P
PJM
Guest
Your VERY welcome my friend!
Merry and Blessed Christmas!
Patrick
- Status
Merry and Blessed Christmas!
Patrick
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
The DNA does not make them human or not. Science defines Neanderthals as not human.
I prefer to label humanity as Homo Religiosus, Homo Charitativus or Homo Spiritualis; much more preferable to Homo Sapiens, imho.
This would do away with the Neanderthal category altogether. It is an artificial separation of who is human based on morphology.
Science cannot study the soul, but it can religious artifacts and practices.
B
Blacksword
Guest
Indeed. C.S. Lewis once referred to “homo divinus” as a way of referencing this unique amalgam of spirit and flesh that is we humans. Although again, Neanderthals could also have been ensouled and though different from us could have come from a common ancestor to ours which was the Adam and Eve of the Bible. Peoples have died out in human history so nothing would be wrong with God allowing peoples to die out in pre-history thusly.
We simply don’t know who or how far back the first parents in Genesis are.
E
edwest2
Guest
Science is inadequate to answer this question. Ideally, there should be a harmonious relationship, but here, and on other forums, suppositions are carved in stone. In fact, according to the journal Nature, leading scientists still reject God.
nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/fig_tab/394313a0_T1.html
I suspect their work has had an influence on their belief or disbelief.
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
“Science is inadequate” to answer what question?
How long ago dinosaurs lived, the age of the earth, the universe what?
Where do you draw the line on what science can observe?
It is not science you describe. You are putting unnecessary bounds on science. You are saying, observe and describe and test all of this over hear, but ignore all of that over there, you are inept in that area.
Who decides such a thing…you?
Science can work through the entire created universe as the entire created universe is material.
The fact that many scientists are atheists means nothing.
Fundamentalist constantly decry the Big Bang, and yet it was a priest who discovered it .
E
edwest2
Guest
On the contrary, science, by definition, cannot study the supernatural.
nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
All I’ve observed here and elsewhere, for the most part, is a conflict. And constant repetition. Developing cars or computers did not rely on scientists getting the Church’s approval. As far as antibiotics, for example, a few words from a man who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and who has done some actual work himself.
the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
C
captainrick
Guest
I believe it’s not wrong, but perhaps is allegorical in some ways. I mean I don’t believe that Bible accounts are word-for-word accurate descriptions of what occurred.
E
edwest2
Guest
No one can show a peer reviewed paper about the claims made in the Book of Genesis from any scientist, so I don’t understand the speculation. For Catholics, God played a direct causal role in the development of life.
From Communion and Stewardship:
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
Information about the “nature of divine causality” will only be gotten from the Church and other Christians who understand this. Data is data. It doesn’t matter if the one scientist, or a group of them, discovers or makes something and they are all theists or non-theists or a mixture of the two. However, when not recognizing God, there is sometimes a tendency to consider science as the only source of knowledge. And this can and is spread to the people, including Catholics here on similar threads.
Ed
From Communion and Stewardship:
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
Information about the “nature of divine causality” will only be gotten from the Church and other Christians who understand this. Data is data. It doesn’t matter if the one scientist, or a group of them, discovers or makes something and they are all theists or non-theists or a mixture of the two. However, when not recognizing God, there is sometimes a tendency to consider science as the only source of knowledge. And this can and is spread to the people, including Catholics here on similar threads.
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Ed,
You present the biggest straw men and false dilemma I’ve ever seen
No one is denying God, the causality of God, or a divine plan and creator.
Also, no one is saying that science needs to prove God.
All we are saying is Why can’t God create through an evolutionary process.
You claim he is incapable of such action.
I say he is not.
You present the biggest straw men and false dilemma I’ve ever seen
No one is denying God, the causality of God, or a divine plan and creator.
Also, no one is saying that science needs to prove God.
All we are saying is Why can’t God create through an evolutionary process.
You claim he is incapable of such action.
I say he is not.
E
edwest2
Guest
I never claimed God is capable or incapable. What puzzles me is why there are so many threads about this subject? Does someone need the affirmation of others? Does someone need to to hold the Biology textbook in one hand and make a concrete claim like: “No God required?”
I know for a fact that threads like this will continue to appear. The divide will remain. And the other puzzle is: Why is this so important that Catholics need to be subjected to so much time and effort regarding this subject?
I’ve never seen an encyclical about quantum mechanics, but about Creation? A fair number.
