Evolution & the catholic church

  • Thread starter Thread starter algran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Oliviad:
First of all, as to the first of two above-quoted statements, I agree that this eliminates the possibility of mutations before the fall. However, as to the other comment, no Pope ever said man ever could have evolved, nor that it is possible that any more than slight variations in mutations might have occurred within the species of mere animals, within their kinds - admitting that even this need not be presumed to have occurred. Any way, if this were to be proven so, it would only touch on mutations within a creation affected by the curse on Adam, who was lord (under GOD, that is) over the earth and animals when he sinned.
Click to expand...
Why Human Evolution Can Never Become

Part of the Deposit of Faith

…
(c) The Magisterium Teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X
Code: 
     **Pius       IX.** The year after the publication of Darwin’s       evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne       issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope       Pius IX:

    **Our       first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.       2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy       Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare       to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived       by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect       nature, which improved continually until it reached       the present human state
…** On 10 February 1880, twenty-one years after the publication of Darwin’s first book, Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae,12 in which the Pope said: We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time.13

.

more…
 
“proper distinctions between those things that scientists can say and those things they can’t”

Dallas Willard: “science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing that can say anything. Only scientists say things…”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260437.2d8959da%40posting.google.com

“It is legitimate to call into question the positivism and materialism that is often held dogmatically by scientists such as Richard Dawkins.”

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net

“The philosopher, Fichte, once said that one chooses the kind of philosophy that reflects the kind of person one is. A metaphysical world view such as positivism, or materialism, is attractive to one who wants sexual liberty and freedom from guilt.”

Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net

Not the same person, but the last name is similar:
undated Theodor Fritsch-- Weikart characterizes Fritsch as [Weikart on 55]“a highly influential anti-Semitic publicist”:
Morality and ethics arise from the law of preservation of
the species, of the race. Whatever insures the future of
the species, whatever is suited to raise the species to an
ever higher level of physical and mental perfection, that is
moral.

Cited in Weikart, 55.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Why Human Evolution Can Never Become
Part of the Deposit of Faith
Click to expand...
who is Clement Butel and what is his expertise in research biology?

while he may freely quote non-biologist who opine that evolution is non testable that is clearly wrong since we have a century and a half of field and laboratory work doing just that. a critism of specific means and methodologies rather than broad statemetns would have been more appropriate
40.png
buffalo:
Code: 
   The Magisterium Teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and       Pius X

    ]Pius       IX. The year after the publication of Darwin’s       evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne       issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope       Pius IX:
    Our       first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.       2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy  Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare       to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived  by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect       nature, which improved continually until it reached   the present human state
Click to expand...
which seems to contradict the oft quoted statement by the current Pope that common origin is a “near certainty”, several other pronouncements by more recent Popes, not to mention that the current Dogma makes a clear distinction between the natural and spiritual side of human nature.

since Gen 1 and 2 have different versions of the creation story it is clear that the point is THAT God created man and that HOW He did it really has no bearing on the point of the story

the Bible is not a biology text. It does it a disservice to try and make it one.

.
40.png
buffalo:
On 10 February 1880, twenty-one years after the publication of Darwin’s first book, Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, in which the Pope said:]We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time
Click to expand...
Does it surprise you that a Pope would use Biblical language to argue a point? Since we are not obligated to take these stories literally I’m not sure what your point is.

Why can’t “slime of the earth” be the primordial ooze?

Since the heavy elements needed for our molecules can only be formed inside stars we are quite literally in some sense made from dust.

The beauty and poetry of the story of the need of men and women for each other and their relationship to each other is stunning and sublime.

I’m not sure why you (or anyone) would think that evolution would somehow refute or diminish this? :confused:
 
davidford said:
“proper distinctions between those things that scientists can say and those things they can’t”

Dallas Willard: “science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing that can say anything. Only scientists say things…”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260437.2d8959da%40posting.google.com

“It is legitimate to call into question the positivism and materialism that is often held dogmatically by scientists such as Richard Dawkins.”

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net

“The philosopher, Fichte, once said that one chooses the kind of philosophy that reflects the kind of person one is. A metaphysical world view such as positivism, or materialism, is attractive to one who wants sexual liberty and freedom from guilt.”

Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net

Not the same person, but the last name is similar:
undated Theodor Fritsch-- Weikart characterizes Fritsch as [Weikart on 55]“a highly influential anti-Semitic publicist”:
Morality and ethics arise from the law of preservation of
the species, of the race. Whatever insures the future of
the species, whatever is suited to raise the species to an
ever higher level of physical and mental perfection, that is
moral.

Cited in Weikart, 55.
Click to expand...

So, how much of that did you make up in the name of critical thinking?

Peace

Tim
 
“how much of that did you [df] make up in the name of critical thinking?”
If you see something you disagree with, let me know, and we can discuss it.
 
DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION

…A. What does Arcanum teach about our physical origin?

There are essentially five points of Catholic truth explicitly affirmed by the Pope in the paragraph we have reproduced above, in addition to another point (the first in the following list) which is presupposed or implied as the necessary foundation of those which follow:

(1) the historical character of chapters 1-3 of Genesis;
(2) the creation of Adam by God on the sixth day, including the formation of his body from the slime (or dust) of the earth;
(3) the formation of Eve’s body from the side of Adam;
(4) monogenism - the doctrine that the entire human race has been propagated from this original couple alone;
(5) the unity of marriage - that it is between one man and one woman, thus excluding adultery and polygamy;
(6) the perpetuity of marriage - its life-long character, excluding divorce.

In regard to the first of the above points, it is clear that in this passage Leo XIII wants not only to profess, but even to emphasize, the truly historical 8 character of the Genesis narratives. In the first place, he makes a point of asserting that those “detractors of the Christian faith” whose views he wishes to censure are striving to “erase the history” 9 of the nations. Then, immediately after that, he makes a point of placing the divine creation of Adam and Eve - body and soul - in its precise time-slot within biblical history: “on the sixth 10 day of creation.” The implication is unmistakable: Leo XIII is asserting here that first among those historical truths whose light the enemies of the faith “can neither extinguish nor weaken” are those recounted in Genesis 1-2: the creation of the world by God in six days, 11 including the creation of Adam and Eve.

A further observation is in order about the polemical context of the Pope’s enunciation of these doctrines - his assertion of them, that is, in conscious and deliberate opposition to persons who reject them. This needs to be stressed to those modern Catholic readers of Leo’s encyclical who, as heirs of a culture that takes evolution for granted as ‘common knowledge’ among educated people, are likely to react with a certain sense of shock on finding that Peter’s Successor bluntly asserts as history, in points (2) and (3), the Genesis descriptions of how the first male and female human bodies were formed. Such readers may well be tempted to try mitigating or explaining away these ‘scandalous’ words with the plea that they express not a true doctrinal affirmation, but rather, a mere ‘presupposition’ - an ‘unreflective’ or ‘ingenuous’ repetition of historically contingent assumptions which held sway in a ‘pre-scientific’ culture, so that Leo XIII’s very ‘physical’ statements, no less than those of the Bible itself, will now require a ‘demythologized’ or ‘spiritual’ or ‘deeper’ interpretation if they are still to be accepted as in some sense true…

[continued]
 
…continued & ended]

B. How binding is the teaching confirmed by Leo XIII?

In proceeding to address this question, it is worthwhile, first of all, casting our eye down all of Pope Leo’s six doctrinal points which we summarized at the beginning of part A - not only the second and third which are our main focus of interest. It becomes clear that in reaffirming these “facts” (or “truths,” or “realities”), as he calls them, 34 Pope Leo makes no distinction between any of them as regards their certainty. All orthodox Catholics will agree that the last two, at least - the “unity and perpetuity” of marriage - are definitely infallible, immutable teachings of the magisterium; but the Pope gives no indication that these two points are either more or less open to question than the first two he mentions - the supernatural formation of man and woman in both body and soul.

Indeed, while the structure and wording of Arcanum do not exhibit the characteristics of an ex cathedra (per se infallible) definition, 36 what the Pope says explicitly in this passage of the encyclical leaves it clear that he is here bearing witness, as Peter’s Successor, to the fact that all of these doctrines have been so constantly and firmly taught by the popes and bishops, throughout the world and throughout the ages up until his own time, that there can be no question of their ever being changed. In other words, he is, in effect, testifying to their being proposed infallibly by the Church according to a mode which was expounded in the following century by Vatican Council II in Lumen Gentium §25: the infallibility of the universal, ordinary magisterium.

