Genesis v Evolution

[edwest2]

Silly, pointless argument. As I posted recently, scientists (yes, the secular kind) are finding bugs in dirt that are resistant to synthetic antibiotics. Having worked in health care for over a decade I’m aware of a few things, so please don’t try to frighten people. Bacteria have built-in means to defend and modify themselves, built-in. Evolution is a worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Let’s try try again Catholic theistic evolutionists.

Get out the Old Testament. You of course wouldn’t believe in the LITERAL creation of Adam and Eve and all the universe in 6 days.

What I am asking is when in the bible is the first miracle that can’t be explained by science?

And for all the fudgers and evaders out there let me define miracle as God Suspending the laws of the universe to make an event happen that can’t be explained by the laws of the universe.

And for those who still can’t get that concept let me stipulate thaty the Resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be explained by the laws of the univers–God intervened in a Miraculous way!

Thje reason I am asking the question is to gauge whether some people who fqancy themselves as Catholic thesistic evolutionists are also capable of affirming that yes–sometimes in human history God did suspend the laws of the universe to accomplish his will and those things can’t be scientifically explained.

People who call themselves Catholic theistic evolutionists and are not able to point to any time that God did indeed suspend the laws of the universe to do Anything–aren’t really Catholic!

And why do I say that? Because the Catholic Church affirms the fact that sometimes God did suspend the laws of the universe.

That doesn;'t mean he necessarily did that with creating the universe–I only go to point all this out because I suspect that some who call themselves Catholic theistic evolutionists don’t really believe in the faith taught by the Catholic Church!

The Cartholic Church doesn’t teach exactly How God created but it does teach that sometimes God does suspend the scientific laws of the universe. People who will not attest to that are not Catholic regardless of what they may claim.

The real point I’m making is Why did God work outside the laws of the universe by creating the universe to start with–then let those laws work–and then later at sometimes suspend them?

I have no problem with God doing this if He chooses–I do have a problem with people who think that God can’t do this IF he chooses!

Comments?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m a she. 100% woman from the top of my head all the way done to my pink painted toe nails. Green eyed pix with long blonde hair.

Oh well. It’s the internet so it’s not like we can see other face to face.

Please don’t compare Matthew Fox’s thoughts to Pope BenedictsXVI’s. The Pope doesn’t believe in a Cosmic Christ!

I didn’t say that our Pope believed in a “Cosmic Christ”. Furthermore, I said that Matthew Fox’s thoughts are considered blasphemous whereas our Pope’s thoughts are well within the theological core of Catholic teachings. Other “people”, notably some evangelical groups, see no difference between our Pope’s words and Matthew Fox’s words. Me personally, I do see the difference…

Furthermore, Matthew Fox is no longer a Roman Catholic. Mr. Fox is absolutely considered a member of New Age fluff along with being a real admirer of many Intelligent Design advocates! YUCK. I’ve had to read his book to get a real handle on the Intelligent Design Movement.

I didn’t say that Matthew Fox spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church. Now get a hold of yourself and read what I’m typing.

I don’t have to read Fox to get a handle on the intelligent design movement. Johnson and others do a better job in my opinion. Besides that, I’m more interested in what Collins has to say.

But, for the record, I think you’re acting immaturely regarding the intelligent desing movement. There’s nothing within intelligent design within Christian thoughts which argues for panentheism. Stop and consider what you are claiming.

*The Coming of the Cosmic Christ *by Matthew Fox is whacky! Have you read it?

No. But I am aware of the movement and am concerned with how much they use Teilhard’s thoughts-- thoughts which have also been condemned as blasphemous. I actually started a thread kind of covering this very subject in case you haven’t noticed.

In his book, **Part IV: Who Is the Cosmic Christ? 21. Jesus Christ as Mother Earth Crucified and Resurrected. **Part V: A Vision of the Second Coming --The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of Global Renaissance ****25. The Cosmic Christ and a Renaissance of Sexual Mysticism. These are only two chapters.

I haven’t read the book, but I am aware of the teachings that these groups put forth.

Not only does Fox destroy science but he totally destroys Jesus and in my opinion Fox’s ideas are plain weird!

I’m not sure if he destroys science, but he definitely has some weird ideas. I can’t honestly say that I’ve read through all of his ideas. Mostly I’ve read commentaries from various points of view.

To be honest, I’m sure he says something which is correct-- like how most other non-Catholics have some part of the Gospel truth. Fox, however, would augment that “nature” acts as a kind of a “fifth” Gospel. And while I personally do agree that God can be understood through natural reason, I would not argue (like Fox appears to do) that a “natural revelation” is equal to a “spiritual revelation”.

