Evolutionsits turned Creationists

[shoewindow3000]

My friend, don’t you see that “creation science” is psuedo-science? This is the position Christians should have:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. "

I am well aware of St. Augustine’s works.

But the fact of the matter is, God spoke to the Prophets about Genesis as if though it were* factual* history.

 

[liquidpele]

I am well aware of St. Augustine’s works.

But the fact of the matter is, God spoke to the Prophets about Genesis as if though it were* factual* history.

And how exactly would you describe evolution to a nomadic tribe of Jews?

 

[edwest2]

And how exactly would you describe evolution to a nomadic tribe of Jews?

Sad. The explanation would have been simple. ‘Before there were men like you are now, there were other men, not fully men as you are now, but closer to the animals. These men changed in the form of their bodies and in their understanding of mind until they gradually developed through long ages into men of your stature and intellect.’ But the Bible tells us, Adam was the first man, and Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. These individuals sinned, passing their sin on to all generations. The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.

Science alone is not capable of providing the full, complete answer of man’s origin. For Catholics, what is called science today needs to be conformed to the Word of God and not the other way around.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Science alone is not capable of providing the full, complete answer of man’s origin.

Well that I agree with. Of course, I don’t think filling the space with magic is acceptable either.

 

[buffalo]

And how exactly would you describe evolution to a nomadic tribe of Jews?

Let us see - one day one the little cells came from nothing, then they turned into more and bigger cells, and then on the next day they turned into plants and fish and animals , and on the sixth day you came from the animals. You came from the brute. On the seventh day , well its nothing special.

 

[buffalo]

Well that I agree with. Of course, I don’t think filling the space with magic is acceptable either.

The Creator does not reduce Himself to being examined in a lab by the created.

 

[StAnastasia]

Before there were men like you are now, there were other men, not fully men as you are now, but closer to the animals. These men changed in the form of their bodies and in their understanding of mind until they gradually developed through long ages into men of your stature and intellect. Ed

Nicely put, Ed. But I would say “hominids” and “humans” rather than “men.”

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the compliment but it does not appear likely that there could have been hominids. It appears that comments about Lucy, for example, not being a hominid are more believable to me. There are too many people, today, involved here and elsewhere in what I call the Bible Explanation Industry. James Cameron involved in the alleged Jesus osuary, or the scientific explanations of the plagues of God brought against Egypt through Moses, and questions about Exodus. And there are the funny connections being made by scientists regarding chimps.

Too much time and effort has been expended in getting people to just say yes to the self starting, non-goal oriented engine called evolution. I encourage Catholics to not ignore how science is being linked to signs on buses: Man Created God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

The Creator does not reduce Himself to being examined in a lab by the created.

Of course not, then we wouldn’t have to rely on faith right? Not trying to be condescending, but it’s very convenient.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course not, then we wouldn’t have to rely on faith right? Not trying to be condescending, but it’s very convenient.

we dont have to rely on faith G-d can be known from reason.

 

[buffalo]

Of course not, then we wouldn’t have to rely on faith right? Not trying to be condescending, but it’s very convenient.

Well let’s see. The omnipotent liquidpele creates a flatland with many flatlanders. He reveals himself to the flatlanders but they doubt him. So they try to find him empirically. How come they cannot?

 

[Matthias123]

Science alone is not capable of providing the full, complete answer of man’s origin. For Catholics, what is called science today needs to be conformed to the Word of God and not the other way around.

Science is the theologians’ best friend – it sheds light upon scripture. You wouldn’t suggest that we go back to believing a bronze firment do you?

I am completely open to the possibility of a non-materialistic theory of evolution (although I doubt there will ever be one), but rejecting evolution is just plain denialism.

Honestly you guys are not doing the faith a service. Holding that scripture requires belief in something that is obviously false causes the scriptures to be seen as absurd to the non-believer. Scripture is inherent and is the infallible word of God, however you need to understand that the ancient Semitic people and all people at that time, composed myths to covey deep theological and even historical meaning. To not understand this is to not understand genesis. The sacred author taught nothing authoritatively about how humanity was created, it taught that man was created in the image and likeness of God, that the universe had a beginning and was created ex nihlo, and that Adam and Eve were our first parent and fell after committing some grievous sin.

None of this is in conflict with what science has proven for certain, and it never will be

 

[Matthias123]

Well that I agree with. Of course, I don’t think filling the space with magic is acceptable either.

ditto. I am a Thomistic dualist, I do not believe the higher intellect is material, and therefore is the product of formal causality. Nothing magic there.

 

[liquidpele]

Well let’s see. The omnipotent liquidpele creates a flatland with many flatlanders. He reveals himself to the flatlanders but they doubt him. So they try to find him empirically. How come they cannot?

