EVOLUTION: what about this

[wildleafblower]

I wonder if the concept of an “immortal soul” is even helpful, theologically speaking. Human experience is intrinsically embodied, not disembodied, so I can’t see that the idea of primarily “soulish” existence is particularly meaningful.

From the Catechism: “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 ".

Ed, I’ll defer to Alec on this one, as he is the biologist, and would understand claims about information theory.

StAnastasia

Alec is a physicist. I doubt he would yelp “Slander!” for misrepresenting him since you have claimed he is a biologist. He doesn’t pout “authority” over others. He is a brilliant scientist whom I respect even though we don’t always think alike.

I noticed you answer questions from other members yet have failed to answer any of mine on other topics. The word discrimination briefly popped into my mind. Forgiveness grabbed me and put me back on the best path to follow.

And I stand by my statement. I know of no flaws in the theory.
Tim

The definiton of the word flaw is illusion. I don’t see illusions in the Theory of Evolution nor in Cosmic Evolution.

Well, if someone’s interpretation of the Bible is clearly refuted by scientific fact, like geocentrism, then the interpretation must change to conform to the facts. Religion simply cannot compete with science because science is objective. What is known to be true is simply true.

Hi Namesake. The bible isn’t a science book. However, the Bible is an artifact. Archeologists, Forensic scientists, and world renowned biblical scholars authenticate transcripts, tablets, etc., which contain eye witness accounts of historical information, which are preserved through restoration and conservation by curators. Biblical scholars such as the Pope (s) and Cardinal(s) do consult with The Vatican:Holy See’s Scientific Advisory Committee, as well as with others.

Your posting style is long, chaotic, and hard to decipher. Please post your questions singly and succinctly.

I realize this wasn’t meant for me so please pardon me, I couldn’t resist, " I like to do it my way." Thanks for making me laugh.

May God bless us all with peace of mind and less drama in our lives.

 

[mpartyka]

I sense a lot of anger behind your posting. Do you want to talk about that?

Not so much anger as disappointment. I had thought that you were approaching both evolution and scripture with open eyes…perhaps the first person I’ve seen do so with confidence, which I found encouraging…but it turns out that when it comes to scripture, you’ve got a filter on yourself. It doesn’t matter to you whether scripture is “true” in any commonly-understood sense of the word, but this is a vital matter to me. I’ve seen enough evidence to prove to me that evolution is the way humanity came to be, and now I’m looking to reconcile that with scripture and/or Church teaching, and I thought perhaps you had done that, but you haven’t. Indeed, there is no need for you to reconcile evolution with a book you don’t really believe to be the Word of God, anyway.

Which leads me back to my question, “Why do you bother being Catholic?” And I’m not sniping when I ask this – it’s a serious question. What is it about Catholicism that appeals to you such that on one hand you freely deny certain of its teachings (e.g., the inerrancy of scripture) but on the other hand you feel as though you ought not to dissociate yourself from it?

–Mike

 

[Namesake]

Not true. I have a Jesuit astronomer friend who works on stellar evolution. You may be thinking of “biologcal evolution”; indeed, that term refers only to the descent of living things from common ancestors. But do you know that the word “evolution” is older and broader than this narrow biological meaning? We know now that the universe has evolved over time, that it is much different now than it was 13.71 billion years ago.

StAnastasia

You can apply the term evolution to just about anything but that doesn’t change the fact that the theory of evolution is confined to biology, the origin of species.

Maybe you could quote from sources that extend the theory of evolution into cosmology.

In this conversation we were discussing the theory of evolution. People here even use the term “darwinism”. That has nothing at all to do with the evolution of the universe.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That’s a wrong concept of humans and sin. We aren’t sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. If a baby hasn’t sinned yet, give him time.

rossum:

A person, and a baby is a person, is innocent until they have committed a crime. After the deed, then yes, they are no longer innocent. Before the deed they are innocent.

PEPCIS:

This contradicts the teaching of the Church which is that all are born in original sin.

I am aware that the Church teaches that we are all born in original sin. The ‘sin’ in original sin was committed by Adam and Eve, not by the babies in question.