And I really don’t give a hoot if was director of the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College in Oakland, California. (Isn’t it interesting that Phillip Johnson started the ID movement from Berkeley?)

Seems to be a coincedence to me. Actually, one may have arisen partially in protest to the other-- although ID is defintely protesting the materialist mindset and seeking to place a religious fore-thought into the discussion.

Fox went out the door with the hippies. So, I wouldn’t be following him. But those people who follow him usually tend to follow Teilhard de Chardin. Panentheists destroy science and wish to destroy a triune God. They wish to turn Jesus into a freak. Oh, that really makes me very mad

Ok, I understand that you’re mad, but I really don’t understand some of your thoughts connecting the intelligent design movement with panentheism.

I love Jesus:heart: and they had better leave him alone or they will have to fight me off . :knight2: (think of that as a joan of arc figure)

Ok.

I love Jesus too.

 

[jpoii]

You mention the creation accounts in Genesis, what about the other creation accounts mentioned in the bible? You did not mention the conflicts in GN 1 – 2:4a with 2:4b- the end of the chapter. The first creation account in Genesis was written about 300 years after the second account of creation. It was also written 400 years before the birth of Christ while the Israelites were in exile in Babylon. The Priestly writers who obviously knew of the Babylonian account of creation since the parallels are quite remarkable. The Yahwehist who wrote the GN 2:4 -3 from the southern Kingdom wrote there creation account about 700 BC. Now we know the earth is much older than this and can you tell me with any kind of precision what happen 500 years ago wherever you are much less 1 million give or take years later. Oh and you cannot use history books or the internet just folk lore and prayer.
The other problem I see is that you totally by pass other creation accounts in the bible. Yes, God inspired each one, but men wrote them. You need to look at all the creation accounts to see what God is saying about creation in itself not just one account. Creation did not just happen back then it is happening here and now. Saint Thomas Aquinas Doctor of the Catholic Church said that you could not prove that the Genesis accounts and it was easier to show how could works in creation today.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Then you reject Church teaching on the subject. Again, the Church disagrees. I don’t really see a problem other than with our ability to understand what God does. I could easily argue that, in the cases you mentioned, God infused both conceptions with souls and when they joined together, one died. I really, really don’t see a reason here to reject the teachings of the Church.

Peace

Tim

I agree with Orogeny on this one too. It could easily be argued that, in the cases mentioned, God infused both conceptions with souls-- and when they joined together, one died.

I too really, really don’t see a reason here to reject the teachings of the Church either.

 

[wildleafblower]

Oh well. It’s the internet so it’s not like we can see other face to face.

I didn’t say that our Pope believed in a “Cosmic Christ”. Furthermore, I said that Matthew Fox’s thoughts are considered blasphemous whereas our Pope’s thoughts are well within the theological core of Catholic teachings. Other “people”, notably some evangelical groups, see no difference between our Pope’s words and Matthew Fox’s words. Me personally, I do see the difference…

.

Mr. Ex Nihilo this is what you stated in message 1071, “I think he [me] means that some people use Christian language when discussing evolution. Some is considered blasphemous, such as Matthew Fox’s thoughts on creation. Some is considered well within the proper parameters, such as Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts. And then there are some who think that Pope Benedict XVI’ thoughts are no different than Matthew Fox’s thoughts.”
This was my replay to you:

:[msg. 1072] I’m a she. 100% woman from the top of my head all the way done to my pink painted toe nails. Green eyed pix with long blonde hair. Please don’t compare Matthew Fox’s thoughts to Pope BenedictsXVI’s. The Pope doesn’t believe in a Cosmic Christ! Furthermore, Matthew Fox is no longer a Roman Catholic. Mr. Fox is absolutely considered a member of New Age fluff along with being a real admirer of many Intelligent Design advocates! YUCK. I’ve had to read his book to get a real handle on the Intelligent Design Movement. *The Coming of the Cosmic Christ *by Matthew Fox is whacky! Have you read it? In his book, **Part IV: Who Is the Cosmic Christ? 21. Jesus Christ as Mother Earth Crucified and Resurrected. **Part V: A Vision of the Second Coming --The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of Global Renaissance ****25. The Cosmic Christ and a Renaissance of Sexual Mysticism. These are only two chapters. Not only does Fox destroy science but he totally destroys Jesus and in my opinion Fox’s ideas are plain weird! And I really don’t give a hoot if he was director of the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College in Oakland, California in 1940. (Isn’t it interesting that Phillip Johnson started the ID movement from Berkeley?) Fox went out the door with the hippies. So, I wouldn’t be following him. But those people who follow him usually tend to follow Teilhard de Chardin. Panentheists destroy science and wish to destroy a triune God. They wish to turn Jesus into a freak. Oh, that really makes me very mad I love Jesus:heart: and they had better leave him alone or they will have to fight me off . :knight2: (think of that as a joan of arc figure)

I didn’t say that Matthew Fox spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church. Now get a hold of yourself and read what I’m typing.

