EVOLUTION: what about this

[StAnastasia]

Spend a few minutes listening to PZ Myers on youtube. He’ll tell you how science is corrosive to religious belief. What was the purpose of science again?

Cardinal Schoenborn has written that scientism, the belief that our senses are the only way to explore and understand reality, must be overcome. I agree.Peace,Ed

Ed I agree with you. I had lunch with PZ at my institution last year, and found him to be quite facile and ignorant in his dismissal of relgious belief. I also met Cardinal Schoenborn when he came through town on his book tour, and found him to be very engaging on a personal level, even if his book makes some wild and regrettable claims about science.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps you are referring to a very limited scope of things when you say “philosophies” and “worldview”. But in the general case, your statement seems to indicate that Theology is somehow a Democracy. If the people vote for God to be X, then God is X (because X is currently the in-vogue worldview of God).

The dialogue Theology should be having with the “changing worldview as it is today” should be to tell the people where that worldview is wrong, rather than change Theology to accommodate it. In terms of morals, we cannot define right and wrong, no matter what the worldview thinks.

(1) Who said anything about theology being a democracy?

(2) Theologians do not change theology willy nilly to bow to changing fashions. But when our understanding of the way the world works changes, we change our expression of perennial theological truths. We no longer believe God literally resides in the primum mobile.

 

[reggieM]

I cherish the same faith.

I cannot see evidence of that. Faith is a gift - not an intellectual exercise. It is not generated by what we know or who we think we are – but it comes as a divine, supernatural gift from God. A person who cherishes that faith (and the body of doctrine that supports it) must have some “sense of the sacred” (as Pope Benedict likes to say).

But you want to keep the faith at 1850 (pre-evolution), while I want the same faith to thrive in 2009.

Again, I can’t see that you want the same faith to thrive in terms of the deposit of Faith given us by the apostles. But beyond that, the roots of our faith go back considerably farther than 1850 – it is not rooted in what has been invented in 2009. In order to “dialogue” (and we are not commanded by Christ to dialogue) with the culture, one must actually bring the Faith to it (and therefore one must first possess the Faith). The watered-down, compromised Faith that passes for “relevant theology” has proven itself worthless to itself and also in it’s “dialogue” with the world since it lacks the power to transform the world (by their fruits). I’m sad to say that most theologians I know are more interested in seeing their salaries and pensions thrive than the Holy Faith that Our Lord died to bring us.

I agree that the hostility to Catholicism on the part of the secular world is disturbing, and a lot of this hostility is based on prejudice and ignorance (Dawkins, et al.)

Dawkins, being the most highly-regarded and popular evolutionist in the world merely reflects his materialistic-culture – a culture which cannot be tranformed by compromise and me-tooism. In the secularized theological culture, we materialistic philosophy transforming (corrupting) our own Catholic culture, not the Catholic faith reaching and changing souls.

On the other hand, when the secular world sees Catholics rejecting modern science in favor of the scientific worldview of 1850, it is not surprising that they should react with contempt.

Our blessed Lord transcended science, modern or otherwise. Many acted with contempt towards Him as well.

Some people bring into Catholicism (when they convert) Protestant Fundamentalist views about science and scripture tht have never bound Catholics.

That does not fit my profile as a lifelong Catholic with over 14 years of Catholic education.

I see the effort of questioning the false claims of evolutionary mythology as very much an important 21st century activity and we’ve gained much from the work of scientists like Michael Behe, for example.

 

[reggieM]

(2) Theologians do not change theology willy nilly to bow to changing fashions.

Very many do, indeed. This is why we see them silenced by the Holy See.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t think I could, as I believe you have to be dead to be so honored.

Apparently, that’s the only thing that’s stopping you from being named a Doctor of the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

I see the effort of questioning the false claims of evolutionary mythology as very much an important 21st century activity and we’ve gained much from the work of scientists like Michael Behe, for example.

What have we gained from Michael Behe?

 

[StAnastasia]

Apparently, that’s the only thing that’s stopping you from being named a Doctor of the Church.

???

 

[reggieM]

The dialogue Theology should be having with the “changing worldview as it is today” should be to tell the people where that worldview is wrong, rather than change Theology to accommodate it. In terms of morals, we cannot define right and wrong, no matter what the worldview thinks.

