evolution

[warpspeedpetey]

Should catholic believers believe in evolution??? that people were monkeys to cave men and to human ?? Should we believing in this?? As most of it sounds very correct

yes, you may accept it, but be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention.

i would suggest that you research well before acceptance on a superficial level.

that said, i accept its generalities myself. i don’t see it as anything but a mechanism of Divine Creation.

you may be under the impression that departing from a literal interpretation of scripture, somehow lends credence to its detractors.

that particular fallacy is the result of Sola Scriptura, if this is the root of the problem, you may well take solace in looking into the relationship between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church

 

[Namesake]

There is no direction to evolution,

There is a general vector toward increased complexity.

 

[TheAtheist]

From here, i believe i shall quote your Saint Augustine from a rather interesting commentary on Genesis i once read a long time ago.

From: De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

 

[Dameedna]

Augustine was absolutely spot on. When people talk about an area they are lacking in knowledge, they may think they are defending their faith, but they are not.

A friend of mine, in catholic education say’s he struggles to try and teach this concept to young catholics all the time. They aren’t helping, they are in fact hurting their cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

From here, i believe i shall quote your Saint Augustine from a rather interesting commentary on Genesis i once read a long time ago.

From: De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Augustinian theology on the body of science as related to G-d was supplanted by Aquinas’ ideas on the ability to understand G-d through reason, as opposed to the Augustinian assertion that one cannot do so, that is why Aquinas was censored by the Church.

if that principle held true, wouldn’t that also mean that an atheist could not really discuss Faith?

yet i don’t see it stopping anyone. funny that

 

[The_Barbarian]

yes, you may accept it, but be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention.

Hey, be impolitic, and mention them. Sounds like an interesting source of discussion.

i would suggest that you research well before acceptance on a superficial level.

Tell us about your research.

that said, i accept its generalities myself. i don’t see it as anything but a mechanism of Divine Creation.

In the sense that nature is a mechanism of Divine Creation.

you may be under the impression that departing from a literal interpretation of scripture, somehow lends credence to its detractors.

Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science has demonstrated that the “life on earth kind” could have never originated “naturally” since all the laws and observations of science go against it. Its the belief that life started “naturally” that has hindered scientific progress.

Sounds interesting. Show us.

 

[TheAtheist]

Augustinian theology on the body of science as related to G-d was supplanted by Aquinas’ ideas on the ability to understand G-d through reason, as opposed to the Augustinian assertion that one cannot do so, that is why Aquinas was censored by the Church.

Supplanted? I was under the impression your Church holds no official philosophy per see.

Furthermore, wasn’t the generation that produced the last 2 Popes partakers of a Neo-Augustinian movement? Heck, i believe the current one expressed his own delight over the works of Bonaventure over that of Aquinas.

Or does Catholic Doctrine = Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation?

 

[buffalo]

Sounds interesting. Show us.

Can we design a cell that can evolve without intelligent help?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hey, be impolitic, and mention them. Sounds like an interesting source of discussion.

not my field, but i have heard a few interesting things mentioned by the protestants, i just dont know them well enough to defend them, nor do i care to if you interested i am sure that you could find interesting things by googling intelligent design, though i think you might take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Tell us about your research.

did i say i did any research? i think i advised research, thats the problem with pithy posting.

In the sense that nature is a mechanism of Divine Creation.

as an argument i dont know, it just happens to fit there in my personal schema. i would have to research the subject first.

Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

i know your making a legitimate point here, but it is escaping me, could you elaborate a little? that actually does sound interesting

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Supplanted? I was under the impression your Church holds no official philosophy per see.

Furthermore, wasn’t the generation that produced the last 2 Popes partakers of a Neo-Augustinian movement? Heck, i believe the current one expressed his own delight over the works of Bonaventure over that of Aquinas.

Or does Catholic Doctrine = Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation?

check the wiki on aquinas, thats all i am talking about, as to the rest i have no interest in it.

 

[TheAtheist]

check the wiki on aquinas, thats all i am talking about, as to the rest i have no interest in it.

Alright, Wikipedia it is - what exactly am i looking for in the Aquinas entry?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Alright, Wikipedia it is - what exactly am i looking for?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

first paragraph under the heading

‘Condemnation, death, and canonization’

but as i said, these things arent my interest.

 

[TheAtheist]

This one correct?

In 1270, the bishop of Paris issued an edict condemning a number of teachings then current at the university, which derived from Aristotle or from Arabic philosophers such as Averroes. The teachings of Thomas were among those targeted. This condemnation gave rise to an investigation in Paris, in response to which the Dominican order prudently moved Thomas to Italy. Eventually, in 1277 (three years after Thomas’s death), the bishop of Paris issued another, more detailed edict in which he condemned a series of Thomas’s theses as heretical. The bishop of Oxford issued a similar condemnation a few months later. These condemnations echoed the orthodox Augustinian theology of the day, which considered human reason inadequate to understand the will of God.

Alright, acknowledged, agreed. Seems completely historically accurate.

I just don’t understand how his theology supplants Augustine or his views on the relationship between natural philosophy and religion?

Perhaps its the manner in which i’m understanding “supplant,” does that mean Augustine is wrong about that particular issue?

I was also under impression that Aquinas’ views fell out of favor since the time that Marie-Dominique Chenu kicked the door down on Aquinian Metaphysics.

All the “big names” i keep hearing about on these boards like Karl Rahner, Hans Von Balthasar, and the ever-celebrated Henri de Lubac don’t seem to be keeping in the spirit of the Doctor of Aquino.

