Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

Petrus, please answer my question in message no. 517.

I will answer that when you re-state this so that I can understand it:

“You may wish to consider your marketing stradegy targeting a population’s perception isn’t conducive in a real world.”

Since I cannot read your mind, and since this sentence is both grammatically and logically incoherent (as well as including a misspelled word), I don’t want to anger you by supplying my own interpretation of it. Precisely what do you mean by it?

 

[wildleafblower]

Petrus, please answer my question in message no. 517. It is a simple question. Once you provide me an answer then I will consider answering your questions.

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus, please answer my question in message no. 517. It is a simple question. Once you provide me an answer then I will consider answering your questions.

Wildleafblower,

I asked you a question in #514 which you have refused to answer; I asked you to clarify an assertion in #515, which you have refused to do. After you have offered me the courtesy of a response and a clarification, I will answer the question you posed in #517.

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

I guess you aren’t an educator after all. I’ll be honest with you. I’m not fond of men who persist in telling me what I should do. If you don’t wish to reply to my question then so be it! I won’t be answering your questions.

 

[drpmjhess]

I guess you aren’t an educator after all. I’ll be honest with you. I’m not fond of men who persist in telling me what I should do. If you don’t wish to reply to my question then so be it! I won’t be answering your questions.

Agreed. I wasn’t expecting the Inquisition, but then again, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[hecd2]

Agreed. I wasn’t expecting the Inquisition, but then again, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.

So let’s talk about something sensible. I am interested in the question you raise about why evolution sticks in the craw of so many Christians when acentrism or plate tectonics or electromagnetism slips smoothly down.

I’ve laid out some ideas up the thread - it seems to me that many Christians cannot come to terms with man’s continuity with the rest of nature on the grounds that it undermines his special place in creation. A historian of ideas could trace this fear from the hounding of Taylor and Carlile, through the opposition of Richard Owen and Sam Wilberforce to Lamarck and Chambers’ “Vestiges”, to Wilberforce’s opposition to “The Origin”, through the early 20th century when the inheritors of Darwin’s legacy became enthusiasts for eugenics, to the re-emergence in the 50s of creationism particularly in North America, fuelled by a new biblical literalism (and perhaps someone has written this book). The opposition has been theological, moral, social and political.

I am interested in what you think.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[drpmjhess]

I’ve read all these posts and haven’t a clue what you are getting wild at. Petrus never said he was a panentheist. He said it was a useful way in some ways of doing theology. That’s all. Ssorry you’ve gotten so hung up on this pantheism/panentheism confusion. What exactly are you worried about? Other than that you dont like either one?

SpiritMeadow, it’s a pity Wildleafblower was uninterested in or psychologically indisposed to exploring the implications of panentheism. She never answered my question, which was “where is your God?”

I’ve been reflecting on this the past couple of days, following my conversation with Fr. Dr. Michael Dodds, O.P. A straight-up 4-D Newtonian theist, it seems to me, has to imagine God being somehwere. But all suppositions of locality (God sitting in close-terrestrial space – say, near CNN’s communication satellite in geostationary orbit – or off to the right of Jupiter, or in the interstellar medium just beyond the heliopause, or between galaxies) are caricatures.

Such a theist could respond either (1) that God exists outside the universe entirely, and divine reality is the matrix within which the spatio-temporal phenomenon known as the Big Bang and its resulting universe arose, or (2) “Of course, God is not sitting “out there” somewhere – God is pure spirit, and God’s spirit permeates the universe.” Both (1) and (2) strike me as simply different ways of spelling “panentheism.” What do you (or others on this list) think?
Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

In the New Testament, Jesus is God manifest as a human being, who prays to His Father, and refers to the Holy Spirit as a separate person.

God creates from nothing, i.e., He takes no material from Himself but calls it into existence. His Word does not return to Him void but accomplishes the purpose for which He sent it.

Now, if all of this is subject to interpretation beyond what the Church has established, then it almost meaningless. Christians are taught that it is the Holy Spirit of God, not just our own minds, that allows us to understand what is written. “With wisdom get understanding.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

Such a theist could respond either (1) that God exists outside the universe entirely, and divine reality is the matrix within which the spatio-temporal phenomenon known as the Big Bang and its resulting universe arose, or (2) “Of course, God is not sitting “out there” somewhere – God is pure spirit, and God’s spirit permeates the universe.” Both (1) and (2) strike me as simply different ways of spelling “panentheism.” What do you (or others on this list) think?