Exactly right and very well said.
Sadly, many of our theologians today retreat from trying to change the world with the truth of the Faith but instead try to change the Faith to appeal to the mindset of the disinterested public.
We are given the deposit of Faith and we have to preserve it and pass it on to future generations.
Too many teachers have received it and then distorted it beyond recognition before attempting to pass it on.
Fortunately, in those cases, they’re not very successful in getting people to buy-into their ideas.
But many still look at that bad example and lapse into agnosticism or even atheism.

 

[reggieM]

I cherish the same faith.

I’ll return to this because you obviously don’t.

We could look at one simple fact that shows me you are not self-aware enough to recognize the contradictions in your own professed views.

Responding to the statement that “God created everything” you claimed that you fully agree with that.

This comes from a person whose evolutionary views are indistinguishable from those of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.

There’s no sense in asking you “what did God create, precisely” because we can be certain the answer will be an ambiguous mishmash of nothings with some kind of smirking response in reply.

But the fact is, you’re a theologian who cannot explain God’s creation and have embraced a materialistic-philosophical worldview that undercuts God’s creative power, divine providence and causality at the foundation.

Additional proof – you spend posts and posts defending Darwinism and none ever explaining what God created, when He created it, and how it affected the development of nature.

 

[reggieM]

What have we gained from Michael Behe?

An immense amount.

 

[StAnastasia]

But the fact is, you’re a theologian who cannot explain God’s creation and have embraced a materialistic-philosophical worldview that undercuts God’s creative power, divine providence and causality at the foundation.

How do I “undercut God’s creative power, divine providence and causality at the foundation”? I think that’s what I’ve been upholding all along.

 

[StAnastasia]

An immense amount.

What has Michael Behe contributed that has the slightest whiff of truth behind it?

 

[StAnastasia]

Additional proof – you spend posts and posts defending Darwinism and none ever explaining what God created, when He created it, and how it affected the development of nature.

You have not explained “what God created, when He created it, and how it affected the development of nature.” I have.

 

[StAnastasia]

Responding to the statement that “God created everything” you claimed that you fully agree with that.

I do agree with that!

 

[reggieM]

You have not explained “what God created, when He created it, and how it affected the development of nature.” I have.

No, you’re confused. I said: “There’s no sense in asking you” that – “because we can be certain the answer will be an ambiguous mishmash of nothings …”

So I wasn’t asking for your reply there.

 

[reggieM]

I do agree with that!

You helped me complete the other part of what I said that was unnecessary …

“…with some kind of smirking response in reply.”

Not necessary at all – we already knew you would reply like that.

 

[reggieM]

How do I “undercut God’s creative power, divine providence and causality at the foundation”? I think that’s what I’ve been upholding all along.

I was trying to be kind by pointing out that you can’t see the contradiction in your own defense of Dawkinism and your claim to be a Catholic who believes in Creation. You can’t see it for whatever reason – I don’t know.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was trying to be kind by pointing out that you can’t see the contradiction in your own defense of Dawkinism and your claim to be a Catholic who believes in Creation. You can’t see it for whatever reason – I don’t know.

I’ve never defended “Dawkinism” – whatever that is. And I am a Catholic theologian who believes in creation. There is no contradiction between creation and evolution. They are not even in the same category of concept.

StAnastasia

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nothing prevents God from doing any of this, of course. One can explain any bizarre hypothesis with magic, which explains everything and explains nothing. Nothing prevents God from creating the universe 6000 years ago with every appearance of being 13.7 billion years old, including manipulated isochrons of radio-isotopes, “light in transit”, and a beautiful series of fossils illustrating the transition of vertebrates from sea to land dating back 300 million years. Nothing prevents God from creating the universe yesterday along with all of us and our (false) memories of the past. The Omphalos hypothesis is unfalsifiable. There is nothing that magic cannot do.

I prefer, as I think you do, to base my thinking on a universe in which things are as they appear and that the evidence in consistent with reality. I also prefer, as I think you do, to consistently distinguish between statements of fact and statements that are part of a story, a myth or a symbolic truth which is not to be interpreted literally. Though tales of Middle Earth or Lyra’s Oxford contain truths, they should not to be regarded as literal, and the story of Adam and Eve is no different.