-------------

If all those six points are either certain or infallible, why do we not hear of all of them as being such ? Why are they not all in the CCC and other catechisms ? That we don’t, suggests that the author is mistaken about the force of the Encyclical, or else about the number of things authoritatively taught. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
…
If all those six points are either certain or infallible, why do we not hear of all of them as being such ? Why are they not all in the CCC and other catechisms ? That we don’t, suggests that the author is mistaken about the force of the Encyclical, or else about the number of things authoritatively taught. ##
Click to expand...
That is a very good question.

I personally think the answer lies in the fact that the Faith is in eclipse, even within the Church. This is undoubtedly due to the faith many have put into the scientific theories of the day. As a result, there are those who object and cause things to be left out or stated ambiguously.

Let me just quote from another encyclical on scriptural inerrancy that supports my view:
  1. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.
    We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.
  2. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. … Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science! …
  3. Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles - which are only sound, if kept within due bounds - in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, …
  • Encyclical Spiritus Paracletus
This shows that the Pope is lamenting the opposition to Church teaching by even those who teach in the seminaries.

I believe that these kinds of people have had much influence on many of the writings we see today in the Church. This is not to say that the Church is now in error because of them, but that we must be cautious about putting too much weight in recent writings that do not accord fully with what has always been taught.

I believe that God is allowing this - perhaps due to our general lack of faith. It will serve as a punishment for some, and a proving ground for others.

hurst
 
Why is anyone surprised that living creatures share the same building blocks and are genetically related?
Click to expand...
More importantly, the organisms that are shown by anatomy, biochemistry, and fossil record to be related most closely are most closely related genetically.
This by itself does not prove descent.
Click to expand...
We use this very test to show human descent, and we know it works, because it has been tested on humans of known descent.
 
In light of the encyclicals mentioned; and what seems to be the overwhelming evidence that we have descended from a common ancestor with other life forms, I must say that a grave difficulty presents itself to me. Here is the question that I have.

If it is true that any of the following have been infallibly taught:

1.) both the body and soul are supernaturally created by God on day 6 and the human body is not descended from prior species.

2.) woman was created directly from Adam’s rib per Genesis
3). Monergism is necessarily true

and it turns out that at least 1 of these is refuted (indubitably) by modern science; for example, they show without a doubt that monergism is false; then would this mean that the Church is not infallible and is, in effect, a lie? This is what bothers me. It seems to be the case that with modern evolution, you have a naturalistic view of things that is fundamentally at odds with traditional christian faith. At what point are we just rationalizing the fact that the traditional faith no longer holds up to scientific and rational scrutiny? I have heard atheists make the point that liberal christianity is just dishonest atheism. Its atheism+mythology+social activism. How far do we have to go before we fall into that? What’s the point of religion if it can be shown to be nothing more than poetry?

This is the doubt that torments me when I think about this problem too much. God help my soul.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
In light of the encyclicals mentioned; and what seems to be the overwhelming evidence that we have descended from a common ancestor with other life forms, I must say that a grave difficulty presents itself to me.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

As for me, I do not consider the “Evidence” as overwhelming anymore, nor do I consider it evidence. The circular logic of dating the layers based on fossils, and dating the fossils based on the layers is one absurdity. But worse is the systematic rejection of considerations outside of the philosophical view of the current scientific community. Any indication that a scientist does not “believe” and “trust” in their atheistic procedures results in their expulsion one way or another.

Also, it would not be “descended” as much as “ascended”, since man is the highest life form.

Besides, none of their “evidence” shows where wisdom or prudence came from. I have heard they are only concerned with natural explanations. But that only proves they are denying God. Are they any different from a hedonist, who is only interested in natural pleasures? Science, like our political system, has been hijacked by a spirit alien to its origins.
40.png
DreadVandal:
Here is the question that I have.

If it is true that any of the following have been infallibly taught:

1.) both the body and soul are supernaturally created by God on day 6 and the human body is not descended from prior species.

