EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
##** True. Even so, man is nothing - essentially - but a highly-dev****eloped ape with a capacity for God. **

**Take away the capacity for God, & we are nothing more than bunches of molecules (if we are even that). **
  • The cheetah & horse are faster
  • the tortoise & parrot longer-lived
  • the peacock more variously-coloured
  • the spider more patient & a better engineer
  • the bear better protected against severe cold
  • some trees were very 120 generations ago
  • rocks are more enduring
  • stars more radiant & more numerous
  • whales better equipped to live in water
  • many of these are far greater in size
    - compared to these, we are nothing: spiders are crushed in a second, but they existed 300 million years ago. We were not even voles at that stage. Man is nothing - except an almost-nothingness of whom God has become one. Man is the only animal that sins. Because of all this, we have absolutely no possible ground for self-esteem or self-praise. Surely this is all common knowledge ?
    ##
    Not everyone
    thinks alike.
Not everyone thinks alike? Really? :rolleyes: How profound.

The purpose of Creation was to give man a place in which to live, that we might learn to love and to eventually join God in heaven. The universe was created for us.

And your list - wow. And fish swim better then we do. You forgot that one. And both we and fish are composed of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc.

SO WHAT? The things you mention are valid measures of “exceptionalism” in the context of a secular materialist philosophy, but have nothing to do with “human exceptionalism.”

We DO have possible grounds for self-esteem. We are created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing else is. And I’ll repeat it again…we have a responsibility as stewards of God’s creation not to screw it up.

Surely this is all common knowledge for a Catholic.
 
We DO have possible grounds for self-esteem. We are created in the image and likeness of God.
Our Lord was incarnated and died on the Cross for us. “Do not fear, you are worth more than many sparrows” (not one of which falls without Our Father knowing it).
 
I’m reading The Hobbit with my son, and there are great truths in that book, as there are in Lewis’ Narnia series, and as there are in Genesis 1-11. The truths I see in Narnia are not in the facticity of talking animals (as in Genesis 3), but in what they represent.
I just finished Narnia for the first time. Somehow I put off reading it for 57 years 😦

Lewis’ dedication to his niece at the beginning of book 2 was quite insightful, I thought. Here is what he said:
My Dear Lucy, I wrote this book for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result, you are far too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day, you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand a word you say, but I shall still be…your affectionate Godfather, CS Lewis.
I’m glad that I’m old enough (plus a bunch) to start reading fairy tales again 🙂
 
…because you don’t believe in talking snakes any more than I do.
What? No talking snakes? With the universe being SO large, and SO old? Certainly with gazillions of planets just full of advanced life (after all, random mutations plus natural selection makes all that not just possible, but inevitable), there must be half a gazillion “advanced snake worlds” from which the talking snake could have come.

Note: If that doesn’t work for you, then invoke the “multi-verse” concept. Even if this single universe can’t come up with talking snakes, an infinite number of universes must certainly be able to do so.

😃
 
I just finished Narnia for the first time. Somehow I put off reading it for 57 years :(I’m glad that I’m old enough (plus a bunch) to start reading fairy tales again 🙂
Ricmat, someone once said that every Christian should read the Narnia series at least three times: once in childhood, once as an adult, and once again in old age. This was my third time through it, and I hope for a couple more. My son loved The Last Battle; he was a bit too young when we read the first one to understand the theological symbolism, but he did remember parts of that book while we were reading the last.

StAnastasia
 
The purpose of Creation was to give man a place in which to live, that we might learn to love and to eventually join God in heaven. The universe was created for us.
What anthropocentric arrogance this appears to be. Have you any idea how big the universe is? I am with Richard Feynman on this one:

“It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
 
What anthropocentric arrogance this appears to be. Have you any idea how big the universe is?
The beauty of this whole situation is that the Creator of the whole thing, God, has created humans for the express purpose of sharing his love, in communion with him, in heaven. We obviously didn’t earn this. We don’t deserve it in any way. That God created us as persons (with free will) to share the love inherent in the Trinity itself after a lifetime of “practice” is absolutely awesome. Have you any idea how big that is?
 