Neither one works, really. (2) is plain vanilla pantheism – ‘God everywhere’. Panentheism is the idea that God contains the universe – not merely ‘off to the side’, as you put it, but through and beyond. I don’t know of a one-word name for (1).

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Hi everyone,

I had a question. It was proboly already asked on this thread but I got lost in the pages and couldn’t find it and I don’t want to start any unneccesary threads on the issue. I would like to research the whole Genesis/Evolution controversy. I have heard some arguments made that seem to disprove “MacroEvolution” (the Big Bang therory and Spececes evolving into other specise) while accepting “MicroEvolution” (Where there are only small changes in a species to adapt to the enviroment but still very much the same speciese). I am about to go explore Mr. Robert Sungenis website where he addresses it. Do any of you know of any good academic books that deal with the issue (Either side or both) in an honest way? I would very much like to know. Thanks and God bless.

 

[drpmjhess]

So let’s talk about something sensible. I am interested in the question you raise about why evolution sticks in the craw of so many Christians when acentrism or plate tectonics or electromagnetism slips smoothly down…It seems to me that many Christians cannot come to terms with man’s continuity with the rest of nature on the grounds that it undermines his special place in creation. I am interested in what you think.Alec

Alec, thanks for your comments and your interesting question. It is beyond my professional competence to assess the psychology of fundamentalism, but I imagine it has to do with personality types, life experience, etc. I find that a lot of converts to Catholicism are far more conservative – even reactionary – than “cradle Catholics,” who perhaps are more at ease with a nuanced view of their faith.

Second, there is a very real fear of “hell” (whatever that means) on the part of many people. And escaping hell means “getting it right” (whatever that means). I was not raised with a deep fear of sin, judgment, and hell. Instead, my parents emphasized wonder, love, forgiveness, responsibility, acceptance and understanding. Perhaps that’s why I’m not a young earth creationist.
Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.

So let’s talk about something sensible. I am interested in the question you raise about why evolution sticks in the craw of so many Christians when acentrism or plate tectonics or electromagnetism slips smoothly down.

I’ve laid out some ideas up the thread - it seems to me that many Christians cannot come to terms with man’s continuity with the rest of nature on the grounds that it undermines his special place in creation. A historian of ideas could trace this fear from the hounding of Taylor and Carlile, through the opposition of Richard Owen and Sam Wilberforce to Lamarck and Chambers’ “Vestiges”, to Wilberforce’s opposition to “The Origin”, through the early 20th century when the inheritors of Darwin’s legacy became enthusiasts for eugenics, to the re-emergence in the 50s of creationism particularly in North America, fuelled by a new biblical literalism (and perhaps someone has written this book). The opposition has been theological, moral, social and political.

I am interested in what you think.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I think your missing the main reason. Fundamentalism is mental in nature, expressing a psychological need for certainty in what is obviously an uncertain world. It is this drive to be able to dust one’s hands off and feel that you now have a perfect book with all the answers that allows the “intellectual suicide” to occur. The Fundamentist would no more change his mind than he would paint himself green. He is so assured of his Jesus, that if Jesus did return during his life , the fundamentalist is more likely to deny Him for being unlike the Jesus they have determined Him to be.

You are basically talking to the lurkers here, hoping you give them enough solid and fair argument that they are not seduced to the intellectually dead.

 

[wildleafblower]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.

So let’s talk about something sensible. I am interested in the question you raise about why evolution sticks in the craw of so many Christians when acentrism or plate tectonics or electromagnetism slips smoothly down.

I’ve laid out some ideas up the thread - it seems to me that many Christians cannot come to terms with man’s continuity with the rest of nature on the grounds that it undermines his special place in creation. A historian of ideas could trace this fear from the hounding of Taylor and Carlile, through the opposition of Richard Owen and Sam Wilberforce to Lamarck and Chambers’ “Vestiges”, to Wilberforce’s opposition to “The Origin”, through the early 20th century when the inheritors of Darwin’s legacy became enthusiasts for eugenics, to the re-emergence in the 50s of creationism particularly in North America, fuelled by a new biblical literalism (and perhaps someone has written this book). The opposition has been theological, moral, social and political.

I am interested in what you think.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
drpmjhess;2826938:

Agreed. I wasn’t expecting the Inquisition, but then again, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Alec, it appears to me that Petrus (drpmjhess;2826938) is too ‘psychologically indisposed’ exploring the implications of panentheism rather than THINK about your ideas at this time. Of course, I’d be interested, scientists, and the religious.