2.) woman was created directly from Adam’s rib per Genesis
3). Monergism is necessarily true

and it turns out that at least 1 of these is refuted (indubitably) by modern science; for example, they show without a doubt that monergism is false; then would this mean that the Church is not infallible and is, in effect, a lie? This is what bothers me.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does follow. This is why people are choosing between the Church and the scientific community. And it is why we must decide not to trust the scientific community when it comes to dubious science which makes statements about things it cannot prove by a repetitive experiment. Not all of “modern science” is in fact proper science. A repeatable, observable, measurable experiment is the basis of proper science, but the “community” accepts more than this for various reasons. It also rejects what it pleases for various reasons. I am reminded of the ancient pagans whose priests kept the people and rulers mesmerized by their deceits.
40.png
DreadVandal:
It seems to be the case that with modern evolution, you have a naturalistic view of things that is fundamentally at odds with traditional christian faith. At what point are we just rationalizing the fact that the traditional faith no longer holds up to scientific and rational scrutiny? I have heard atheists make the point that liberal christianity is just dishonest atheism. Its atheism+mythology+social activism. How far do we have to go before we fall into that? What’s the point of religion if it can be shown to be nothing more than poetry?

This is the doubt that torments me when I think about this problem too much. God help my soul.
Click to expand...
Perhaps God is allowing this all to separate those who are not truly interested in worshiping Him. Those who choose the rewards of modern science will go along with them. Let them have their rockets, electronics, cars, computers, telephones, engineered medicines, magnetics, plastics, etc. It will avail them nothing after they die. Let them believe the official statements made concerning events and processes of long ago before anyone lived as a person as though it were all fact. They all join part of the buck rogers enslavement to see these wonders which rust away after a few years.

Perhaps they are blind or careless about the fact that science is filled with “falsifiable” theories, meaning that as new evidence presents itself, they have the right and duty to change their theory to fit the facts. It is nothing more than a glorified form of “making it up as we go along”. Is that something to put your faith in? No.

But for those who value their faith, let us wait for the reward of heaven. Let us also use the cars, computers, etc. but with a different motive, knowing Jesus told us to use the unjust riches of this world to build up our treasure in heaven (Luke 16:8-12). All the pronouncements of a stacked and self-interested group like the scientific community do not compare with the Truth that every speck of dust requires God’s constant concurrence for it to continue to exist. Not a leaf falls to the ground without the consent of God. Do not be surprised if they mock our beliefs, for even the Pharisees acted thus toward Jesus: Luke 16:14 Now the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him..

hurst
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
… would this mean that the Church is not infallible and is, in effect, a lie?
Click to expand...
no, there is truth and then there is Truth
science cannot say anything about a soul or anything else supernatural

if there is an apparent conflict we are just not interpreting the stories correctly
40.png
DreadVandal:
This is what bothers me. It seems to be the case that with modern evolution, you have a naturalistic view of things that is fundamentally at odds with traditional christian faith. At what point are we just rationalizing the fact that the traditional faith no longer holds up to scientific and rational scrutiny?
Click to expand...
Ah, the God of the Gaps dilemma.

Remember the human language and understanding are limited and imperfect. What has been reveled to us is to help us learn the big picture and is not necessarily the big picture itself.

belief requires a leap of faith

If it where something that could be proven with measurements and dials and equations then it wouldn’t be much of a belief.
40.png
DreadVandal:
I have heard atheists make the point that liberal christianity is just dishonest atheism. Its atheism+mythology+social activism. How far do we have to go before we fall into that? What’s the point of religion if it can be shown to be nothing more than poetry?
Click to expand...
why listen to the opinions of an ashiest criticizing your liberal brethren? :confused:
40.png
DreadVandal:
This is the doubt that torments me when I think about this problem too much. God help my soul.
Click to expand...
remember what we will hear in a few weeks; Fear not, we bring good tidings.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Remember the human language and understanding are limited and imperfect. What has been reveled to us is to help us learn the big picture and is not necessarily the big picture itself.
Click to expand...
Humans are limited by language, aptitude, five senses, and the dimensions we live in and can observe.

Consider - there can be more than 5 senses and more dimensions. If true we are sorely limited to what we can learn from science. Thus we become more dependent on Revelation.
 
