Evolution refuting catholicism?

[buffalo]

Led Zeppelin75:

And the church didn’t teach what 846 and 847 in the Cathechism says 50 years ago. If the Church is infallable, why do they revise docritines?

From the Baltimore Catechism - the Cathechism of 500 years to the present.

Q. 508. Why did Christ found the Church?
A. Christ founded the Church to teach, govern, sanctify, and save all men.

Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of
it cannot be saved.

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true
Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that
person:

1.(1) Has been validly baptized; 
2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and 
3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic
Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true
Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without
making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the “soul of the church”; that is, they are really members of the Church
without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part
of the Church.

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?
A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation
to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.

Q. 514. What excuses do some give for not becoming members of the true Church?
A. The excuses some give for not becoming members of the true church are:

1.(1) They do not wish to leave the religion in which they were born. 
2.(2) There are too many poor and ignorant people in the Catholic Church. 
3.(3) One religion is as good as another if we try to serve God in it, and be upright and honest in our lives.

Q. 515. How do you answer such excuses?
A.

1.(1) To say that we should remain in a false religion because we were born in it is as untrue as to say we
  should not heal our bodily diseases because we were born with them. 
2.(2) To say there are too many poor and ignorant in the Catholic Church is to declare that it is Christ's
  Church; for He always taught the poor and ignorant and instructed His Church to continue the work. 
3.(3) To say that one religion is as good as another is to assert that Christ labored uselessly and taught falsely;
  for He came to abolish the old religion and found the new in which alone we can be saved as He Himself
  declared.

Q. 516. Why can there be only one true religion?
A. There can be only one true religion, because a thing cannot be false and true at the same time, and, therefore, all religions that contradict the teaching of the true Church must teach falsehood. If all religions in which men seek to serve God are equally good and true, why did Christ disturb the Jewish religion and the Apostles condemn
heretics?

 

[ISABUS]

I am asking those people in favor of Intelligent Design to please consider the impact this will have on** the future of scientific research.** Please remember research has never brought God into the picture. If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, there is a good possibility children may not wish to promote scientific research in the future, thinking God wouldn’t approve of it. Also, funding for research would be based on issues about God rather than people who love God. This would be a travesty.

Hoping you may consider the future of mankind lies in the minds of our children ~ for the sake of not confusing them let’s please keep their minds safe by separating science from religion.

Thank you,

Mary

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

I am asking those people in favor of Intelligent Design to please consider the impact this will have on** the future of scientific research.** Please remember research has never brought God into the picture. If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, there is a good possibility children may not wish to promote scientific research in the future, thinking God wouldn’t approve of it. Also, funding for research would be based on issues about God rather than people who love God. This would be a travesty.

Hoping you may consider the future of mankind lies in the minds of our children ~ for the sake of not confusing them let’s please keep their minds safe by separating science from religion.

Thank you,

Mary

You have got to be kidding! Scientific research has not stopped because of belief in God, and Catholic history is ripe with Catholic contributions. If ID is the truth it cannot have this effect. Not taking a position or ignoring something that might be the truth so it doesn’t compromise research is ludicrous.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

You have got to be kidding! Scientific research has not stopped because of belief in God, and Catholic history is ripe with Catholic contributions. If ID is the truth it cannot have this effect. Not taking a position or ignoring something that might be the truth so it doesn’t compromise research is ludicrous.

You are correct that science is not threatened by religion, nor religion by science – although there are nutcases who will argue both of those propositions.

 

[ISABUS]

I am asking those people in favor of Intelligent Design to please consider the impact this will have on** the future of scientific research.** Please remember research has never brought God into the picture. If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, there is a good possibility children may not wish to promote scientific research in the future, thinking God wouldn’t approve of it. Also, funding for research would be based on issues about God rather than people who love God. This would be a travesty.

Hoping you may consider the future of mankind lies in the minds of our children ~ for the sake of not confusing them let’s please keep their minds safe by separating science from religion.

Thank you,

Mary

 

[buffalo]

Faith and reason go together. We should not separate them for they constitute the whole truth. Now teaching them theories as truth is quite another thing. That we should definitely keep away from.

