Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry-Jet said:
Let’s try try again. Is it Ott’s opinion that Eve was specially created from Adam and that is Catholic dogma?
Click to expand...
The “unity of the human race” implies the doctrine of monogenism, that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the entire human race. Ludwig Ott maintains: “The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary presupposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 96).
Click to expand...
Monogenism is not dogma, but it is considered one of the ideas that helps to support the dogma of original sin.

More from Ott:
“…as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists… Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood.” (Ott, page 92) “As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific… The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.” (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)
Click to expand...
 
Montalban said:
Why would he use means that don’t require him?

The materialistic/naturalistic means Evolutionists believe were used don’t require God.
Click to expand...
Real evolution theory leaves plenty of room for God. Darwin’s own theories place God at the very center of it all. He was a devout Christian by the way. Just because a perverted version of evolution has found its way into our schools doesn’t invalidate the theory. Besides, if God did use something like evolution, then it would clearly need His (name removed by moderator)ut, right?
 
cyberjacques said:
Real evolution theory leaves plenty of room for God. Darwin’s own theories place God at the very center of it all. He was a devout Christian by the way. Just because a perverted version of evolution has found its way into our schools doesn’t invalidate the theory. Besides, if God did use something like evolution, then it would clearly need His (name removed by moderator)ut, right?
Click to expand...
I’m not against a process of evolution - but I won’t pretend it’s the one taught by science educators.

If you believe pro-Evolution poster-boys like Dawkins then God’s a dead idea
 
Dawkins is a highly dishonest atheist evolution poster boy. Evolution is not atheist, deist or Theist. As natural science it need to be duplicable in experiments, so it not uses a supernatural explanation for phenomena. But it does not disproves a supernatural teleology or final end because that cannot be proved within science. Evolution theory is agnostic. His explanations have to be self contained as in all scientific explanations but they do not disprove a supernatural world. They just do not try to use in their explanations.
 
cyberjacques said:
Real evolution theory leaves plenty of room for God. Darwin’s own theories place God at the very center of it all. He was a devout Christian by the way. Just because a perverted version of evolution has found its way into our schools doesn’t invalidate the theory. Besides, if God did use something like evolution, then it would clearly need His (name removed by moderator)ut, right?
Click to expand...
Evolution is touted as a fact here. What does that tell you? A purely naturalistic process that works without any (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever from God is presented as fact. Evolutionary Theory is atheistic naturalism. No God required.

God bless,
Ed
 
Is Ed West John McArthur in disguise? His argument seems to come straight from his books. Are you a fundamental Baptist?
 
Are any of you individuals? Is everyone walking around with labels? Left leaning, liberal, post-Vatican II Catholic? God is no respecter of persons.

Evolutionary Theory is atheistic naturalism. It would stand up in a court of law as not requiring God in any way, shape or form. It is complete in itself, No God required.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Evolution is touted as a fact here.
Click to expand...
That’s because it is a fact, Ed, regardless of who uses it for their political/religious goals.
What does that tell you? A purely naturalistic process that works without any (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever from God is presented as fact. Evolutionary Theory is atheistic naturalism. No God required.
Click to expand...
Just like EVERY other scientific theory.

Peace

Tim
 
inthecloud said:
Dawkins is a highly dishonest atheist evolution poster boy. Evolution is not atheist, deist or Theist. As natural science it need to be duplicable in experiments, so it not uses a supernatural explanation for phenomena. But it does not disproves a supernatural teleology or final end because that cannot be proved within science. Evolution theory is agnostic. His explanations have to be self contained as in all scientific explanations but they do not disprove a supernatural world. They just do not try to use in their explanations.
Click to expand...
Yes, part of the problem here and I don’t know whether its intentional or just from erratic thinking, is that because “a” scientist speaks out as an atheist, then evolution becomes atheistic in orientation. Of course it it not anything but science. This problem has been addressed over and over, but alas is still put forth and by the same purveyors. That smacks of intent in my book.
edwest2 said:
Evolution is touted as a fact here. What does that tell you? A purely naturalistic process that works without any (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever from God is presented as fact. Evolutionary Theory is atheistic naturalism. No God required.
God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
And we have told you otherwise at least 2 dozen times now Ed. You apparently connect evolution with NO God. That’s your own illogic, not ours.
 
inthecloud said:
Dawkins is a highly dishonest atheist evolution poster boy. Evolution is not atheist, deist or Theist. As natural science it need to be duplicable in experiments, so it not uses a supernatural explanation for phenomena. But it does not disproves a supernatural teleology or final end because that cannot be proved within science. Evolution theory is agnostic. His explanations have to be self contained as in all scientific explanations but they do not disprove a supernatural world. They just do not try to use in their explanations.
Click to expand...
I object to him on the grounds he’s irrational - he’s an atheist zealot!

🙂
 
Evolution is not observable or reproducible. Scientists have found bacteria in dirt that are resistant to synthetic antibiotics.

God bless,
Ed
 
With all due respect for the religion of evolution and those faithfully entrenched in it, I present the following quandary:

At the root of evolutionary theory we have the principal that higher-order organisms evolved from lower-order organisms via lower-order organisms responding to stimulus in a manner that would favor their survival and improvement. But, who or what is responsible for this innate, built-in “wisdom” of an organism to “know” to turn, move, or react in a self-preserving, beneficial manner, rather than in a way which would cause the organism to degrade or self-destruct? The evolutionist might say, “The Laws of Nature.” But where did these profound, immutable “Laws of Nature” come from? The only answers evolutionists provide seem to imply that, for them, nature itself is their God."

Remember, even Albert Einstein, himself, became convince there was a superior, creative intelligence or God; he just couldn’t come to grips with the idea of a personal God. And, on that issue, all I can say is: If the story of Jesus and all his works are nothing but historical fiction and (as the apostle Paul voiced in 1 Corinthians 15:14) Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and our faith is also vain.
 
fcfahs said:
With all due respect for the religion of evolution and those faithfully entrenched in it, I present the following quandary:
Click to expand...
With all due respect for those who refuse to accept science, why do you assume that you have identified a quandry? If you haven’t followed the lengthy discussion in this thread, most of us here who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution also accept God. Most of us are just as Catholic as you are.

Peace

Tim
 
As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/GilderEvolution.php
also at
[Evolution and Me | Discovery Institute(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top