Hope you don’t mind that I quoted you on another topic (msg.230):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16

On that link Petrus (Peter) states in message 228 “as theists we have to assume the world was designed by an infinite intelligence.” Hummm! Petrus apparently presumes he can speak for every theist! WOW! Don’t they call those kind of folks ‘know it alls’? And, intelligent designers. The problem I have with ‘know it alls’ is that whatever answer you may give them they have already confirmed that he/she is RIGHT so why would I want to waste my time and energy telling them what I think or believe in. Petrus statement refering to me within in it, ‘"She [Wildleafblower] never answered my question, which was “where is your God?”’ Petrus has turned God into a ‘your’ or ‘me’ or ‘their’ kind of God and which is absolutely in my opinion ridiculous!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, it’s a pity Wildleafblower was uninterested in or psychologically indisposed to exploring the implications of panentheism. She never answered my question, which was “where is your God?”

I’ve been reflecting on this the past couple of days, following my conversation with Fr. Dr. Michael Dodds, O.P. A straight-up 4-D Newtonian theist, it seems to me, has to imagine God being somehwere. But all suppositions of locality (God sitting in close-terrestrial space – say, near CNN’s communication satellite in geostationary orbit – or off to the right of Jupiter, or in the interstellar medium just beyond the heliopause, or between galaxies) are caricatures.

Such a theist could respond either (1) that God exists outside the universe entirely, and divine reality is the matrix within which the spatio-temporal phenomenon known as the Big Bang and its resulting universe arose, or (2) “Of course, God is not sitting “out there” somewhere – God is pure spirit, and God’s spirit permeates the universe.” Both (1) and (2) strike me as simply different ways of spelling “panentheism.” What do you (or others on this list) think?
Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

I guess I’ve always combined the two, God is more than the universe, and thus both inside and out. Spirit of course. I always think of God as infinite however, such that while he thought and created the universe of Himself, He is in no way diminished. And I see God’s spirit as the spark that is in all existence. If you recall the aristotelian idea of forms…I see God as that perfect center of perfection in each thing. Each has the core of perfection, and that is God…I see God is the vagaries of beauty, courage, honor, love, peace, joy, compassion, etc. Each of these mostly perfectly defined is a defining aspect of God.

Lol…sometimes I suspect I make no sense.

 

[drpmjhess]

I have heard some arguments made that seem to disprove “MacroEvolution” (the Big Bang therory and Spececes evolving into other specise) while accepting “MicroEvolution” (Where there are only small changes in a species to adapt to the enviroment but still very much the same speciese).

Montie Claunc, there is a nicley nuacned discussion at bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html.
However I will defer to Alec on this.
Petrus

"The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is often exaggerated, especially by the anti-science crowd. Creationists have gleefully exploited the distinction in order to legitimate their position in the light of clear and obvious examples of evolution that they can’t ignore. They claim they can accept microevolution, but they reject macroevolution.

"In the real world—the one inhabited by rational human beings—the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is basically a difference in emphasis and level. Some evolutionary biologists are interested in species, trends, and the big picture of evolution, while others are more interested in the mechanics of the underlying mechanisms.

“The Creationists would have us believe there is some magical barrier separating selection and drift within a species from the evolution of new species and new characteristics. Not only is this imagined barrier invisible to most scientists but, in addition, there is abundant evidence that no such barrier exists. We have numerous examples that show how diverse species are connected by a long series of genetic changes. This is why many scientists claim that macroevoluton is just lots of microevolution over a long period of time.”

 

[hecd2]

Alec, thanks for your comments and your interesting question. It is beyond my professional competence to assess the psychology of fundamentalism, but I imagine it has to do with personality types, life experience, etc. I find that a lot of converts to Catholicism are far more conservative – even reactionary – than “cradle Catholics,” who perhaps are more at ease with a nuanced view of their faith.

Second, there is a very real fear of “hell” (whatever that means) on the part of many people. And escaping hell means “getting it right” (whatever that means). I was not raised with a deep fear of sin, judgment, and hell. Instead, my parents emphasized wonder, love, forgiveness, responsibility, acceptance and understanding. Perhaps that’s why I’m not a young earth creationist.
Petrus

Ok - thanks for this to you and Spiritmeadow - I am very interested in this question and am keen to develop it with the help of intelligent thoughtful people. Am too busy to follow up now, but will come back to this when I can.