 

[ISABUS]

buffalo:

Faith and reason go together. We should not separate them for they constitute the whole truth. Now teaching them theories as truth is quite another thing. That we should definitely keep away from.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Intelligent Design is a THEORY! Furthermore, Intelligent Design is the offspring of Freemasonary’s “Architect of the Universe”. It’s God in process of becoming not GOD.

I’ve done quite a bit of research regarding how children think. Believe me when I say :

I am asking those people in favor of Intelligent Design to please consider the impact this will have on* the future of scientific research.** Please remember research has never brought God into the picture. If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, there is a good possibility children may not wish to promote scientific research in the future, thinking God wouldn’t approve of it. Also, funding for research would be based on issues about God rather than people who love God or don’t. This would be a travesty. *

*Hoping you may consider the future of mankind lies in the minds of our children ~ for the sake of not confusing them let’s please keep their minds safe by separating science from religion. *

*Thank you, *

Mary

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Faith and reason go together. We should not separate them for they constitute the whole truth. Now teaching them theories as truth is quite another thing. That we should definitely keep away from.

Nobody teaches theories as truth.

The facts are, the life forms on earth have changed dramatically over time – as I said in an earlier post, I can go into the rock layers at any highway cut or creek bank and find fossils of animals and plants that no longer exist. Similarly, I can look for the current plants and animals inhabiting this area, and they are non-existant in the fossil record.

Looking at different layers, it’s clear that the living species have turned over many times – that’s evolution.

Now the HOW they turned over, and how the present species developed is the THEORY of evolution.

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Intelligent Design is a THEORY! Furthermore, Intelligent Design is the offspring of Freemasonary’s “Architect of the Universe”. It’s God in process of becoming not GOD.

I’ve done quite a bit of research regarding how children think. Believe me when I say :

I am asking those people in favor of Intelligent Design to please consider the impact this will have on* the future of scientific research.*** Please remember research has never brought God into the picture. If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, there is a good possibility children may not wish to promote scientific research in the future, thinking God wouldn’t approve of it. Also, funding for research would be based on issues about God rather than people who love God or don’t. This would be a travesty.

*Hoping you may consider the future of mankind lies in the minds of our children ~ for the sake of not confusing them let’s please keep their minds safe by separating science from religion. *

*Thank you, *

Mary

I submit that most Catholics on this board believe in God. I submit they also believe God is omniscient. They believe that he created the univerese. They also believe that he is an intelligent being. Does this make us all freemasons?

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Nobody teaches theories as truth.

.

Wrong - teachers and professors all over have been teaching theories as fact for a very long time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ISABUS:

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Intelligent Design is a THEORY!

Evolution is a fact, but Intelligent Design is not a theory – it is a philosophy, argument or belief. It lacks all the hallmarks of scientific theories (for example, it’s proponents are unwilling to state what evidence they would accept as proving ID is false.)

And Intelligent Design (with a capitol I and a capitol D) is a specific set of beliefs, espoused by a particular group which is definitely not Catholic.

The Catholic Church’s positon that God created the universe is one thing, ID is another entirely.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Wrong - teachers and professors all over have been teaching theories as fact for a very long time.

Wrong – they have been teaching theories as theories.

Now, many theories have so much evidence to back them that the probablility they are wrong is very small, but they are still taught as theories.

Other theories are presented differently – for example, there are aerodynamic theories that work only under certain conditions, and when the conditions change, you must switch to a different theory to keep your plane airborne.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[ISABUS]

vern humphrey:

Evolution is a fact, but Intelligent Design is not a theory – it is a philosophy, argument or belief. It lacks all the hallmarks of scientific theories (for example, it’s proponents are unwilling to state what evidence they would accept as proving ID is false.)

And Intelligent Design (with a capitol I and a capitol D) is a specific set of beliefs, espoused by a particular group which is definitely not Catholic.

The Catholic Church’s positon that God created the universe is one thing, ID is another entirely.

This is my last post of the day! It’s fun but I have Christmas on my mind. Presents and decorating the tree and yard. Yippee, free from cyberspace!

The Catholic Church’s position is** NOT **God “created” the universe in the sense that many Catholics may think of as created. Father Coyne explains what ‘creation’ means as I have provided in one of my earlier posts to this message board.

