support if belief and faith.
-Let’s keep at this: change through conflict can be good. I also agree. True worship of God (religion) and hate are non-compatible. What does God ask of us and how can we come to certain knowledge of this? How we know what we know?
Anthony
This is my first reply to you. I have read through the thread and realize that you desire the truth. Yet, you seem to be avoiding full answers to some of the questions. For example, you still haven’t answered the central problem of evolution:
-How did life evolve from non-animate material? The universe has not existed long enough to mathematically explain the random chance possible combinations and permutations for the existence of life. Mathematically we should not exist.
-Your questions about diseases are not scientific questions. Science by definition can have no opinions about the effects of a natural process. Science merely states the observed condition. People have opinions. Opinions come from Philosophy. How do you form your philosophy? What are your first principles? Why?
-There are no examples of true evolution from species to species. We have no examples of a fish becoming a dog, or a flower becoming a bird. All the examples to which you refer in the museums are pure speculation and not observed conditions. This is doing science on a gamblers hunch: Something must have caused it, so why not evolution. This is not real science. It is a type of religion because its fundamental support if belief and faith.
-Let’s keep at this: change through conflict can be good. I also agree. True worship of God (religion) and hate are non-compatible. What does God ask of us and how can we come to certain knowledge of this? How we know what we know?
Anthony
A
Angela_Tate
Guest
Let’s not keep at this discussion about evolution.
This is the Popular Media thread.
** The OP has asked for book recommendations that can help explain the Catholic stance on evolution to her brother so that he can intellectually find his way back to Rome.**
**
If you have a book recommendation, post it.**
** If you don’t, move on, please.**
Thank you.
This is the Popular Media thread.
** The OP has asked for book recommendations that can help explain the Catholic stance on evolution to her brother so that he can intellectually find his way back to Rome.**
**
If you have a book recommendation, post it.**
** If you don’t, move on, please.**
Thank you.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I look forward to your recommendation of scientific articles tracing this connection.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
For the OP, recommendations of books by Catholics about evolution.
StAnastasia
Deane-Drummond, Celia. Biology and Theology Today. London: SCM Press, 2001.
________. Brave New World: Theology, Ethics and the Human Genome. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2003.
________. Creaturely Theology: God, Humans, and Other Animals. SCM Press, 2009.
________. Wonder and Wisdom: Conversations in Science, Spirituality, and Theology. Templeton Press, 2006.
Delio, Ilia. Christ in Evolution. New York: Maryknoll/Orbis, 2008.
Edwards, Denis. Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit. N.Y.: Maryknoll/Orbis Books, 2004.
Haught, John F. Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2003.
Haught, John F. God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press, 2000.
________. Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life. Pandora Press, 2004
________. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution, Paulist Press, 2001.
Hess, Peter M. J., and Paul L. Allen, Catholicism and Science: a Greenwood Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008.
Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters. Can you believe in God and evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.
McMullin, Ernan, ed. Evolution and Creation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1999.
Peters, Ted, and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003.
Russell, Robert John, William Stoeger, S.J., and Francisco Ayala, eds. Evolution and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State and Berkeley: Vatican Observatory and CTNS, 1998.
Welker, Michael, and John Polkinghorne, eds. The end of the world and the ends of God: science and theology on eschatology. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000.
Józef Życiński, Józef, Archbishop. God and Evolution: Fundamental Questions of Christian Evolutionism. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006.
- Status