Get a reality check! I never said you made that statement.

I don’t have to read Fox to get a handle on the intelligent design movement. Johnson and others do a better job in my opinion. Besides that, I’m more interested in what Collins has to say.

I didn’t say you had to read Fox though you did bring up Matthew Fox and his followers are mostly proponents of Intelligent Design.

But, for the record, I think you’re acting immaturely regarding the intelligent desing movement. There’s nothing within intelligent design within Christian thoughts which argues for panentheism. Stop and consider what you are claiming.

For the record, anyone who accuses me of ‘acting immaturely’ as you have only shows ignorance pertaining to the Intelligent Design movement. I shared my six years of research with you. Take it or leave it. It doesn’t matter to me.

Nice to know you claim to love Jesus too.

 

[edwest2]

No one is worshiping science, Ed.Of course you are, Ed. That is what happens when you make all scientists go to the Vatican for approval.That’s a crock and you don’t have the authority to make such a declaration.

Peace

Tim

Me? What did I do? Does the Church teach that modern methods of birth control are wrong, that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that homosexual acts are disordered? I didn’t say it. They did.

From Humani Generis:

1. “Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and balanced judgement, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.”

I didn’t say it, the Church did.

It’s time you woke up and examined established Church teaching that is without debate, from God, assured and true. I encourage you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Having worked in health care for over a decade I’m aware of a few things, so please don’t try to frighten people. Bacteria have built-in means to defend and modify themselves, built-in. Evolution is a worldview.God bless,Ed

Ed, if you have worked in healthcare, you may have heard of a new strain of methicillin resistant staphylococcus that has evolved. I Googled this and found hundreds of websites discussing the evolution of this menace. Here is one of them, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases (www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/AntimicrobialResistance/understanding/examples/methicillin.htm)

"S. aureus is evolving even more and has begun to show resistance to additional antibiotics. In 2002, physicians in the United States documented the first S. aureus strains resistant to the antibiotic, vancomycin, which had been one of a handful of antibiotics of last resort for use against S. aureus. "

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Bacteria have built-in, predesigned ways to defend themselves. They were designed that way. Evolution is a worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

I agree with Orogeny on this one too. It could easily be argued that, in the cases mentioned, God infused both conceptions with souls-- and when they joined together, one died. I too really, really don’t see a reason here to reject the teachings of the Church either.

But neither one dies. Tetragametic people can live their entire normal lifespans without knowing that they have two genomes giving expression to various facets of one body. Neither genome dies; neither soul “dies.”

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Bacteria have built-in, predesigned ways to defend themselves. They were designed that way. God bless,
Ed

Can you substantiate this, with scientific evidence, or are you merely desperately clutching at straws?

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Where did the word desperate come from? I say a few words and this means I’m desperate?

What I find desperate is the idea that science has any knowledge that is greater than the knowledge given by God. I believe in God guided Intelligent Design and I am not a slavish follower of anyone who has written on the political version of this subject. To say that bacteria evolved all of their capabilities is a faith statement.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would like to ask for a time out over all the science worship, and the attendant fascination.

God has revealed to man many truths, and all truth, or fragment of truth, points to Him. Since Humani Generis was published in 1950, there have been important findings in biology and related sciences, however, whether for a love of novelty or to reconcile certain worldviews, the Teaching Authority of the Church comes first and all science is subject to it. John Paull II did not give a blanket aprobation of all the theories of evolution. Pope Benedict stated that evolution is an incomplete theory and that it cannot be scientifically proven. Both of them reference Humani Generis. Both of them are aware of Divine revelation and the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Am I advocating a stop to research, of course not, but all scientific pronouncements are subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Only insofar as they fall within the Church’s competence - which flows from the character of her mission.​

The Teaching Church (which is what we talking about) has, as the TC, no business telling geneticists (say) what to do; for the TC is not competent to do so. What the TC can do, should do, & does do, is to pass judgement on those aspects of their work which do fall within her competence. So the TC can say (for example) that creating a chimera would be immoral, though the TC can’t pronounce on whether it is feasible to do so; just as the TC can’t say whether a pensioner should have a hip replacement, but can say whether the pensioner is acting rightly in choosing euthanasia.