40.png
hurst:
…As for me, I do not consider the “Evidence” as overwhelming anymore, nor do I consider it evidence. The circular logic of dating the layers based on fossils, and dating the fossils based on the layers is one absurdity.
Click to expand...
not this same old poor strawman :rolleyes:
fossils and geological layers are dated with multiple techniques
40.png
hurst:
But worse is the systematic rejection of considerations outside of the philosophical view of the current scientific community. Any indication that a scientist does not “believe” and “trust” in their atheistic procedures results in their expulsion one way or another.
Click to expand...
the old evil scientist conspiracy theory
remember, science is hard work. You need years of intense study just to get in and play the game. The work they do is competitive, and rigorously reviewed. They build on previous work. Dismissing ideas from non-specialist who don’t have the background, expertise, or training is no more a problem than dismissing an “encyclical” written by me. 😉

Here is a link to an essay that sums it up better than I
link
40.png
hurst:
Also, it would not be “descended” as much as “ascended”, since man is the highest life form.
Click to expand...
you say potato…

Words can have multiple meanings. Is it not correct to say you are descended from your grandfather? Does that make you worse than your grandfather?
Ascend is a more loaded term; using it would make the scenists guilty of the bias you are accusing them of.
40.png
hurst:
Besides, none of their “evidence” shows where wisdom or prudence came from.
Click to expand...
really? Please provide examples
40.png
hurst:
I have heard they are only concerned with natural explanations. But that only proves they are denying God.
Click to expand...
No, it proves that they know their limits and don’t have the hubris to pronounce on things outside their competence.
40.png
hurst:
Are they any different from a hedonist, who is only interested in natural pleasures? Science, like our political system, has been hijacked by a spirit alien to its origins.
Click to expand...
something just got highjacked 😛
40.png
hurst:
…Perhaps they are blind or careless about the fact that science is filled with “falsifiable” theories, meaning that as new evidence presents itself, they have the right and duty to change their theory to fit the facts. It is nothing more than a glorified form of “making it up as we go along”. Is that something to put your faith in? No.
Click to expand...
err… that’s the whole point
science isn’t about belief
there are no prophets, no sacred texts, no dogmatic pronouncements

just the preponderance of the evidence

As an analogy consider that in the early Church there were multiple texts in circulation and the Bible we know today wasn’t assembled until the 4th century and other dogmas weren’t pronounced until later. Does that mean the Church was “making it up as they went along” (yes I know there are plenty of skeptics and Protestants who say so but that doesn’t make it so)
40.png
hurst:
… Let us also use the cars, computers, etc. but with a different motive,
Click to expand...
sort of having your cake and eating it too eh? 😉
 
40.png
steveandersen:
fossils and geological layers are dated with multiple techniques
Click to expand...
But with the same philosophy that there was never a global flood, and any attempt seeking to incorporate that is considered “unscientific”
40.png
steveandersen:
the old evil scientist conspiracy theory
Click to expand...
The “theory” has plenty of evidence, including the recent events at the Smithsonian. It is not necessarily “conspiracy”, though. But it is certainly a club mentality, not much different from the synogogues in Jesus’ time that ruled Him out as a matter of policy.
40.png
steveandersen:
remember, science is hard work. You need years of intense study just to get in and play the game.
Click to expand...
No doubt it is hard work. But you have to play the game from the time of being a student, not after the years of work.
40.png
steveandersen:
The work they do is competitive, and rigorously reviewed.
Click to expand...
No scientist knows all published science. They are forced to act on accepted beliefs. Reviews will clearly filter out various ideas merely if they seem suspicious or threatening somehow.

Not that this is “bad”, because even the Church will filter out anything that poses any opposition to accepted belief. My point is that the scientific community is not as objective as they insist. Their pursuit is not for “truth”, otherwise they would allow anything and everything to make a statment based on observations.
40.png
steveandersen:
They build on previous work. Dismissing ideas from non-specialist who don’t have the background, expertise, or training is no more a problem than dismissing an “encyclical” written by me. 😉
Click to expand...
As I stated above, it is wrong to dismiss them for philosophical reasons when science is not philosophy - or isn’t supposed to be. But they are in fact driven by their philosophies. And the scientists with clout or with grant money exercise their influence to promote their philosophy or that of the community. To claim someone is not “qualified” could be based on the fact they have not bought into the philosophy of their training. It is a biased approach, while claiming to not be biased. Thus it is dishonest and hypocritical in a systematic way.
40.png
steveandersen:
Words can have multiple meanings. Is it not correct to say you are descended from your grandfather? Does that make you worse than your grandfather?
Click to expand...
Now you are making more sense. Yes, biologically, it is natural that I am “worse” than my grandfather. That also helps me exercise the virtue of respect toward my grandfather.
40.png
steveandersen:
No, it proves that they know their limits and don’t have the hubris to pronounce on things outside their competence.
Click to expand...
But they do pronounce on it by claiming that they do not need God to do their work. They have excluded God and will find the devil. It is false humility to say they are avoiding hubris. True humilty would lead them to submit to the Church, which does have competence regarding God.
40.png
steveandersen:
…
science isn’t about belief
there are no prophets, no sacred texts, no dogmatic pronouncements