Best argument yet! However, as I’ve not seen any attempt of something trying to reveal themselves to me in any way beyond the assurances of other people, can you blame me? for those that haven’t seen the video Buffalo is referencing…

youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw

 

[buffalo]

Best argument yet! However, as I’ve not seen any attempt of something trying to reveal themselves to me in any way beyond the assurances of other people, can you blame me? for those that haven’t seen the video Buffalo is referencing…

youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw

Much like Thomas who didn’t witness Jesus appearing after the Resurrection you doubt. Other flatlanders who were witnesses are trying to explain it to you. But you refuse, saying only until I put my fingers in His wounds…

BTW - I was not referring to the video posted.

 

[Matthias123]

Best argument yet! However, as I’ve not seen any attempt of something trying to reveal themselves to me in any way beyond the assurances of other people, can you blame me?

Well, you hear what is coming out of the Church. (Not from ordinary Catholics but officially from priests and Bishops)

Although obviously you do not believe that they speak the Spirit of Truth.

You must perceive the things of nature. We can see ideas in nature through “what a thing is”. For we know that something that exists has being, and being is the composition of the act of existing and essence in contingent things. Now we know that “essence” also known as “soul” “form” or as Plato says “idea” must have some formal cause. Now these ideas must exist objectively from our minds, otherwise they would not exist if we didn’t exist. The idea that “what things are” did not exist prior to humanity is absurd, so it must exist objectively in some manner. But we know the formal cause of something is from a intellect, as the sculptor has the idea of what the sculptor will be before he has made it. Now in the atheistic world view, essence does not exist, because they are materialists. This is absurd because we do not categorize things by matter alone. For when we see two baby strollers of different shape, there are of different material make up (different amounts of matter, in different arrangement) we do not consider them separate species, but are of the same idea aka species “stroller” . We see with our senses the matter of the stroller and by abstraction come to the knowledge of the idea, or essence of this substance of stroller. Thus to know a stroller is to know the idea of stroller. The shape or arrangement of matter doesn’t really matter. (pun!)

So you can see how evidence of design is apparent with or without a biological argument.

 

[Matthias123]

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-designs-of-science–4

I would recommend this article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn OP. He basically sums up the Church teaching.

Here is something I wrote a little while ago:

“A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions, as the Philosopher says in I De Caelo et Mundo cap. 5 (271b8-13), and thus, since being and essence are the things first conceived of by the intellect, as Avicenna says in Metaphysicae I, cap. 6, in order to avoid errors arising from ignorance about these two things, we should resolve the difficulties surrounding them by explaining what the terms being and essence each signify and by showing how each may be found in various things and how each is related to the logical intentions of genus, species, and difference.” (On Being and Essence Thomas Aquinas)

In order to understand the world as it is, one must first have a proper understanding of being. This is true due to the fact that in order for a final conclusion to be correct the beginning of one’s reasoning must be correct.

We understand a contingent being to be a composite of the act of existence, and essence. Existence is “the fact that it is” and essence is “that a thing is”. (On being and Essence)

Metaphysical evil does not exist; it is just a relational concept. For example what we call cold is a deficiency of heat. What we call chaos is just a deficiency of order. What we call nothing is really a deficiency of something, because if there was nothing there would still be something and that something would be nothing.

So it follows that there exists only metaphysical good, and everything that has potential is a deficiency of this pure goodness, which is pure actually.

Now the “act of existence” must be pure actually otherwise there would be potentially in it and there would have to exist an outside greater pure actually. This is not possible because this outside greater pure actually would be outside the bounds of this “act of existence” and thus could not exist. Therefore the act of existence is pure actually and this is what men call God.(Summa Theologica: Prima Pars Q2, A3)

Now we know that God is not only His own existence, but he is His own essence. So it follows that God Himself is being. (Summa Theologica Prima Pars Q3)

Humans have potentially known some things that can be known. Therefore God knows all things that can be known. This also means he knows beings that do not actually exist, but potentially exist, in all periods of time.

Now it wouldn’t make sense to have a beginningless universe sitting side by side with God, for no apparent reason – not to mention the arguments that I am about to present.

God Himself being infinitely perfect (because he is pure actually) blessed Himself in a plan of sheer goodness and love to create everything freely. Now since God is omniscient he knew everything that potentially could exist – this includes events.

So there were ideas in the Divine Intellect. (Summa Theologica Prima Pars Q15) These ideas were then actualized through His omnipotent Divine Will. Now we can see evidence to these ideas in natural things. For everything that exists and will exists has essence, which Plato calls ideas or form, also synonymous with soul. We see in natural things specific ideas, or purpose for the existence of certain things. As the bird has wings in order to fly, and feather in order to give it lift. The lungs exist to provide oxygen to the blood, and the eyes exist to gives sight. All of these things have purpose, which is an effect of the first cause, and this must have been ideas in the Divine Intellect.