Doesn’t matter. The Bible (and the Church) teaches explicitly that we are sinners by nature, and that God’s wrath abides on every man, woman, and child. God’s wrath abides only on the guilty, and we are guilty by our very nature. We don’t have to do anything to deserve God’s punishment, because we are already sinners by birth.

rossum:

Since it was not a consciously willed action by those babies they are innocent of those actions, though they do suffer the impact of those actions. A person can be affected by a crime without being guilty of that crime. You have failed to show that the Midianite babies are not innocent.

On the contrary. God is JUST. Either the Bible is wrong (in which case you ought to throw yours away), or God is a murderer at heart. Either way, it sounds to me like you’ve got a real problem.

rossum:

The problem with using orignal sin in an argument like this is that original sin applies to everyone, including Israelite babies, Midianite babies and all murder victims.

Exactly. God is not a respecter of persons.

rossum:

It does not explain why Midianite babies had to die while Israelite babies lived - I assume that you will not argue that God is racist.

Sure God is racist, if by “racist” you mean: He favors His elect.

rossum:

If it is moral to kill someone who is born in original sin then all murderers are acting morally. I am sure that this is not your argument.

Of course not. That is YOUR argument.

rossum:

If God is just then, surely in justice He is required to act similarly for the similar original sin of both Israelite and Midianite babies. If God is merciful then why is His mercy selective - Israelite babies can live while Midianite babies must die?

Paul wrote about this in Romans 9. There we read concerning Jacob and Esau. Esau was the elder of the two brothers, and by birth, Esau was to gain the inheritance. Any special lineage was to be reckoned THROUGH HIM, not through Jacob. But God had different plans.

In verses 11-13 we read:

[SIGN]11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.[/SIGN]

But there are many, including yourself, that dare to judge God according to our own standard of what is righteous. And Paul, anticipating that there would be some who would dare to impose unrighteousness to God’s account, stated in verses 14-15:

[SIGN]14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.[/SIGN]

You can say what you will about God, but I’d be careful not to try and attribute such human understandings to His person.

 

[PEPCIS]

I sense a lot of anger behind your posting. Do you want to talk about that?

Ooooooooo! Dropped that pass…

 

[PEPCIS]

Stupid people are by their nature, necessarily ignorant. Ignorant people are not necessarily stupid.

Just look it up. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid cannot be fixed.

Gee, I’m sorry they don’t have a specialist for your illness.

 

[PEPCIS]

Religion and science have entirely different starting points, so they are not fundamentally in opposition

Actually, they both have the same starting point. All knowledge flows from God.

 

[PEPCIS]

Reggie, you are a liar and a slanderer, and lying and slandering is sinful!

ROFLMBO!!! Says who???

 

[Orogeny]

Gee, I’m sorry they don’t have a specialist for your illness.

What would that be?

Peace

Tim

 

[redhen]

Actually, they both have the same starting point. All knowledge flows from God.

Fr. Robert Barron explains this false duality quite well.

ca.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=channel_page

 

[PEPCIS]

What would that be?

Peace

Tim

Didn’t know you had it that bad…

 

[PEPCIS]

Fr. Robert Barron explains this false duality quite well.

ca.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=channel_page

That was STRANGEEEEEE. You claim that Father Barron explains this false duality, yet he supported my contention completely, stating that all science rests on the supposition that knowledge is out there to be discovered. If that is the case, then it is clear that science must recognize that true knowledge is outside of itself. Therefore, all Catholics should realize that God is the holder of all knowledge, and science can only hope to discover some small piece of what God would have for them.

Here’s a nice quote from that video:

[SIGN]"Another problem, of course, with scientism is, the way this attitude is expressed undermines itself [the attitude being that science alone can explain anything and everything] Here’s what I mean:

Many times, on the YouTube forum, I’ll find some version of this: [SIGN]“Science explains reality. Science is the means of understanding all reality.”[/SIGN] That itself is a non-scientific claim. Where did you empirically see that claim? Where did you verify it through experimentation? That claim is itself a philosophical claim. It’s based upon this uh personal intuition.

Now, it may be right or wrong, but that’s not my point. The point is, you yourself have proven that empirical science is not the only way to know reality, because you’re claiming kinda a philosophical intuition.