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Perhaps you missed the encycliCal that allows a belief in evolutionary theory?
You need to realize when you claim evolution cannot occur or is garbage you are in essence saying God could not have created that way. If you were at least open to the idea it would not be calling God incapable, but your rigidity puts your opinion up as fact and diminishes Gods ability.
Because, contrary to what you think, the Biblical account is not a photojournalistic piece of literature.
Something to prove?
You tell me Ed, your the one that trolls these threads lambasting anyone that claims anything other than young earth creation.
See a thread about creation/evolution EdWest is certain to be there claiming that it’s Young earth spontaneous creation and anything else is nonsense.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I’m not sure what Ed’s point is, but I don’t think he’s calling non-Creation theories nonsense.
So it seems that Adam & Eve could have walked through the Garden of Eden 5775 years ago, or 5,775,000 years ago. They may have looked like modern day Semitic people, or they may have looked like Grog the Proto Hominid.
So it seems that Adam & Eve could have walked through the Garden of Eden 5775 years ago, or 5,775,000 years ago. They may have looked like modern day Semitic people, or they may have looked like Grog the Proto Hominid.
E
edwest2
Guest
My point relies on statements made by those in the Church. From Catholic Answers:
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
The Church is in no hurry, so why is anyone else? Why is one opinion of such ultimate importance as if disagreeing with any part of it will lead to some vague, ill-defined catastrophe? So - anyone - tell me, “What’s The Big Deal?” Why is this like a life and death matter? To be brought up again and again until, as far as I can tell, all dissenters fall silent and everyone falls in line and just says yes? Or, “just say yes and we’ll quit posting.”?
The Church has never taught there were hominids or proto-humans or almost humans. However, it does tell us man and woman are special creations who disobeyed and that led to physical and profound spiritual consequences. It became necessary for God the Father to send His Son to restore what was lost, even though the damage remains. He established a New Covenant, a means for salvation and founded His Church.
I do sincerely listen to what others have to say, but any dissent is forbidden?
usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
I trust the Church alone to educate others regarding the creation of man.
Best,
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Respectfully, this supposedly fake problem/issue has been going on for quite some time. And some would say it’s a make or break deal for Christians? Come on. A Literalist view of Creation has been taught and will continue to be taught. I’m arguing for a return to common sense and a reasonable explanation.
Finally, it is established Church teaching that God made everything out of nothing. Looking around, I see no hands raised in protest. I follow what the Church tells me, not opinions on internet forums. This “disservice” to Christianity is caused by science? Give me a break.
Science, improperly understood, is a pillar for non-theists and anti-theists. It is the argument they want to tear down a belief in God. As I saw in one of the news weeklies, a man was carrying a sign that read: “America! Get off your knees!” Really? Then what? Follow the teachings/opinions of the man carrying the sign? I hope I’ve made myself clear.
These sorts of threads will appear endlessly. And they don’t seem to be about science, not really.
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
M
Moro_Rock
Guest
M
Moro_Rock
Guest
Perhaps it is because we see science as part of Gods creation/ gift to us.
Perhaps it is because we don’t constrain God to a book?
Perhaps it is because it is not truly a “biblical view” to be oppossed to evolution.
Perhaps it is because it cheapens our religion to not be open to scientific advancement and understand how to reconcile it with Christianity. It used to be “a more biblical view” to say the sun rotated around the earth. Imagine if the church still held such a claim?
As for creationists are pleasant and articulate, I think you should open your eyes a bit because that is certainly not always the case. It’s a major generalization./QUOTE__________________________________________________________
Science has always been embraced by the Church. There are some top scientists
out there who are also creationists.
You say , we don’t constrain God to a book. Do you not believe the innerancy of the
Bible ? not just any old book , you’ll have to agree ! which states that death entered
because of sin. Before the sin of our first parents there was no death.
Here in the UK schools are not permitted to allow a debate on creation/evolution
Are they scared that the tide is turning and people no longer trust the false religion
of evolution ?
There are some excellent Christian creation scientists on the internet
Seems to me we have two options to view life
- through the Word of God, as clearly stated in the Bible or
2 through the word of Man as stated in constantly shifting opinions and theories
__________
Because some clerics in the Church made one mistake in disagreeing with Galileo
about rotation of sun or earth doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel and not
challenge the absurd, unprovable, unscientific theory of evolution which seeks to
make monkeys out of us.
- Status