Now the objection is that these came to be through natural selection. This is very true, but we know that everything acts towards a meaningful and purposeful end. The universe strives for perfection as described earlier. So we understand that every cause has an effect that has been determined by the Divine Intellect before the creation of the world. So what is called chance is chance in one sense, but providence in the other. For we know that since the actualization of the world, everything acts towards a meaningful are purposeful end, and therefore comes under divine providence. For nothing can exist contrary to the ideas in the Divine Intellect. (Summa Theologica Prima Prars Q22)

Now God can know what we cannot know. For we know due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in Quantum mechanics that as soon as we attempt to measure the momentum of a particle we loose certainty of the velocity of the particle – the same is true in reverse. So it is not possible to know the future events of a particle. Now God can know these events because he knew the results of these events before they became indeterminate.

So it is completely reasonable to claim that we exist on this planet the way we are due to Divine Providence.

Also in our natural would we can see further imprint of the Divine Intellect. For logic is the reflection of the Divine Intellect. The laws logic is immutable omnipresent, and eternal. There is conformity in nature, and this is what the natural sciences rely on. Without this conformity we wouldn’t be able to take the truths possessed from past experience and predict events in the future. The world is logical because it has been made logical by intelligence. So you see, the atheist who argues against theism presupposes theism in order to form his/her arguments. You cannot even imagine a universe without God, because everything that you know has been created by Him and does not have potential to happen.

Furthermore we see the Natural Law in nature. For what God has ordered in nature, is ordered through His will. Now we are rational creatures with free will, therefore we are able to disregard this Natural Law if we please. For example humans have a natural inclination to eat in order to sustain one’s body, but to eat so much as to damage the body is a breach of natural law and thus an offence to God. We have the natural inclination for sexual relations, but to indulge in this inclination at the expense of one’s offspring is disordered. The natural law is just the rational creature’s participation in the Eternal Law, which is the way that God has ordered His creation. What God has set man must not break.

Thus in nature we can even find morality and the right conduct for which we are to live in harmony. For any actions contrary to this natural law, are going to cause disharmony in society and in relationships because you will be acting against the order of the cosmos.

 

[Matthias123]

It seems the theist has now become the perfect naturalist. Funny how that works! If you’re a theist make sure to say to the next atheist you meet “behave the way you evolved through natural selection or God is going to be angry” Great conversation opener!

The best part of all of this is it predates Christianity. These observations came from the Ancient Greeks who were pagans. Also these observations mesh perfectly with Sacred Scripture. This is made even more remarkable by the fact that Sacred Scripture reached its infallible inherent form about 200 years before Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. With much of its form being the same as it is now well before this time.

So in conclusion what God has set in motion, and what God has revealed will never come into conflict. That would make God a deceiver, and that is a wicked thing to say of God, as Saint Thomas says in Summa Contra Gentiles. So go peruse science as much as you like and bring your fruits to the attention of Holy Mother Church, because she will want to hear about it.

 

[Matthias123]

My composition of the metaphysical argument:

1. Good (being) exists

1. What does not have being does not exist.

1. Good per se must be pure actually because potentially is a diffiency of what actually is.

1. Good has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually.

1. Good also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually.

1. Now space allows the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore good exists outside of space making him omnipresent.

1. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; good being the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore good is omniscient.

1. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but good is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making him omnipotent.

1. We know that since good is being as therefore must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist (via cargito ergo sum) and good exists therefore good is also Eternal.

1. Good (being) exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Good(being) is what men call God.

 

[edwest2]

Science is the theologians’ best friend – it sheds light upon scripture. You wouldn’t suggest that we go back to believing a bronze firment do you?

I am completely open to the possibility of a non-materialistic theory of evolution (although I doubt there will ever be one), but rejecting evolution is just plain denialism.

Honestly you guys are not doing the faith a service. Holding that scripture requires belief in something that is obviously false causes the scriptures to be seen as absurd to the non-believer. Scripture is inherent and is the infallible word of God, however you need to understand that the ancient Semitic people and all people at that time, composed myths to covey deep theological and even historical meaning. To not understand this is to not understand genesis. The sacred author taught nothing authoritatively about how humanity was created, it taught that man was created in the image and likeness of God, that the universe had a beginning and was created ex nihlo, and that Adam and Eve were our first parent and fell after committing some grievous sin.

None of this is in conflict with what science has proven for certain, and it never will be

“science has proven for certain”? I am constantly told here that science doesn’t prove anything. That proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Certainty in science? Like last week when scientists just happened to notice the difference between the bone structure of birds and the dinosaurs they were supposedly descended from?

That is what I will be on my guard for – always. The certainty of proven science which is wielded here constantly.

Peace,
Ed