Medical ethics, like other ethical issues, is something the TC can pronounce on because the competence to do so goes with the duty to do so - & God has given her both. Scientific & medical expertise as such are not given to her, so her competence over such issues does not extend to either or both as such: they have their own autonomy, which the TC must respect. If it were otherwise, bishops would be competent to write for the New Scientist because they are bishops - in reality, they have no more right to do so than a schoolboy; being a bishop does not confer any competence in any science; it confers a different kind of competence.

It is a grave and serious matter to consider new discoveries against what has been revealed by God and the utmost care must be taken so that whatever evidence or claims made can be examined thoroughly and with the correct mindset. God provides spiritual and physical wisdom, and to exalt the knowledge of man above God is incorrect.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is interesting how distorted my comments have become but I suspect it stems from the same worldview; i.e. “keep creation/ID out of the classroom.” Nowhere did I say bishops should write for Nature or any such nonsense.

What I did say is that it is the duty of the Church to guide their flock in all matters, physical and spiritual. The Church can and does make pronouncements on all scientific matters as it affects human persons, the environment and so on. It regularly evaluates scientific matters and gives careful, well thought out advisements to Catholics. This, not just for practical reasons but for spiritual reasons, and also for corrective reasons when in some cases, ideas, concepts and new discoveries are used to render vague or attempt to render vague, clear Church teaching.

Recently, there has been a concerted effort to question certain aspects of Church teaching regarding human origins, and this issue is watched intently, from the New York Times to the Daily Mail in England. There can be no explanation other than the recent upswing in the promotion of atheism and the venomous assaults on the major religions through movies, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books and other media.

Evolution is a worldview that fits most comfortably with an anti-God worldview, and for promoting only materialistic reason.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

. To say that bacteria evolved all of their capabilities is a faith statement.God bless,Ed

No, Ed – it is simply reading the evidence.

P.

 

[drpmjhess]

Intellighent design proponents have sifted gears. Many newcomers are proponents of Teilhard de Chardin. Why did Deminski and Johnson back out on the Dover trial? Think about when Haught brought up the name of Teilhard de Chardin in court referring to the TdC’s The Phenomenon of Man?

Don’t forget to watch the premier of “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” this coming Tuesday on NOVA:

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m glad you pointed that out drpmjhess. I’m not aware of any Christian ID movements which subscribe to panentheism, although their are panantheists and deists who do subscribe to an intelligently designed universe.

I’m still trying to figure something out in my own head, because theistic evolution appears rather like deism in one way and rather like intelligent design in the other way. At the very least, the movement seems to blend into both schools of thought.

Well, Mr. Ex Nihilo, for my part, although I don’t like the term “theistic evolution” – because it carries too much baggage – I am a Christian theist who accepts the scientific theory of evolution. As a Christian I am in no way a deist, and as an accepter of evolution I am in no way a proponent of ID. Of course, there are many other theistic evolutionists, and some may seem to blend two schools.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

The real point I’m making is Why did God work outside the laws of the universe by creating the universe to start with–then let those laws work–and then later at sometimes suspend them?

Jerry-Jet, does a miracle demand the suspension of a law of nature? If a mother watches her wayward toddler thrown out of the way of an oncoming car by a total stranger appearing out of nowhere, she might describe the rescue as a miracle, even though the trajectory and momentum of the thrown child are perfectly explainable by physics.

Petrus

 

[abu_kamoon]

I have been Catholic my whole life. My entire family is Catholic. Most of my friends are Catholic. I have met a number of Young Earth Catholics on forums. I have never, not once, met one in real life.

The Catholic Church has been around for almost two thousand years. The vast majority of Catholics have always believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old, and that the first man was created directly by God. Today, apparently most Catholics believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, and that they are descended from apes.

Imagine that! Catholics were wrong for almost two thousand years. It took Charles Darwin to show us what God was trying to say.

 

[abu_kamoon]

I don’t need anyone to tell me that there is a direct conflict between evolution and the Bible. If we are descended from apes (which I think is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard), why would any of the rest of the Bible be valid?

Many Catholics reject the notion of a universal flood. If part of it is a myth, maybe the entire thing is.

Even if I didn’t consider the Bible reliable, I don’t think I could ever accept the notion that I am descended from an ape. Maybe some of the evolutionists, but not me.