Gaps in Evolution

[StAnastasia]

Well i was aiming that at creationists. Seems strange to me how different catholic beliefs can be. Why such a massive variation?

CD, I think it has a lot to do with the level of education different Catholic bring to the table. As a theologian who works with many scientists, I have weekly conversations with physicists and astronomers about the origins of the universe, with chemists about stellar nucleosynthesis, with geologists about plate tectonics and the 4.5 billion-year-old earth, with biologists and paleontologists about evolutionary history, and with geneticists about the genetic history of all life on earth. I also have conversations with numerous Catholic and Protestant theologians about how to interpret theologically the knowledge pouring forth from scientific research.

Theology is a dynamic hermeneutical enterprise, the translation of meaning across time and across cultures. Since 1859 Catholic thinkers have engaged with evolution in surprising and often brilliant ways. Think of great thinkers like John Augustine Zahm, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Pope John Paul II, John Haught, Ilia Delio, Celia Deane Drummond, and Polish Archbishop Josef Zycinski. The have had and have no problem being both faithful Catholics and critical thinkers.

StAnastasia

 

[Charles_Darwin]

CD, I think it has a lot to do with the level of education different Catholic bring to the table. As a theologian who works with many scientists, I have weekly conversations with physicists and astronomers about the origins of the universe, with chemists about stellar nucleosynthesis, with geologists about plate tectonics and the 4.5 billion-year-old earth, with biologists and paleontologists about evolutionary history, and with geneticists about the genetic history of all life on earth. I also have conversations with numerous Catholic and Protestant theologians about how to interpret theologically the knowledge pouring forth from scientific research.

Theology is a dynamic hermeneutical enterprise, the translation of meaning across time and across cultures. Since 1859 Catholic thinkers have engaged with evolution in surprising and often brilliant ways. Think of great thinkers like John Augustine Zahm, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Pope John Paul II, John Haught, Ilia Delio, Celia Deane Drummond, and Polish Archbishop Josef Zycinski. The have had and have no problem being both faithful Catholics and critical thinkers.

StAnastasia

Thank you for the reply. Although we disagree, i place you on an infinitely higher stool than those that accept creationist lunacy.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for the reply. Although we disagree, i place you on an infinitely higher stool than those that accept creationist lunacy.

WOW! Send her a cookie.

By the way StA is a creationist. All Catholics are.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you for the reply. Although we disagree, i place you on an infinitely higher stool than those that accept creationist lunacy.

My organization includes Catholics and Protestants, theists, non-theists and agnostics. We agree to disagree on questions about the meaning of life, the existence of God, the nature of the human person, and whether the universe is here on purpose or by accident. None of us disagree on the antiquity of the universe, the dynamic history of the earth and solar system, or the common ancestry of all life on earth. It works very well – we respect each other as persons, there is no bloodshed at work (except occasionally with paring knives in the kitchen), and we celebrate birthdays together!

StAnastasia

 

[thiscatholickid]

You mean the rest of the world like the scientists that came up with the theory in the first place?

The religious world. I should have clarified.


Of course the scientists came up with it first. My point was the Pius XII examined it before any other religious leader.

 

[StAnastasia]

WOW! Send her a cookie. By the way StA is a creationist. All Catholics are.

(1) Buffalo – what flavour? I prefer raisin-oatmeal. (Not tracking cookies).

(2) Correct – I am a creationist, but in the original Judeo-Christian sense of the term, not the sense as hijacked by young earthers in 1910.

 

[buffalo]

(1) Buffalo – what flavour? I prefer raisin-oatmeal. (Not tracking cookies).

(2) Correct – I am a creationist, but in the original Judeo-Christian sense of the term, not the sense as hijacked by young earthers in 1910.

We must always help the atheists understand definitions. They tend to lump things together. Poor understanding I suppose.

 

[StAnastasia]

The religious world. I should have clarified.Of course the scientists came up with it first. My point was the Pius XII examined it before any other religious leader.

No – considering that Pius XII was not born until 1876, there were quite a few religious leaders who considered it before he did.

 

[StAnastasia]

We must always help the atheists understand definitions. They tend to lump things together. Poor understanding I suppose.

Poor education. William Shea notes that most scientists who rejected their faith did so as adolescents. What they are rejecting is an adolescent understanding of religious matters; mature Christian and other believers have jettisoned this childish understanding as well. I certainly don’t accept the version of Christianity that I think CD envisions as normative.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Poor education. William Shea notes that most scientists who rejected their faith did so as adolescents. What they are rejecting is an adolescent understanding of religious matters; mature Christian and other believers have jettisoned this childish understanding as well. I certainly don’t accept the version of Christianity that I think CD envisions as normative.

Well amongst todays elite scientists thats 85%.

 

[josie_L]

Well amongst todays elite scientists thats 85%.

But what does this mean?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But what does this mean?

It means the greater understanding one has of the sciences the less likely they are to be religious. This is because in many people, and there are plenty on this site, religion hides at the limit of ones knowledge.

I have not seen anyone on this site that believes in creation offer any argument other than “i dont understand evolution, therefore god did it”. This is a perfect example religion hiding at the limit of ones knowledge.

Now im not saying everyone here falls into the above, but i could count on one had those that don’t. Science reduces the gaps for god to hide in.

 

[josie_L]

It means the greater understanding one has of the sciences the less likely they are to be religious. This is because in many people, and there are plenty on this site, religion hides at the limit of ones knowledge.