But as you said, this does not have your interest/expertise. Perhaps a student of theology might be willing to clarify this a bit more for me.

Any takers?

 

[rossum]

There is a general vector toward increased complexity.

That may well be an artefact of the fact that the complexity of living organsims is a Poisson curve. There is a lower limit to the complexity of living organisms; below that limit it is not complex enough to be alive. We are not aware of any upper limit. Since the original life on earth was very simple, only just over the limit, it had only one direction to go. Since then there has generally been more expansion room in the more complex direction (away from everything else) rather than in the less complex direction (where there are a lot of earlier species already in place).

There are exceptions, cave fish and many parasites are the usual examples of evolution in the simpler direction.

Yes, the general direction is towards the more complex, however that is not built into evolution but an artefact of how life started. If we can imagine a world where life started extremely complex, with no simple life at all, then evolution would tend towards the more simple because there would be more expansion room and unfilled ecological slots in the simpler direction.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Augustinian theology on the body of science as related to G-d was supplanted by Aquinas’ ideas on the ability to understand G-d through reason, as opposed to the Augustinian assertion that one cannot do so, that is why Aquinas was censored by the Church.

if that principle held true, wouldn’t that also mean that an atheist could not really discuss Faith?

yet i don’t see it stopping anyone. funny that

Thank you. You’ve given me lots to think about. Now I have to read for the second time, the paperback “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

These authors ignored the majority of rhetoric in Dawkins’ book so there’s not much spice. Nonetheless, once I got into it, it turned out to be a good read.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science has demonstrated that the “life on earth kind” could have never originated “naturally” since all the laws and observations of science go against it. Its the belief that life started “naturally” that has hindered scientific progress.

Barbarian suggests:
Sounds interesting. Show us.

Can we design a cell that can evolve without intelligent help?

First, I’d like to see where science has demonstrated that life could not have originated naturally, and all the “laws and observations” that go against it.

Seems unlikely to me, since God says that He uses nature to create life.

Show us those laws and the literature where science demonstrated that it could not have been done the way God says it was.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(assertion of “gaping flaws” in biology)

Barbarian suggests:
Hey, be impolitic, and mention them. Sounds like an interesting source of discussion.

not my field, but i have heard a few interesting things mentioned by the protestants, i just dont know them well enough to defend them,

So what makes you think that they exist? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, is it possible that you are just wrong?

nor do i care to if you interested i am sure that you could find interesting things by googling intelligent design, though i think you might take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I have done that. And it was all hooey. None of it had any value whatsoever.

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.

did i say i did any research? i think i advised research, thats the problem with pithy posting.

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand?

as an argument i dont know, it just happens to fit there in my personal schema. i would have to research the subject first.

Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

i know your making a legitimate point here, but it is escaping me, could you elaborate a little? that actually does sound interesting

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So what makes you think that they exist? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, is it possible that you are just wrong?

I have done that. And it was all hooey. None of it had any value whatsoever.

so which of the above posts is true?

the one at top saying i am wrong in the contention that there are arguments against evolution.

or the lower one where you admit to having the examined them yourself?

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand?

Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

please, qoute my posted opinion on it, i think your so busy being pithy, you read to much into it. i think i pretty much agreed with evolution in general

shouldn’t you think before you post?

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

yes, he was a man of his time, but go ahead and try to use that as a setup for whatever point you want to make.

petey observes:

your reasoning so far

 

[The_Barbarian]

(assertion of “gaping flaws” in biology)

Barbarian suggests:
Hey, be impolitic, and mention them. Sounds like an interesting source of discussion.

not my field, but i have heard a few interesting things mentioned by the protestants, i just dont know them well enough to defend them,

Barbarian asks:
So what makes you think that they exist? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, is it possible that you are just wrong?

Barbarian observes::
I have done that. And it was all hooey. None of it had any value whatsoever.

so which of the above posts is true?

I restored the context for you.

the one at top saying i am wrong in the contention that there are arguments against evolution.

The one where I asked you for the “gaping gaps?” You apparently don’t know of any; you declined to say what you thought they were.

or the lower one where you admit to having the examined them yourself?

I’ve seen the claims. They are, so far, all foolish misunderstandings of science. I suggested that you might show us your list, but you seem to have no idea of what you were talking about.

nor do i care to if you interested i am sure that you could find interesting things by googling intelligent design, though i think you might take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Barbarian observes:
Tell us about your research.

did i say i did any research? i think i advised research, thats the problem with pithy posting.

So you never actually looked into it? Why are you telling us about things you don’t understand?

as an argument i dont know, it just happens to fit there in my personal schema. i would have to research the subject first.

Wouldn’t it have been better to learn about it, before you posted an opinion on it?

please, qoute my posted opinion on it,

I did, but you removed it. I restored the context for you.

i think your so busy being pithy, you read to much into it. i think i pretty much agreed with evolution in general

I don’t remember anyone saying you didn’t. I’m asking for you to tell us about those gaps. You really don’t know, do you?

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind, if some part of scripture is figurative or allegorical, a literal interpretation would admit this fact.

St. Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, argued that a literal reading had to acknowledge that it was not a literal history.
In other words, it was allegorical in many ways, and any attempt to make it something else was not a literal interpretation.

yes, he was a man of his time

And continues to be regarded as one of the Doctors of the Church. The Church permits you to construe Genesis as completely literal if you want, but Augustine’s point is today as “up-to-date” as it was then.

but go ahead and try to use that as a setup for whatever point you want to make.

The point is obvious. Whoever tries to set science at odds with Christian faith is at odds with the teaching of the Church.