Evolution refuting catholicism?

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Why don’t we start by NOT touting a specific, non-Catholic group?

We can go on from there to examine Catholic positions – as you know, the Church does not reject evolution. We have no Catholic warrant to construct a new “science” to reject what the Church does not reject. So why do it?

Ahh!! I finally see your argument. Because the Church does not reject evolution, why keep looking for the truth?

So you believe we should stop looking now?

 

[vern_humphrey]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You seem to be confusing intelligent design with creationism.

You noticed that?

Intelligent Design is an end run around “Creation Science.” It arose in response to a general recognition that “Creation Science” wasn’t going to fly.

The aim is the same, the methodology is slightly different.

 

[Orogeny]

DominvsVobiscvm:

It sure is scientific in some respects. Why do you say it isn’t?

It isn’t science because it requires a supernatural guiding force. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

Peace

Tim

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

DominvsVobiscvm:

I’m only surprised that no one else here is as amazed by how stupid this is becoming.

I have noticed this for a while now.

Question: Does macroevolution by natural selection refute or challenge the Catholic Faith?

My answer: On a theological level it does. It challenges our centeries old understanding of how sin entered the world, it challenges the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice, and, among other things, it challenges the existence of God: if all you need to get humanity is a puddle of mud and four billion years–then where is the miracle. **Natural **selection says “there are no miracles: life, intelligence, even the soul (if there is such a thing) just happened naturally.”

As Pope John Paul II explained, there are many theories about life and its history and origins. Catholics don’t have to believe or dis-believe any of them. We are free to investigate them all, or subscribe to any that we choose, as long as we don’t deny any Catholic teachings.

Will the Church ever define any scientific guess or framework on the origins of life as a dogma of the Church? Well, since the many scientists themaselves will **never **agree, I doubt the Church will ever make a naturalistic belief as binding on the faithful.

There are some things we just cannot know with certainty. And since the scientific jury is still very much out on the variety of issues pertaining to life’s history and development, it is a little presumptuous to be dogmatically asserting that any one naturalistic event or set of events should be accepted as having happened billions or millions of years ago.

The evidences for evolution are weak and the theories explaining how and why evolution occurs are often contradictory–let’s not rush to accept naturalistic explanations prematurely.

 

[vern_humphrey]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You seem to be confusing intelligent design with creationism.

You noticed that?

Intelligent Design is an end run around “Creation Science.” It was developed when it became apparent that “Creation Science” wasn’t going to fly.

It has the same aim, and uses the same tactics – seeking to push itself into school curriculums not on the basis of its scientific merit, but by pressure tactics.

Follow the links in Intelligent Design Network – which is a creation of Intelligent Design Network, Inc, and see where their “science standards” leads – not to scholarly declarations of standards to be met in research and peer review – but to declarations by school boards!

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Ahh!! I finally see your argument. Because the Church does not reject evolution, why keep looking for the truth?

So you believe we should stop looking now?

Of course not. We should always seek the truth. Do you need science to show you the truth? Is your faith not enough?

Nice job of framing the question. You presume that evolution is not true. Unfortunately for that argument, the Church has not come to the same conclusion.

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Ahh!! I finally see your argument. Because the Church does not reject evolution, why keep looking for the truth?

Ahh!! I finally see your argument. Because the Church does not teach what you want it to teach, we should leave the Church and go after the first cockamamie idea we can find?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

buffalo:

So you believe we should stop looking now?

No, I believe we should remain in the Catholic Church, and recognize both the Magesterium of the Church and science.

In science, we use valid, proven scientific tools to do our looking. Outside of science, we follow the teachings of the Church.

 

[Orogeny]

Tom of Assisi:

I have noticed this for a while now.

Question: Does macroevolution by natural selection refute or challenge the Catholic Faith?

No.

My answer: On a theological level it does. It challenges our centeries old understanding of how sin entered the world, it challenges the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice, and, among other things, it challenges the existence of God: if all you need to get humanity is a puddle of mud and four billion years–then where is the miracle. **Natural **selection says “there are no miracles: life, intelligence, even the soul (if there is such a thing) just happened naturally.”

It may mean that to you, but that is not what it means to me. Who is right?

As Pope John Paul II explained, there are many theories about life and its history and origins. Catholics don’t have to believe or dis-believe any of them. We are free to investigate them all, or subscribe to any that we choose, as long as we don’t deny any Catholic teachings.

Many? List more than one scientific theory. OK, now list all others that are not scientific.

Will the Church ever define any scientific guess or framework on the origins of life as a dogma of the Church? Well, since the many scientists themaselves will **never **agree, I doubt the Church will ever make a naturalistic belief as binding on the faithful.