Alec
evoplutionpages.com

The story of A & E is in some ways close to fairy-tale in Tolkien’s sense.​

**FWIW, the notion of miracle a lot of people seem to have is not the RC one: the RC notion may be objectionable on various grounds, but the notion of miracle espoused by Fundamentalists RC & Protestant is not it; so the objections against the Fundamentalist understanding need distinguishing from whatever objections tell against the other. **

**Miracle cannot be defended - let alone vindicated - merely by asserting God’s power. The problem with arguments based merely in GP, is that anything becomes possible: if that argument is valid, maybe this post is typed by a tortoise: if “God can do anything”, then He can cause this poster to be a tortoise without knowing it, & to type an intelligible post. Nonsense & foolery remain both, even if one prefixes the phonetic elements “God can”. This doctrine of GP destroys all possibilities & degrees of certainty - I may think I am typing; but I could be eating porridge on the Moon instead. If God can do anything, nothing is certain; not even lack of certainty. A very little thought shows that such a doctrine makes reliable knowledge of the world around us impossible - If anything can have the properties of anything, clothes may warm on one occasion, & burn upthe wearer on another. This is a world of nightmare, a world in which trees can bleed, men turn to stone, children turn to birds, & women to trees. **

**As for what this absurd doctrine does to Biblical exegesis - the less said, the better. It ceases to be implausible that Superman should fly from Metropolis in 2008 AD to Mesopotamia in 2348 BC & pick up all the different breads of beasts of the world in a second of senses-shattering sound, taking them all off to Noah to be packed aboard the Ark - for God can easily allow this: it perfectly accounts for the otherwise unaccountable presence of all these animals on that one vessel. And thereby, it protects the perfect inerrancy of the Bible. **

**If miracles are not impossible, it is no big deal that they happen. If we cannot tell what is plausible in nature from what is not, if the very category of the plausible is non-existent, then miracles & the non-miraculous become equally unmeaning. **

 

[hecd2]

The story of A & E is in some ways close to fairy-tale in Tolkien’s sense.​

**FWIW, the notion of miracle a lot of people seem to have is not the RC one: the RC notion may be objectionable on various grounds, but the notion of miracle espoused by Fundamentalists RC & Protestant is not it; so the objections against the Fundamentalist understanding need distinguishing from whatever objections tell against the other. **

**Miracle cannot be defended - let alone vindicated - merely by asserting God’s power. The problem with arguments based merely in GP, is that anything becomes possible: if that argument is valid, maybe this post is typed by a tortoise: if “God can do anything”, then He can cause this poster to be a tortoise without knowing it, & to type an intelligible post. Nonsense & foolery remain both, even if one prefixes the phonetic elements “God can”. This doctrine of GP destroys all possibilities & degrees of certainty - I may think I am typing; but I could be eating porridge on the Moon instead. If God can do anything, nothing is certain; not even lack of certainty. A very little thought shows that such a doctrine makes reliable knowledge of the world around us impossible - If anything can have the properties of anything, clothes may warm on one occasion, & burn upthe wearer on another. This is a world of nightmare, a world in which trees can bleed, men turn to stone, children turn to birds, & women to trees. **

**As for what this absurd doctrine does to Biblical exegesis - the less said, the better. It ceases to be implausible that Superman should fly from Metropolis in 2008 AD to Mesopotamia in 2348 BC & pick up all the different breads of beasts of the world in a second of senses-shattering sound, taking them all off to Noah to be packed aboard the Ark - for God can easily allow this: it perfectly accounts for the otherwise unaccountable presence of all these animals on that one vessel. And thereby, it protects the perfect inerrancy of the Bible. **

**If miracles are not impossible, it is no big deal that they happen. If we cannot tell what is plausible in nature from what is not, if the very category of the plausible is non-existent, then miracles & the non-miraculous become equally unmeaning. **

I quite agree with all of this and concur on the consequences of an unbridled reliance on “God can…”. That is precisely what I am arguing against.

By the way I can’t help but be reminded by this:
**This is a world of nightmare, a world in which trees can bleed, men turn to stone, children turn to birds, & women to trees.
**of the some of the literal beliefs of the mediaeval world, where belief in these sorts of things was literal, and where, although they were held to be remarkable, they were also believed to be not uncommon. We live in a very different intellectual milieu.

Alec
evolutionpages.com