Intelligent Design is considered to be a theory. Here is what the online encyclopedia states:

“A good example of a non-scientific “theory” is Intelligent Design. Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.”

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/theory

Intelligent Design is PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! I honestly can’t believe any intelligent human being would want to have their children learn in school PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas. God save us from this. PLEAZe.

ta ta, Cherrio ~
Mary

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Evolution is a fact, but Intelligent Design is not a theory – it is a philosophy, argument or belief. It lacks all the hallmarks of scientific theories (for example, it’s proponents are unwilling to state what evidence they would accept as proving ID is false.)

And Intelligent Design (with a capitol I and a capitol D) is a specific set of beliefs, espoused by a particular group which is definitely not Catholic.

The Catholic Church’s positon that God created the universe is one thing, ID is another entirely.

According to the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Autumn 2003) - ID is not creation science. ID is simply an hypothesis about the direct cause of certain past events based on an observation and analysis of data. ID does not arise from any religious text, nor does it seek to validate any scriptural account of origins. An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence.

ID is like a large tent which many religious and non religious origins theories may find a home. ID proposes nothing more than that life and its diversity were the product of an intelligence with power to manipulate matter and energy. Period.

ID addresses one question only: is life the product of guided or an unguided process? Did it arise from a mind or from the meaningless meandering of molecules in mindless motion?

According to Gallup polls taken over the last two decades, over 80 percent believe in some God guided process, although they may not know it by the term intelligent design. About half of these hold to a “young earth, literal Genesis” perspective, and the other half to what has been termed a “theistic” or “God-guided” evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ISABUS:

Intelligent Design is considered to be a theory. Here is what the online encyclopedia states:

“A good example of a non-scientific “theory” is Intelligent Design. Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.”

But not a scientific theory – which is to say, it only meets the vernacular useage of that word, not the more stringent scientific meaning.

ISABUS:
Intelligent Design is PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! I honestly can’t believe any intelligent human being would want to have their children learn in school PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas. God save us from this. PLEAZe.
You are absolutely correct. More than that, Intelligent Design (Capital I, capital D) is a religous approach that is not Catholic.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I would just like to comment on the whole Galileo affair.

First off, the Church did at one time teach that the earth was the center of the universe. This was a doctrine. And there’s no denying it.

Galileo was emphatic about his belief that Scripture was inerrant, and he never once called it into question.

The Catholics here need to read some serious history, and not pop-apologetic versions of it.

Granted, this teaching of geocentrism was not encapsulated in any one document; but it was the almost universally held-teaching of theologians by the time of the 16th century, and to deny it was considered to at least border on heresy.

With Galileo’s condemnation by the Holy Office, it without doubt became official Church teaching. And for a long time Catholic scientists were only allowed to treat heliocentrism as a hypothetical possibility, not as truth.

And this was wrong on the part of the Church. And we should not hesitate to admit this.

That having been said, this does not in any way negate the Church’s authority or infallibility. The Church simply does not claim that all her teachings are irreformable. Some are only provisional, because it is felt that an opposite hypothesis, not yet proved, would be harmful to the faith of the common man.

So it was posible for the Church (sometime in the 17th/18th century) to reverse her teaching on geocentrism, and then to admit that she had no business interfering in the question in the first place.

And she might yet one day decide that Catholics don’t have to believe in monogenism, that Paul did not really write the Letter to the Hebrews, that perhaps Christ will one day reign on earth for a literal 1000 years, etc. None of these are dogma; and while they are taught authoritatively by the Church, theologians may treat the opposite hypotheses as mere hypotheticals.

This having been said, it is incorrect to libel the Church for the “Galileo Incident,” for it is the only incident of its kind in the entire annals of Church history. Not one other incident can be brought up that even remotely demonstrates a historic Church-hostitlity to science.

On the contrary, science as we know it was patronized by the Church and other religious men; there’s a reason why science only arose in the Christian (i.e. Catholic) West, and not in any other culture of the world (many of which had technology, but never science proper).

 

[vern_humphrey]

DominvsVobiscvm:

IFirst off, the Church did at one time teach that the earth was the center of the universe. This was a doctrine. And there’s no denying it.

Do you have documentation for that?