just the preponderance of the evidence
Click to expand...
It claims it is not about belief, but as I said, it is full of belief in various philosophies. It considers various texts as sacred in that if anyone refutes them, they are denounced. It makes dogmatic pronouncements in all sorts of ways.

There is much evidence about many things, and they are following a certain interpretation. Anyone not doing so is considered incompetent.

Of scientists can this not be said?

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
40.png
steveandersen:
As an analogy consider that in the early Church there were multiple texts in circulation and the Bible we know today wasn’t assembled until the 4th century and other dogmas weren’t pronounced until later. Does that mean the Church was “making it up as they went along” (yes I know there are plenty of skeptics and Protestants who say so but that doesn’t make it so)
Click to expand...
No, because the Church states that it cannot be changed. We put our faith in the pronouncements of the Church with all assurance as from God, Who knows all. It is not a theory, even if it wasn’t pronounced until later. Some things are theory, but we don’t put our faith into that like we do with the blessed dogma and doctrine of Holy Mother Church.

Scientific theories can be changed. They start with hypotheses based on a guess about observations. It inherently starts with us clueless people guessing about our surroundings. Somehow that has become something of a tower of babel that many take pride in, even unto the boasting of science over Church, or at least ignoring it as irrelevant.

hurst
 
40.png
hurst:
But with the same philosophy that there was never a global flood, and any attempt seeking to incorporate that is considered “unscientific”
Click to expand...
well that is just plain untrue

Blessed Steno, a pioneer in geology & the father of stratigraphy, started from the position that shell fossils on mountain tops were evidence of the flood.

things went down hill from there. 😉

And you wouldn’t start by saying there was no flood
you would start by saying if there was a flood what evidences would it leave behind.?..do we see any of that evidence?..what does the world look like and are there explanations other than a flood that would fit the data better? Etc.

That has been done quite thoroughly in the past so faulting a modern scientist for not considering it once again is sort of like saying a modern astronomer is somehow playing fast and loose if he doesn’t give geocentrism a fair shake.

sometimes you don’t have to reinvent the wheel
40.png
hurst:
…No scientist knows all published science. They are forced to act on accepted beliefs. Reviews will clearly filter out various ideas merely if they seem suspicious or threatening somehow.
Click to expand...
nonsense.

In the current political climate in the US there would be fundamentalist groups spending money hand over fist to support scenists who had serious alternative theories.
40.png
hurst:
…My point is that the scientific community is not as objective as they insist. Their pursuit is not for “truth”, otherwise they would allow anything and everything to make a statment based on observations.
Click to expand...
their job is not to publish anything and everything based on observations. They are interested in things that offer better explainations than the existing theories.

For example, there is a person in these forums who holds some fairly strong opinions on geocentrism. His point is that according to Relativity it could just as easily be said that the earth revolves around the sun as the sun revolves around the Earth depending upon your frame of reference. And he is right to the extent that visual observations could not distinguish between to two (as far as my primitive understanding of physics goes). Where he and I disagree is that the notion of the universe spinning around the earth would be inconsistent with a host of other phenomenon such as gravity and this it must be discarded.
40.png
hurst:
As I stated above, it is wrong to dismiss them for philosophical reasons when science is not philosophy - or isn’t supposed to be. But they are in fact driven by their philosophies.
Click to expand...
actually there is a philosophy of science
it has an emphasis on induction
link
40.png
hurst:
And the scientists with clout or with grant money exercise their influence to promote their philosophy or that of the community.
Click to expand...
scientist with money!?!?! That is quite amusing 😉
40.png
hurst:
To claim someone is not “qualified” could be based on the fact they have not bought into the philosophy of their training. It is a biased approach, while claiming to not be biased. Thus it is dishonest and hypocritical in a systematic way.
Click to expand...
it is not hypocritical for a profession to set its own standards
I could claim to be a master plumber or a cannon lawyer but the plumbers or canon lawyers might have something to say about it. In fact some would say it is their duty to police their profession
40.png
hurst:
Now you are making more sense. Yes, biologically, it is natural that I am “worse” than my grandfather.
Click to expand...
what?
Biology would make no such value judgement. You are his descendant not his inferior.
40.png
hurst:
That also helps me exercise the virtue of respect toward my grandfather.
Click to expand...
by implying that he left behind inferior offspring? :confused:
40.png
hurst:
But they do pronounce on it by claiming that they do not need God to do their work.
Click to expand...
since a supernatural being can do whatever it chooses without rhyme reason or predictable pattern and since if any question could be answered “God did it” without regard to mechanism any methodological examination would be moot; science by necessity cannot include God

