Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theistic evolution is like that wizard in the Wizard of Oz. When we pull back the curtain of vague explanations by asking specific questions, we find that it is a weak theory.

It is an attempt to look respectable to both theists and atheists, but upon closer inspection is it repugnant to both camps.
 
buffalo said:
Adam and Eve’s alleged parents then has mortal souls. The ontological leap needs to be explained.

God could have just decided to insert Adam and Eve supernaturally into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.
Click to expand...
Sure, God could have. Did He choose to act that way, though?

Keep in mind evolution cannot explain the soul, and it would be wrong to expect it to. The ontological leap here is from what Science can explain to what it cannot.

Do keep in mind that the predecessors of the human are extinct however
 
DavWan said:
Sure, God could have. Did He choose to act that way, though?

Keep in mind evolution cannot explain the soul, and it would be wrong to expect it to. The ontological leap here is from what Science can explain to what it cannot.

Do keep in mind that the predecessors of the human are extinct however
Click to expand...
Another point to consider is that we are created body and soul together. They cannot be separated, except in death.
 
Marocchino said:
Theistic evolution is like that wizard in the Wizard of Oz. When we pull back the curtain of vague explanations by asking specific questions, we find that it is a weak theory.

It is an attempt to look respectable to both theists and atheists, but upon closer inspection is it repugnant to both camps.
Click to expand...
If you want to claim a literalistic reading of Genesis, problems still remain as well.

Have you moved away from “The Church requires a belief in 7 days creation” to arguing “no proof”?
 
DavWan said:
If you want to claim a literalistic reading of Genesis, problems still remain as well.

Have you moved away from “The Church requires a belief in 7 days creation” to arguing “no proof”?
Click to expand...
The so-called problems were all resolved by the brilliant minds of the Fathers and Scholastics who adhered to a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Scripture.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that the Church requires a belief in 6 days creation. The Church requires whatever the Magisterium says it requires. Belief in 6 day creation less than 10 thousand years ago is, however, the traditional reading of the Church and the reading that most perfectly accords with Scripture and Tradition. As the last couple of popes have said that theistic evolution is acceptable, go ahead and be a TE but the theory has problems.
 
buffalo said:
Another point to consider is that we are created body and soul together. They cannot be separated, except in death.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the phrase is “directly infused at the moment of conception” so your objection still does not contradict if evolution is the means God chose to use.

Remember there is a difference between what we may believe and what we must believe. The Church has set down what is required for believing God used evolution, and a person who is obedient to the Church is certainly no heretic if they follow what the Church requires and accepts evolution.

The Church neither requires a belief in evolution nor a belief in creation. It does require us to believe that all creation is from God, and that the soul is directly infused by God.

Certainly you have no right to judge whether the person who follows what the Church requires on evolution as being less of a Catholic.
 
Marocchino said:
The so-called problems were all resolved by the brilliant minds of the Fathers and Scholastics who adhered to a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Scripture.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that the Church requires a belief in 6 days creation. The Church requires whatever the Magisterium says it requires. Belief in 6 day creation less than 10 thousand years ago is, however, the traditional reading of the Church and the reading that most perfectly accords with Scripture and Tradition. As the last couple of popes have said that theistic evolution is acceptable, go ahead and be a TE but the theory has problems.
Click to expand...
Never said it didn’t have problems. Just that it seems to be the best way to interpret scripture.

Please don’t put words in my mouth either
 
Marocchino said:
The so-called problems were all resolved by the brilliant minds of the Fathers and Scholastics who adhered to a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Scripture.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that the Church requires a belief in 6 days creation. The Church requires whatever the Magisterium says it requires. Belief in 6 day creation less than 10 thousand years ago is, however, the traditional reading of the Church and the reading that most perfectly accords with Scripture and Tradition. As the last couple of popes have said that theistic evolution is acceptable, go ahead and be a TE but the theory has problems.
Click to expand...
Too many today want to re-interpret Scriptures in a vacuum, ignoring the constant teaching, belief, and understanding for thousands of years.
 
DavWan said:
As I recall, the phrase is “directly infused at the moment of conception” so your objection still does not contradict if evolution is the means God chose to use.

Remember there is a difference between what we may believe and what we must believe. The Church has set down what is required for believing God used evolution, and a person who is obedient to the Church is certainly no heretic if they follow what the Church requires and accepts evolution.

The Church neither requires a belief in evolution nor a belief in creation. It does require us to believe that all creation is from God, and that the soul is directly infused by God.

Certainly you have no right to judge whether the person who follows what the Church requires on evolution as being less of a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I simply defend the constant teaching of the Church against those who are trying to pretend or ignore it. I defend against scientism.
 
buffalo said:
I simply defend the constant teaching of the Church against those who are trying to pretend or ignore it. I defend against scientism.
Click to expand...
I would watch your labels here. I study the Patristics constantly and reject Scientism. If you have a de fide statement on a literal interpretation of Genesis, please show me, as I have studied what the Church requires us to believe.