I hope the Church never does.

There are some things we just cannot know with certainty.

I absolutely agree with that.

And since the scientific jury is still very much out on the variety of issues pertaining to life’s history and development, it is a little presumptuous to be dogmatically asserting that any one naturalistic event or set of events should be accepted as having happened billions or millions of years ago.

The “scientific jury” is not out on evolution, only the mechanisms of evolution. And by the way, evolution is still on-going.

The evidences for evolution are weak and the theories explaining how and why evolution occurs are often contradictory–let’s not rush to accept naturalistic explanations prematurely.

Not to scientists.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Of course not. We should always seek the truth. Do you need science to show you the truth? Is your faith not enough?

Nice job of framing the question. You presume that evolution is not true. Unfortunately for that argument, the Church has not come to the same conclusion.

Peace

Tim

Nope. I do not presume it to be not true. I am simply saying and have said all along we should continue to search and to be open minded as where we ultimately will be led in the search for the truth. In this way ID searching for patterns of design should not threaten any one. If they don’t find any then so be it. If they do then it will have to be reconciled.

I am not aware the Church has accepted this conclusion. I highly doubt she will make a firm pronouncement on it. She says it is OK to believe in evolution as having a part because it does not contradict the faith so long as you also beleive in the specific disclaimers.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Nope. I do not presume it to be not true. I am simply saying and have said all along we should continue to search and to be open minded as where we ultimately will be led in the search for the truth. In this way ID searching for patterns of design should not threaten any one. If they don’t find any then so be it. If they do then it will have to be reconciled.

It is not a threat to me because I believe that God did create everything, but it is not science.

I am not aware the Church has accepted this conclusion. I highly doubt she will make a firm pronouncement on it. She says it is OK to believe in evolution as having a part because it does not contradict the faith so long as you also beleive in the specific disclaimers.

The Church has not concluded that evolution is false, which is what I wrote.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

It is not a threat to me because I believe that God did create everything, but it is not science.

The Church has not concluded that evolution is false, which is what I wrote.

Peace

Tim

The Church has concluded that atheistic evolution or any form that eliminates God is false.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Nope. I do not presume it to be not true. I am simply saying and have said all along we should continue to search and to be open minded as where we ultimately will be led in the search for the truth. In this way ID searching for patterns of design should not threaten any one. If they don’t find any then so be it. If they do then it will have to be reconciled…

The problem is, you have already accepted and touted ID, which IS, despite any claims to the contrary, a specific philosopny and agenda.

It seeks the same things as the old “Creation Science” agenda sought, and uses the same tactics.

buffalo:

I am not aware the Church has accepted this conclusion. I highly doubt she will make a firm pronouncement on it. She says it is OK to believe in evolution as having a part because it does not contradict the faith so long as you also beleive in the specific disclaimers.

Which should be our starting point. ID is a specific agenda, and it is not a Catholic agenda.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

The Church has concluded that atheistic evolution or any form that eliminates God is false.

The Church has concluded that athiesm is false. Atheism and evolution are not the same thing.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

The Church has concluded that atheistic evolution or any form that eliminates God is false.

Where in my original statement did I mention athiestic anything? The Church has concluded that anything athiestic is false. Do you require a supernatural element be included in physical chemistry?

As you said,

I am not aware the Church has accepted this conclusion. I highly doubt she will make a firm pronouncement on it. She says it is OK to believe in evolution as having a part because it does not contradict the faith so long as you also beleive in the specific disclaimers.

the Church does not conclude that evolution is false. The insertion of God is valid only outside of science, because science doesn’t deal with the supernatural.

Peace

Tim

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

The following is an insightful post made by Carol Marie back in October

“I am a Christian fundamentalist who is currently enrolled in RCIA. On Sunday I asked the Priest if Catholics believe the Genesis account is true - that God created Adam & Eve and that they sinned and were cast out of the garden. He said no. He went on to say that the Church doesn’t take a stand either way really … it’s OK to believe in evolution, that we crawled out of the swamp & up onto the shore, so long as you believe that God made it all happen. Several sponsors in the class agreed that’s just what they believe - the story of Adam & Eve was just **one of the many “myths” floating around when the book of Genesis was written and it’s not to be taken literally. **I raised my hand and asked if I could be Catholic AND believe that God DID create Adam & Eve. The Priest sort of smiled and said, “Oh sure… if you want… go ahead…” It sounded very similar to the tone I use when my kids ask if Santa is true… why sure it is sweetie… wink wink. So here’s my beef. If Eve never existed why the heck is Mary called the 2nd Eve??”

