Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

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).

No, #2 is definitely not pantheism – you are conflating the two. Pantheism = “God is everythingism”; that’s quite different from “God (as pure spirit) is everywhere” (or is “in” everything). Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s formulation was “God is like a sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”

And I explicitly rejected the idea that God is sitting “out there” somewhere" (see below) – that is not panentheism either, but rather a naively spatio-temporal model. In my previous post I said:

"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.”

 

[hecd2]

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.

OK - thanks for the explanation of your lurkers’ comment. I often wonder how many are there and what they really think of the debate.

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.

I think it’s a hugely more complex thing than mouth-breathing fundamentalism which is why I find it inetersting. Opposition to any form of evolution or, as it was called at the time of Darwin’s development of the theory, transmutation, originated in the intellectual, social and plolitical establishment and I am not sure that support for it has ever been fully abandoned to caricature fundamentalists. And even if it had been, tabloid motivations and arguments are often hugely debased versions of more carefully considered positions - so that in understanding the rational and intellectual legacy of the early opposition to evolution, we gain valuable insight into today’s simple biblical literalists.
.

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

Will look it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

I often wonder how many are there and what they really think of the debate.

Quite a few! Their interest is the word intelligence. Any information from members regarding intelligence would be greatly appreciated.

I’ll return later.

 

[wildleafblower]

I can’t figure out what you are angry about or why.

I don’t show any emotioncon of anger in my message 533 to Alec (hecd2). Perhaps SpiritMeadow, you read more into my messages than what is truly necessary. Oh, neither do I have a problem with you being ‘unclear’ in message 539.

 

[wildleafblower]

Petrus (Peter) states in message 228 [on another topic] “as theists we have to assume the world was designed by an infinite intelligence.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186089&page=16

Oh, and any information about the difference between “infinite” intelligence and human intelligence would be helpful.

 

[wildleafblower]

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

Historically - You may wish to review NORTH AMERICAN DIALOGUE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICA Volume 8, No. 1 April 2005 ISSN 1539-2546, **McCarthyism, Academia, and Anthropology: The Old and The New ** by Tim Sieber
sananet.org/NAD/NADApr2005.pdf
http://sananet.org/NAD/NADApr2005.pdf

The entire newsletter has a wealth of information that may be of value to you and interested parties.

 

[wildleafblower]

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.

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

 

[freesoulhope]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

Prove it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

I have to say that I would disagree with that. Some would actually say the opposite, and that belief in a God who arranges nature in an orderly way makes nature more comprehensible in the first place.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread to read so far.

I just recently bought The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. It seems like it will be an interesting read to be honest.

I’m hoping and praying that God will give me more discernment concerning this controversial topic.

 

[drpmjhess]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

Shoot! And I was really getting fond of science. Oh well – if I have to choose between the two, I’ll choose God. It’ll be an adventure living in a cave again, wearing animal skins, grubbing for roots, and eating half-raw meat.

 

[drpmjhess]

I just recently bought Franciis-S-Collins “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”

Ex Nihilo, that is a fine book. You might also enjoy Ken Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” and Marty Hewlett’s “Can You Believe in God and Evolution? a Guide for the Perplexed”

I’m preparing to deliver a lecture tomorrow night – in a fairly redneck community – on the theme “Can I both believe in God and accept evolution?” The organizer (a high school biology teacher) suggested I wear a kevlar vest.

Prayerfully yours
Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Shoot! And I was really getting fond of science. Oh well – if I have to choose between the two, I’ll choose God. It’ll be an adventure living in a cave again, wearing animal skins, grubbing for roots, and eating half-raw meat.

very humble

 

[drpmjhess]

very humble

Thanks – I try.

 

[wildleafblower]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

Alec (hecd2), you are a scientist. Is science compatible with God? There aren’t any public school teachers or scientists that I know state, “Science is compatible with God.” Please correct me if I am wrong.

The universe is finite. How can there be an “infinite” intelligence?

Oh, as you already know I believe in evolution and have a supernatural faith in God.
The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.11 (11 Cf. ⇒ Is 45:15; ⇒ Judg 13:18

 

[Orogeny]

Alec (hecd2), you are a scientist. Is science compatible with God? There aren’t any public school teachers or scientists that I know state, “Science is compatible with God.” Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I am not Alec, but I’ll answer anyway.