What? No talking snakes? With the universe being SO large, and SO old? Certainly with gazillions of planets just full of advanced life (after all, random mutations plus natural selection makes all that not just possible, but inevitable), there must be half a gazillion “advanced snake worlds” from which the talking snake could have come.
Well maybe there are talking-snake planets (and talking-gahooney planets) elsewhere in the universe (although, in nature not all things are possible) but we are discussing this one - good ol’ planet earth. Obviously, there wouldn’t have been time between Creation and the Fall for a) the evolution of talking snakes and b) for them to develop the technology of interstellar travel and c) for them to travel hundreds or thousands of light years to earth 🙂

Of course they could have evolved, developed the skills and got here by magic - wait a minute - why didn’t God just magic one into existence on earth? Magic can be used to explain anything and explains nothing.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
The beauty of this whole situation is that the Creator of the whole thing, God, has created humans for the express purpose of sharing his love, in communion with him, in heaven. We obviously didn’t earn this. We don’t deserve it in any way. That God created us as persons (with free will) to share the love inherent in the Trinity itself after a lifetime of “practice” is absolutely awesome. Have you any idea how big that is?
The stage is too big for the drama.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
The stage is too big for the drama.
God can do anything. He need not be what appears to us as “efficient.”

God is awesome, and looking at the universe (from the very big, to human size, to very small) should give you a sense of awe as well. Awesome is an attribute of God, and Creation will reflect his awesomeness in many ways, including its scale.
 
The stage is too big for the drama.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
I just read that some guys have figured that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is just as big as the Andromeda galaxy and that the two are on a collision course. That will be a cool light show, but what does that mean? Was it designed that way? Pretty big stage indeed! I wonder who will see that collision.
 
Well maybe there are talking-snake planets (and talking-gahooney planets) elsewhere in the universe (although, in nature not all things are possible) but we are discussing this one - good ol’ planet earth. Obviously, there wouldn’t have been time between Creation and the Fall for a) the evolution of talking snakes and b) for them to develop the technology of interstellar travel and c) for them to travel hundreds or thousands of light years to earth 🙂
Heavier than air manned flight is impossible - Lord Kelvin, respected, credentialed, peer-reviewed, PhD, (Nobel winner?) etc. etc. etc.

Heavier than air manned flight is possible - Wright Bros. Bicycle mechanics.

I thought for sure you would object that in the multi-verse, the talking snakes couldn’t actually get to this universe. But the answer to that is obvious…a transporter malfunction.
 
Heavier than air manned flight is impossible - Lord Kelvin, respected, credentialed, peer-reviewed, PhD, (Nobel winner?) etc. etc. etc.

Heavier than air manned flight is possible - Wright Bros. Bicycle mechanics.

I thought for sure you would object that in the multi-verse, the talking snakes couldn’t actually get to this universe. But the answer to that is obvious…a transporter malfunction.
So the talking snakes evolved and developed a technology to transport one of them through a wormhole in spacetime so he arrived on earth soon after the creation of the universe and just before the Fall? Riiigghttt. I thought you said that it wasn’t an animal at all, but a telepathic fallen angel.

By the way, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, was also wrong about the age of the sun, about X-rays and about the future of physics. Like a good scientist he admitted he was wrong about those things where irrefutable evidence was presented in his lifetime (the age of the universe, and X-rays)

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Here’s what I said originally when you said that the universe was so big, and has been around so long (in a previous post to me).
Code:
                 Originally Posted by **ricmat**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4643956#post4643956)                 
               *What? No talking snakes? With the universe being SO large, and SO old? Certainly with gazillions of planets just full of advanced life (after all, random mutations plus natural selection makes all that not just possible, but inevitable), there must be half a gazillion "advanced snake worlds" from which the talking snake could have come.*
to which you replied:
So the talking snakes evolved and developed a technology to transport one of them through a wormhole in spacetime so he arrived on earth soon after the creation of the universe and just before the Fall? Riiigghttt.
Note that I said nothing about the fall happening “soon after the creation of the universe.” You did. Are you a YECer?