So there’s something operationally self-defeating about scientism."[/SIGN]

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. This is correct. People who believe this also believe that now, right now, man possesses enough knowledge to overthrow certain things the Church holds to be true by the deposit of faith. I call this the illusion of progress, or the illusion of modernism. Examples:

Many years ago, a man at the U.S. Patent Office suggested it be closed because he decided all the worthwhile inventions had been invented.

Last year, aside from updated control units, it was admitted that modern washing machines were not essentially different from those used in the 1950s.

Until recently, most modern airport control towers still used a 1950s vacuum tube in their radar.

The B-52 is still flying with upgrades; another 1950s design.

I think it is very important that those who hold a view that science presents everyone, believers and non-believers, with all the essentials about reality examine their motivation. Is it about truth or is it about reducing religious influence or eliminating religion altogether? Which should be very difficult for them to do, since by their own admission, science is silent about the supernatural. Which leads to another question. If you are a non-believer, how can you validate or invalidate claims of the supernatural without science to guide you?

Peace,
Ed

 

[redhen]

That was STRANGEEEEEE. You claim that Father Barron explains this false duality, yet he supported my contention completely

I guess I didn’t phrase that well enough. What I meant by false duality is this view that science and religion are incompatible.

Thanks for distilling the main points of that video for us. Hopefully it will incline people to watch the whole Youtube video.

 

[PEPCIS]

I guess I didn’t phrase that well enough. What I meant by false duality is this view that science and religion are incompatible.

Thanks for distilling the main points of that video for us. Hopefully it will incline people to watch the whole Youtube video.

LOL Thanks RedHen. Yes, I liked the video. Father Barron is very articulate, and gets to his point quickly. The video is only 8 minutes long and worth seeing.

 

[reggieM]

What I meant by false duality is this view that science and religion are incompatible.

As Father Barron points out, *scientism *and religion are incompatible. He did a good job exposing the YouTube heresies (common here on CAF also). I read a book by Fr. Barron last year and I didn’t know he was doing these instructive videos. Thanks for posting that link.

 

[Orogeny]

Didn’t know you had it that bad…

So what is it?

(I smell an ad hominem coming)

Peace

Tim

 

[PEPCIS]

So what is it?

(I smell an ad hominem coming)

Well, at least your nose is still working…

 

[LongingForLight]

Fr. Robert Barron explains this false duality quite well.

ca.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=channel_page

Thanks for that great video. I’ve had the “science is not a philosophy” “yes it is” argument before with someone, who claimed that he took everything on knowledge and nothing on faith (and called religion “magic guy in the sky fairy tales” . . . Sigh).

I was pointing out, however, that we all take something on faith - at the very least, “Our senses and memories are at least somewhat reliable.” In theory, we could just be a “Matrix” world and our senses could all be false. Or we could have fake memories and actually be incapable of movement -statues, dreaming that we moved. Etc. There are probably endless fun scenarios to play with along those lines.

But we take the reality of our senses and memories on faith, at least to some extent. And the reason we believe our senses and memories, at least for most of us, isn’t even all that terribly logical: If we didn’t hold at least that simple faith in senses and memories, how could we have any hope of a meaningful life?

There is no science in that. Just philosophy.

It’s a specific subset of the arguments covered by Fr. Barron stating that science is a philosophy. And I’m just so glad to hear someone responding so articulately to this same argument, in a place where these kinds of heresies breed.

My $.02. And thanks for letting me duck into this conversation - I haven’t read all 20+ pages, but what I have read has been very interesting.

 

[Namesake]

It’s a specific subset of the arguments covered by Fr. Barron stating that science is a philosophy. And I’m just so glad to hear someone responding so articulately to this same argument, in a place where these kinds of heresies breed.

That isn’t correct. Science is hard, cold, objective reality. Once upon a time it was philosophy but no longer. People who want to live by faith alone would do well to avoid science because it is so hard, cold, and objective. Science is emotionless.

Once one learns to view the world objectively through science faith must occupy a different compartment. Living entirely by faith necessitates a relative rejection of objective science. But, accepting rational views of the world does tend to shut out some ideas contained within religion, like a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis as one example.

Neither is good or bad. It just is.