I think I would ask you to clarify your statement. Science cannot deal with God because of the nature of science. God isn’t a natural being, so He cannot be the scientific answer. However, science doesn’t exclude God, either. It is completely neutral on the subject.

Science and God are compatable, though, since the study of nature (science) is the study of God’s creation. I have no problem accepting science for what it is and also accepting God.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Well, I am not Alec, but I’ll answer anyway.

I think I would ask you to clarify your statement. Science cannot deal with God because of the nature of science. God isn’t a natural being, so He cannot be the scientific answer. However, science doesn’t exclude God, either. It is completely neutral on the subject.

Science and God are compatable, though, since the study of nature (science) is the study of God’s creation. I have no problem accepting science for what it is and also accepting God.

Peace

Tim

Agreed.

Science is of God. Perfectly compatible. Faulty reasoning is a problem to keep working on.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both flow from the God.

 

[drpmjhess]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

Wildleafblower, a discipline is different from the assumptions carried by its practitioners. Poetry itself is not incompatible with God even though there are individual poets and poems that deny or reject God. Mathematics is not incompatible with God, even though differential calculus does not lead us there. The sciences are not incompatible with God even though we no longer look to divine intervention as the cause of earthquakes, hurricanes, continental drift, survival of a plane crash, the appearance of Jesus’ face on a tortilla, or the emergence of new species. Atheism is incompatible with God, but science is not.

 

[wildleafblower]

Well, I am not Alec, but I’ll answer anyway.

I think I would ask you to clarify your statement. Science cannot deal with God because of the nature of science. God isn’t a natural being, so He cannot be the scientific answer. However, science doesn’t exclude God, either. It is completely neutral on the subject.

Science and God are compatable, though, since the study of nature (science) is the study of God’s creation. I have no problem accepting science for what it is and also accepting God.

Peace

Tim
wildleafblower;2836883:

Alec (hecd2), you are a scientist. Is science compatible with God? There aren’t any public school teachers or scientists that I know state, “Science is compatible with God.” Please correct me if I am wrong.

The universe is finite. How can there be an “infinite” intelligence?

Oh, as you already know I believe in evolution and have a supernatural faith in God.
The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

206

In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.11 (11 Cf. ⇒ Is 45:15; ⇒ Judg 13:18

Yes, I know you aren’t Alec (I know you aren’t a scientist.) I’ve had this discussion before with Steve Anderson back a many thread. I should bring that up again. My main contention is let’s not preach our religous views within public schools. There is a section in the Catechism about science that might prove to be a good read. I also found this:
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE PLENARY ASSEMBLY
OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Clementine Hall
Friday, 10 February 2006

[snip]
However, scientific advances have sometimes been so rapid as to make it very difficult to discern whether they are compatible with the truths about man and the world that God has revealed.

[snip]

*The dialogue between faith and reason, religion and science, does not only make it possible to show people of our time the reasonableness of faith in God as effectively and convincingly as possible, but also to demonstrate that the definitive fulfilment of every authentic human aspiration rests in Jesus Christ. In this regard, a serious evangelizing effort cannot ignore the questions that arise also from today’s scientific and philosophical discoveries. *
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060210_doctrine-faith_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...f_ben-xvi_spe_20060210_doctrine-faith_en.html
Always nice to talk to ya, Tim And thanks, Petrus. I’ll have to digest what you wrote later. Ya all pray for me. I’m off to the oral surgeon . I still would like to hear from Alec too.

 

[drpmjhess]

My main contention is let’s not preach our religous views within public schools. Always nice to talk to ya, Tim And thanks, Petrus. I’ll have to digest what you wrote later. Ya all pray for me. I’m off to the oral surgeon . I still would like to hear from Alec too.

Wildleafblower, I agree with you about not preaching religious views in public schools. And yet we can witness quietly to our faith though our actions and our lives. As I give my lecture tonight on “Can I both believe in God and accept evolution?” I plan to do just that: witness – to a mixed audience of atheists and Young Earth Creationists – to both my Catholic faith and my belief in the integrity of science.

Wildleafblower, you are in my prayers for successful and gentle oral surgery!

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The theory of evolution is science. Science isn’t compatible with God.

Where do you come by this strange notion? If God is creator, I would think he would create the natural world and how it works. Since he gave us brains, we’re not to use them?

And I went to your anthropology site…what that has to do with this discussion is beyond me…it seemed to be about unions, and the sorry lot of the Anthropologist. Come again?