Oh - and Spiritmeadow, I would like you to expand on your comment that I am talking to lurkers. I think that the original question “why is evolution a more difficult modern scientific concept to accept than others” is very interesting, historically and psychologically and a credible answer will also be very insightful

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[drpmjhess]

Ok - thanks for this to you and Spiritmeadow - I am very interested in this question and am keen to develop it with the help of intelligent thoughtful people. Am too busy to follow up now, but will come back to this when I can. I think that the original question “why is evolution a more difficult modern scientific concept to accept than others” is very interesting, historically and psychologically and a credible answer will also be very insightful.

Alec, part of the answer is that the theory of evolution was a thicker nail in the coffin of human assumed uniqueness even than those pounded by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Hutton, and Lyell. The human sharing of animality with the rest of creation was seen as a threat, a pollution of the very summit of God’s creation.

However, there were subtle thinkers more than a century ago, including Catholic priest-scholar John Augustine Zahm, who said presciently:

“But the derivation of man from the ape, we are told, degrades man. Not at all. It would be truer to say that such derivation ennobles the ape. Sentiment aside, it is quite unimportant to the Christian “whether he is to trace back his pedigree directly or indirectly to the dust.” St. Francis of Assisi, as we learn from his life, “called the birds his brothers.” Whether he was correct, either theologically or zoologically, he was plainly free from that fear of being mistaken for an ape which haunts so many in these modern times. Perfectly sure that he, himself, was a spiritual being, he thought it at least possible that birds might be spiritual beings, likewise incarnate like himself in mortal flesh; and saw no degradation to the dignity of human nature in claiming kindred lovingly with creatures so beautiful, so wonderful, who, as he fancied, “praised God in the forest, even as angels did in heaven.”
John Augustine Zahm, Evolution and Dogma (1896)

Petrus**

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Alec, it appears to me that Petrus (drpmjhess;2826938) is too ‘psychologically indisposed’ exploring the implications of panentheism rather than THINK about your ideas at this time. Of course, I’d be interested, scientists, and the religious.

Hope you don’t mind that I quoted you on another topic (msg.230):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16

On that link Petrus (Peter) states in message 228 “as theists we have to assume the world was designed by an infinite intelligence.” Hummm! Petrus apparently presumes he can speak for every theist! WOW! Don’t they call those kind of folks ‘know it alls’? And, intelligent designers. The problem I have with ‘know it alls’ is that whatever answer you may give them they have already confirmed that he/she is RIGHT so why would I want to waste my time and energy telling them what I think or believe in. Petrus statement refering to me within in it, ‘"She [Wildleafblower] never answered my question, which was “where is your God?”’ Petrus has turned God into a ‘your’ or ‘me’ or ‘their’ kind of God and which is absolutely in my opinion ridiculous!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16

I can’t figure out what you are angry about or why. Your posts are rambling and jump from topic to topic with each sentence. Somewhere you went off the track with your confusion of pantheism and panentheism as best I can tell, and you haven’t been the same since. Please state plainly what your problem is? I’
ve read carefully and I’m just lost.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ok - thanks for this to you and Spiritmeadow - I am very interested in this question and am keen to develop it with the help of intelligent thoughtful people. Am too busy to follow up now, but will come back to this when I can.

Oh - and Spiritmeadow, I would like you to expand on your comment that I am talking to lurkers. I think that the original question “why is evolution a more difficult modern scientific concept to accept than others” is very interesting, historically and psychologically and a credible answer will also be very insightful

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Sure about the lurkers… I was most unclear. What I was trying to say, that it doesnt take long in a conversation with a fundamentalist to realize that no argument will make a difference. They are NOT going to change. We witness that daily here, since the Vatican has made it clear that they are not opposed to this kind of scientific inquiry, and indeed basically agree that evolution is real. They do no demand a literal reading of Genesis, yet our fundamentalist friends ignore the vatican documents and return usually to pre-vatican II statements to continue relying on.

Thus, we continue the discussion for those on the fringe who are still undecided on this issue. We hope, by giving them fair, and very correct information, they will come to see that evolution and God are not incompatible, nor does it make the bible somehow a fraud and worthless.

I think Petrus has answered the historical reasons why this is harder to find acceptance than the electric motor or other such things better than I can. But I think that as long as science doesn’t “appear” to contradict anything in the bible, they are fine with science, when it does, then you have the problem of the literalist to contend with.

There are several books and articles on Fundamentalism and you can find them and read the entire article/book at www.religion-online . Go to the far right and find fundamentalism and it will give you all their available online books.

Oddly I posted an article on Evolution and Sin on my blog today. You might also be interested in that.

 

[wildleafblower]

SpiritMeadow, I have made a copy of this page inclusive of messages 526-539. I will get back to you later.