DominvsVobiscvm:

Galileo was emphatic about his belief that Scripture was inerrant, and he never once called it into question.

His letters to the Dutchess of Tuscany (as I recall) make it clear that he DID question scripture.

DominvsVobiscvm:

Granted, this teaching of geocentrism was not encapsulated in any one document; but it was the almost universally held-teaching of theologians by the time of the 16th century, and to deny it was considered to at least border on heresy.

What most people (even churchmen) believed about the physical structure of the universe is one thing, what the Church taught is another. Clearly, in his letters to Galilieo, Cardinal Belarmino did not dispute the science of Galilieo’s position.

DominvsVobiscvm:

With Galileo’s condemnation by the Holy Office, it without doubt became official Church teaching. And for a long time Catholic scientists were only allowed to treat heliocentrism as a hypothetical possibility, not as truth…

No, it did NOT become an official Church teaching – that would have to be documented – and as you said above “this teaching of geocentrism was not encapsulated in any one document.”

At the same time, heliocentrism IS a hypothetical possibility and NOT a truth. The sun is NOT the center of the universe, and the stars do not orbit the sun.

DominvsVobiscvm:

This having been said, it is incorrect to libel the Church for the “Galileo Incident,” for it is the only incident of its kind in the entire annals of Church history. Not one other incident can be brought up that even remotely demonstrates a historic Church-hostitlity to science…

The hostility to Galilieo had many causes – one of them his blatant attacks on fellow scientists (for example, in “The Starry Messenger”) and another was his attempt to use the new Pope to push his particular agenda.

DominvsVobiscvm:

On the contrary, science as we know it was patronized by the Church and other religious men; there’s a reason why science only arose in the Christian (i.e. Catholic) West, and not in any other culture of the world (many of which had technology, but never science proper).

Which is perfectly true.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Do you have documentation for that?

Galileo’s condemnation by the Holy Office.

His letters to the Dutchess of Tuscany (as I recall) make it clear that he DID question scripture.

Actually, it didn’t. Read it again.

No, it did NOT become an official Church teaching – that would have to be documented – and as you said above “this teaching of geocentrism was not encapsulated in any one document.”

The Holy Office is an official teaching office of the Church and its decisions binding on Catholics. (Although they are not irrevocable or infallible.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Galileo’s condemnation by the Holy Office.

His condemnation was far more political than religious – sort of like saying that Al Capone’s REAL crime was income tax evasion (as I mentioned before.)

DominvsVobiscvm:

Actually, it didn’t. Read it again…

Short of postulating a serious error in translation, it sure seems like he did,

DominvsVobiscvm:

The Holy Office is an official teaching office of the Church and its decisions binding on Catholics. (Although they are not irrevocable or infallible.)

Neither prior nor after Galilieo’s conviction did the Church make adherence to a geocentric model mandatory for Catholics. As yourself pointed out, the heliocentric model was admissible as a hypothetical posibility (which is what it was.)

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I believe we can safely compare the Church’s past condemnation of heliocentrism with the Church’s current condemnation of polygenism.

Polygenism today is taught even at orthodox Catholic institutions, though only hypothetically, Pius XII’s condemnation of it still being in effect.

Still doesn’t change the fact that, whatever the motivations, heliocentrism was at one point condemned by the Church, and there’s no reason why we have to deny it in the face of the historical evidence. The point is, the condemnation was not dogmatic, nor considered as such even by orthodox Catholic contemporaries (like Saint Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban, or Blaise Pascal).

I find Dava Sobel’s Galileo’s Daughter: A Drama of Science, Faith, and Love to be a really good, objective study of this aspect and others of the whole Galileo-history.

On a related note, “Scientists Bestow Award on John Paul II”:

John Paul II received the Ettore Majorana Science for Peace prize from a group of scientists and used the occasion to advocate dialogue between science and faith.

. . .

The prize was conferred by the International Center of Scientific Culture – founded by Zichichi over 40 years ago in Sicily – on John Paul II “for having given science the same pedestal as faith, thus creating in the world the basis for a great alliance between science and faith, an alliance of which there is great need.”

Although it’s highly inaccurate of the Center to say that the Pope has “given science the same pedestal as faith,” at least the intention in giving the award was a worthy won, and one well-deserved.