She asks a great question. Many Catholics who “believe in” evolution also doubt the virgin birth. HMMMMMM

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

The following is an insightful post made by Carol Marie back in October

“I am a Christian fundamentalist who is currently enrolled in RCIA. On Sunday I asked the Priest if Catholics believe the Genesis account is true - that God created Adam & Eve and that they sinned and were cast out of the garden. He said no. He went on to say that the Church doesn’t take a stand either way really … it’s OK to believe in evolution, that we crawled out of the swamp & up onto the shore, so long as you believe that God made it all happen. Several sponsors in the class agreed that’s just what they believe - the story of Adam & Eve was just one of the many “myths” floating around when the book of Genesis was written and it’s not to be taken literally. I raised my hand and asked if I could be Catholic AND believe that God DID create Adam & Eve. The Priest sort of smiled and said, “Oh sure… if you want… go ahead…” It sounded very similar to the tone I use when my kids ask if Santa is true… why sure it is sweetie… wink wink. So here’s my beef. If Eve never existed why the heck is Mary called the 2nd Eve??”

She asks a great question. Many Catholics who “believe in” evolution also doubt the virgin birth. HMMMMMM

This particular priest gave a bad answer – the creation story isn’t a “myth.” It is permissible to interpret it as an allegory, however. Catholicism does not rest on a literal interpretation of the bible – and religions that do are risking the faith of their adherents.

As for Virgin Birth, you cannot be Catholic and reject Virgin Birth. It is a dogma of the Church.

 

[Orogeny]

Tom of Assisi:

She asks a great question. Many Catholics who “believe in” evolution also doubt the virgin birth. HMMMMMM

And your inference is what? Guess what? I accept evolution and I believe in the virgin birth. So, what do you make of me? Are you a better Catholic than me because you don’t accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[dcdurel]

vern humphrey:

This particular priest gave a bad answer – the creation story isn’t a “myth.” It is permissible to interpret it as an allegory, however. Catholicism does not rest on a literal interpretation of the bible – and religions that do are risking the faith of their adherents.

The creation story must be taken as true, though there is figurative language in it. The 6 days of creation may be taken as 6 literal days as many Church Fathers taught, or as 6 periods of time as Augustine taught. This is Church teaching in the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which Catholics MUST hold to.

The Church does say we must interpret the bible literally, unless there is a good reason not to do so, in Providentissimus Deus.

For those who say Intelligent Design is not scientific, then why do these scientists believe in it?
Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein:
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."14]

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."15]

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."16]

Astronomer Robert Jastrow:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."17]

 

[ISABUS]

dcdurel:

For those who say Intelligent Design is not scientific, then why do these scientists believe in it?

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein:
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."14]

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."15]

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."16]

Astronomer Robert Jastrow:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."17]

DcDurel,

Most important to note is that these quotes are taken from a website called “The Bible Physics Project”. The Director of the project is** Dane** Ronnow who is a former pastor of a non-denominational church and **amateur astronomer. **
biblephysics.com/index2.cfm?page=about

Do you honestly think I am going to believe one word he has to say about science? He** has provided us with snippets of text pulled out of context. I don’t see an ounce of Intelligent Design present in his selection of quotes. Furthermore, a website produced by an amateur astromomer wishing to teach us about Intelligent Design is a joke! **

 

[ISABUS]

vern humphrey:

But you have to be elected Pope. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I live just south of Mountain View, about 4 counties east of there. We’re The Folk Music Capitol of the World, and also have the Ozark Folk Center, plus various other attractions.

I live on a small farm (185 acres) about 10 miles out of town – 3 1/2 miles down the county road, 1/2 mile down the common road, and a 1/4 mile down a private road. So I’m in pretty deep.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Vern, why settle for being the Pope when there was a brief moment in history I was Mary, the Mother of God according to Led Zippy! Yee Gads! He is a clever little critter zip zapping along on his motorcycle. Unfortunately, the moderators deleted that quote and suspended him… ahhhh… **HE’s BACK! **He is now Leb Zep 75.2 . Actually, I think he is the cutest rascal. Gotta love 'em. He is ‘THE GREAT MEME’ on the loose! I guess my IQ of 173 is no match for him. Heck, I’ll use my laso and rope that steer before the year is up!

Vern, from the directions you have given, I must have driven past your exist last time I was in your neck of the woods. It is absolutely gorgeous country. Great locale for pulling the bow ~ archary or horseback riding.

I did hear some awesome folk music in a quaint pub while in Eureka Springs. It was great fun skipping from club to club listening to live tunes in the evening with my friends.

May the Spirit of Christmas bring great joy to you, your wife, and children ~

Mary