I have not seen anyone on this site that believes in creation offer any argument other than “i dont understand evolution, therefore god did it”. This is a perfect example religion hiding at the limit of ones knowledge.

Now im not saying everyone here falls into the above, but i could count on one had those that don’t. Science reduces the gaps for god to hide in.

Do you think that that has anything to do with their former religious background? For example, how many evangelicals have lost their faith simply because they were taught to read Genesis literally and then encountered a whole host of contradictions while studying science? Now look at Catholics who are creationists in the truest sense of the word but have no problems accepting evolution. It really is about how scripture is being interpreted and understood that leads scientists to lose faith, I think that was the point that St. Anastasia was making.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you think that that has anything to do with their former religious background? For example, how many evangelicals have lost their faith simply because they were taught to read Genesis literally and then encountered a whole host of contradictions while studying science? Now look at Catholics who are creationists in the truest sense of the word but have no problems accepting evolution. It really is about how scripture is being interpreted and understood that leads scientists to lose faith, I think that was the point that St. Anastasia was making.

JosieL, most (but not all) atheist scientists have limited acquaintance with philosophy, and even less acquaintance with or understanding of what educated theists believe. I suspect, for example, that CD is not familiar with what theologians mean by “creation” or “creationism” and that it has nothing to do with the Young Earth rejection of an evolutionary universe.

 

[josie_L]

Well amongst todays elite scientists thats 85%.

Do you know who Dr. Francis Collins is? He’s the head of the Human Genome Project, and one of the world’s leading scientists who happens to be a practicing Christian that believes in theistic evolution. Here is what he said in his NY bestseller “The Language of God” about many scientists today:

“While many scientists ascribe to TE (theistic evolution), they are in general reluctant to speak out for fear of negative reaction from their scientific peers, or perhaps for fear of criticism from the theological community.”

I also wanted to make you read this (it’s another excerpt from the book mentioned above but in the words of Stephen Jay Gould):

“To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: Science cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney (Gould’s third-grade teacher) and have their knuckles rapped for it . . . Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). Forget philosphophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and worte a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discover of the Burgess Shale Fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct the history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanistic agnostic, Theodosisu Dobzhansky, a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism.”

 

[Charles_Darwin]

JosieL, most (but not all) atheist scientists have limited acquaintance with philosophy, and even less acquaintance with or understanding of what educated theists believe. I suspect, for example, that CD is not familiar with what theologians mean by “creation” or “creationism” and that it has nothing to do with the Young Earth rejection of an evolutionary universe.

Well when i mean creationist i am specifically refering to YEC’s. I should probably be clearer when i post.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you know who Dr. Francis Collins is? He’s the head of the Human Genome Project, and one of the world’s leading scientists who happens to be a practicing Christian that believes in theistic evolution. Here is what he said in his NY bestseller “The Language of God” about many scientists today:

“While many scientists ascribe to TE (theistic evolution), they are in general reluctant to speak out for fear of negative reaction from their scientific peers, or perhaps for fear of criticism from the theological community.”

I also wanted to make you read this (it’s another excerpt from the book mentioned above but in the words of Stephen Jay Gould):

“To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: Science cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney (Gould’s third-grade teacher) and have their knuckles rapped for it . . . Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). Forget philosphophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and worte a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discover of the Burgess Shale Fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct the history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanistic agnostic, Theodosisu Dobzhansky, a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism.”

I know exactly who Francis Collions is.

If you have time you to watch this video then you will see exactly how i view the matter, for i agree with this 100%.

video.google.co.uk/googleplayer.swf?docid=-102519600994873365&hl=en&fs=true

 

[josie_L]

I know exactly who Francis Collions is.

If you have time you to watch this video then you will see exactly how i view the matter, for i agree with this 100%.

video.google.co.uk/googleplayer.swf?docid=-102519600994873365&hl=en&fs=true

Well, I watched about ten minutes of it (maybe I’ll watch more at another point in time) but I do not seek to fill in the gaps of science with God, however, as a believer I do not doubt that God created the Universe. It is simply too structured/constant (from its very inception) to have been the product of pure chance.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have not seen anyone on this site that believes in creation offer any argument other than “i dont understand evolution, therefore god did it”. This is a perfect example religion hiding at the limit of ones knowledge.

Well, CD, I believe in God as Creator of the universe, not because I don’t believe science is incapable of learning about the origins, which I think it is, but because “creation” is a philosophical rather than a scientific claim. Creation simply means that the universe is ontologically dependent on a cause outside itself. Creation does not mean that God “poofed” everything into existence 6,000 years ago, or that She pulled a rib out of Adam’s side to create Eve. Everything I see discussed by science coheres with my philosophical belief that the world is eternally created.

StAnastasia

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Well, CD, I believe in God as Creator of the universe, not because I don’t believe science is incapable of learning about the origins, which I think it is, but because “creation” is a philosophical rather than a scientific claim. Creation simply means that the universe is ontologically dependent on a cause outside itself. Creation does not mean that God “poofed” everything into existence 6,000 years ago, or that She pulled a rib out of Adam’s side to create Eve. Everything I see discussed by science coheres with my philosophical belief that the world is eternally created.

StAnastasia

Yes i can see that by your posts, when i mean creationism i do not refer to you. From now on i will refer to it as YEC.