I was using a humorous example (which you botched in your summary above) to show you how people who believe in:
  1. Advanced life via random mutations, and
  2. Such a BIG universe, and SO MUCH time, and
  3. “Billions and billions of stars” (and planets) - (thank you Dr. Sagan)
  4. Multi-verses
  5. The inevitability of evolution creating advanced life.
might lead themselves to believe in talking snakes. I was trying to help you along here! 🙂

You believe that mankind evolved over millions/billions of years, and that the first humans lived perhaps a few hundred thousand years ago (correct me if I’m wrong about what you think). Hence, the “fall” as described in the bible would have happened at that time. Certainly, if Adam and Eve (talking humans) had evolved by the time of the fall, then talking snakes could have evolved as well. Right? Why would you have evolution deny the possibility of a talking snake? [BTW - the bible word is more like “dragon” than snake]

Note: I’m not a YEC, you have me confused with someone else there again.
I thought you said that it wasn’t an animal at all, but a telepathic fallen angel.
Sorry, I didn’t say that. Someone else perhaps.
By the way, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, was also wrong about the age of the sun, about X-rays and about the future of physics. Like a good scientist he admitted he was wrong about those things where irrefutable evidence was presented in his lifetime (the age of the universe, and X-rays)
But like all scientists these days (it seems), he knew he was 100% right before the irrefutable evidence was presented. After all, his publications were peer reviewed! How could he have possibly been wrong to begin with? 🙂
 
What anthropocentric arrogance this appears to be. Have you any idea how big the universe is? I am with Richard Feynman on this one: "It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."Alec

Alec, you might like the non-anthropocentric take on the universe so beautifully articulated by the English Catholic poet Alice Meynell (1847-1922) in her poem “Christ in the Universe.” I’ll take Meynell’s astonishing theology any day over a simplistic anthropocentrism.
StAnastasia

*With this ambiguous earth
His dealings have been told us. These abide:
The signal to a maid, the human birth,
The lesson, and the young Man crucified.

But not a star of all
The innumerable host of stars has heard
How He administered this terrestrial ball.
Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word.

Of His earth-visiting feet
None knows the secret, cherished, perilous,
The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet,
Heart-shattering secret of His way with us.

No planet knows that this
Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave,
Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss,
Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.

Nor, in our little day,
May His devices with the heavens be guessed,
His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way
Or His bestowals there be manifest.

But in the eternities,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.

O, be prepared, my soul!
To read the inconceivable, to scan
The myriad forms of God those stars unroll
When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.*
 
Alec, you might like the non-anthropocentric take on the universe so beautifully articulated by the English Catholic poet Alice Meynell (1847-1922) in her poem “Christ in the Universe.” I’ll take Meynell’s astonishing theology any day over a simplistic anthropocentrism…
Thank you - this is striking, and more congenial than the idea that the universe in all its glory was created to contain human beings.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Thank you - this is striking, and more congenial than the idea that the universe in all its glory was created to contain human beings. Alec
Doctor Sister Ilia Delio, OSF, explores the theme in greater theological depth in Christ in Evolution (Orbis, 2008). The divine Logos (“word”) is spoken throughout the universe, and where planetary chemical and climatic conditions are suitable for the evolution of complex, morally responsive and spiritually sensitive life, the Logos can become incarnate. 2000 years ago the “logos” or cosmic “Christ” became incarnate on earth as Homo sapiens: “And the Word was made flesh (Homo sapiens) and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory…full of grace and truth.” In the other 300 billion galaxies “the only begotten of the Father” may assume very different manifestations, but it is one and the same Logos.

StAnastasia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top