IMHO it would be blasphemous to try to put God under a microscope or otherwise test Him
40.png
hurst:
…Of scientists can this not be said?
2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
Click to expand...
their pursuit is for facts not truth.
40.png
hurst:
…Scientific theories can be changed.
Click to expand...
Like I said that is the whole point
(an other man might point out the inconsistency of your complaining that science is both close minded and reluctant to change on one hand and subject to change in the face of new data on the other…I couldn’t possibly do that) 😉
 
40.png
steveandersen:
…
(an other man might point out the inconsistency of your complaining that science is both close minded and reluctant to change on one hand and subject to change in the face of new data on the other…I couldn’t possibly do that) 😉
Click to expand...
Thank you, but you bring it up. I would simply answer that they won’t change their philosophies, but will change their theories. But this is a generalization of the scientific community.

hurst
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
In light of the encyclicals mentioned; and what seems to be the overwhelming evidence that we have descended from a common ancestor with other life forms, I must say that a grave difficulty presents itself to me. Here is the question that I have.

If it is true that any of the following have been infallibly taught:

1.) both the body and soul are supernaturally created by God on day 6 and the human body is not descended from prior species.

2.) woman was created directly from Adam’s rib per Genesis
3). Monergism is necessarily true

and it turns out that at least 1 of these is refuted (indubitably) by modern science; for example, they show without a doubt that monergism is false; then would this mean that the Church is not infallible and is, in effect, a lie? This is what bothers me. It seems to be the case that with modern evolution, you have a naturalistic view of things that is fundamentally at odds with traditional christian faith. At what point are we just rationalizing the fact that the traditional faith no longer holds up to scientific and rational scrutiny? I have heard atheists make the point that liberal christianity is just dishonest atheism. Its atheism+mythology+social activism. How far do we have to go before we fall into that? What’s the point of religion if it can be shown to be nothing more than poetry?

This is the doubt that torments me when I think about this problem too much. God help my soul.
Click to expand...

If it helps - I believe that evolution is a fact, because, *if *true, it is in profound agreement with the Biblical picture of God: which is not limited to His acts on earth. God is revealed through nature - and evolution has been very fruitful in filling in the details of how nature reverals Him as Creator. It’s also very important for our understanding of Christ: if one puts together​

  • the Big Bang
  • planetary development
  • the developments on earth which made life possible
  • and the evolution of living things on earth
one gets a wonderful - even though incomplete - glimpse of the sheer scale of what God has done in order to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. That is what everything in creation is for - Jesus Christ. All these thousands of millions of years of planetary formation, amoeba, trilobites, dinosaurs, and primates are summed up in, fulfilled by, are given meaning by Him. The coming of Christ was the final purpose of the Big Bang. St. Matthew records that he had some sinful people in His pedigree; St. Luke traces Him back to “Adam son of God”. Now it is possible to go back beyond man, and to see Him as related to chimpanzees and voles - which underlines that He is Saviour of the whole of creation, not of that segment of it which consists of man alone.

So we are very well-off, for through no merit of our own, we have the means to understand the Creation in this astonishing depth of detail. So evolution is not something to be afraid of - it is something we can thank God for; something which shows us how detailed His Providential care of His creatures is. So it is of great importance for the theology of creation and of salvation. God is so great, that He is responsible both for Alpha Centauri and the Mass. In the Mass, because we are in Christ for Whom all this was done, we can give thanks to God for all His works, not on earth alone, but in all creation. That is how creative God is. 🙂 ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top