Scientism is defined as “the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.”

Given that I have reiterated several times the need to follow what the Church requires, where do you get off saying I am following this?
 
DavWan said:
Never said it didn’t have problems. Just that it seems to be the best way to interpret scripture.
Click to expand...
That’s where we disagree. It is not the best way to interpret Scripture. Not only is it opposed Patristic and Scholastic interpretations, but it fails to explain the following:
  1. Who were Adam’s pseudo-human parents and why did Moses refer to them as aphar?
  2. What happened to Adam’s pseudo-human relatives and their descendants?
  3. If death came through sin, how do we explain all of the millions of years of death up to and including Adam’s pseudo-human parents, brothers, sisters, and cousins?
  4. Why does God in Exodus 20:11 say that he created the world in 6 days if yom in Genesis is not intended to signify a single 24 hour day?
 
DavWan said:
I would watch your labels here. I study the Patristics constantly and reject Scientism. If you have a de fide statement on a literal interpretation of Genesis, please show me, as I have studied what the Church requires us to believe.

Scientism is defined as “the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.”

Given that I have reiterated several times the need to follow what the Church requires, where do you get off saying I am following this?
Click to expand...
Touchy, Touchy. :tsktsk: What hit you here?

Then we are in agreement with this:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Marocchino said:
LOL, you’re a real joker. OK, first I’ll apologize for my uncharitable remark. Now I’ll explain what I meant by all Protestants are heretics but not all heretics are Protestants (which is a logically sound statement). There were heretics around before the Protestant Reformation of 1517. The Gnostics of the first century were heretics. Then came the Montanists (2nd century), the Sabellians (3rd cent.), the Arians (4th cent.), the Pelagians (5th cent.), the Nestorians (5th cent.), the Monophysites (5th cent.), the Iconoclasts (7th/8th cent.), the Cathars (11th cent.), the Protestants (16th cent.), and the Jansenists (17th cent.). So, like I said, not all heretics are Protestants – some are Nestorians, some are Iconoclasts; but ALL Protestants are heretics.

You’re going to have to start paying me per reply I give you.
Click to expand...
This topic does not fit into this thread. Start a new thread for this if you want, and then you will see how that reasoning is wrong.
 
buffalo said:
Touchy, Touchy. :tsktsk: What hit you here?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not mean it, but it seemed as if you were directing at me personally. If I was wrong, I apologize.
Then we are in agreement with this:
Click to expand...
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
Click to expand...
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
Click to expand...
Of course. If the Magisterium ever teaches that Catholics may not believe evolution, I will of course obey without mental reservations.

I do my best to follow the Church, but I recognize the Magesterium, not I, have the authority to teach on faith and morals (and how Adam and Eve came to be seems to meet that criterion if the Church chooses to define it)
 
agangbern said:
This topic does not fit into this thread. Start a new thread for this if you want, and then you will see how that reasoning is wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed the last two pages where I’ve been discussing theistic evolution with DavWan and Buffalo, respectively. My correct reasoning regarding your incorrect notion that all heretics are Protestants is old news. This is the last time I will be replying to your inane posts. Have a nice life.
 
DavWan said:
I do my best to follow the Church, but I recognize the Magesterium, not I, have the authority to teach on faith and morals (and how Adam and Eve came to be seems to meet that criterion if the Church chooses to define it)
Click to expand...
I do not discuss the origins of Adam and Eve from my own authority, but from the authority of the Fathers and Scholastics. I do not bind anyone to creationism, but the onus is on theistic evolutionists to explain their theory and how it doesn’t conflict with revealed truth.
 
Marocchino said:
That’s where we disagree. It is not the best way to interpret Scripture. Not only is it opposed Patristic and Scholastic interpretations, but it fails to explain the following:
  1. Who were Adam’s pseudo-human parents and why did Moses refer to them as aphar?
Click to expand...
Neither Scripture nor science has an answer
  1. What happened to Adam’s pseudo-human relatives and their descendants?
Click to expand...
If we want to follow what evolution says, they went extinct. AFAIK, the other branches of the tree no longer exist.
  1. If death came through sin, how do we explain all of the millions of years of death up to and including Adam’s pseudo-human parents, brothers, sisters, and cousins?
Click to expand...
Seems to me, death is referred to with the human being with the immortal soul. Since animals can’t sin, death as a result of sin could not affect them. Even if God’s original intent was for man to be Vegan, it would still cause destruction to plant life. Gen 2:17 indicates the promise of death was to man for disobeying God. Of course Genesis 1:26 seems to indicate man had dominion over the animals as well, which could mean he could eat them, which would mean animals could die.
  1. Why does God in Exodus 20:11 say that he created the world in 6 days if yom in Genesis is not intended to signify a single 24 hour day?
Click to expand...
God could have meant it in the same context as Genesis 1, and thus not be speaking of literal days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top