D
drpmjhess
Guest
Humans are not descended from apes. Rather, apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor.
Petrus
- Status
Petrus
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But if God has created life by evolutionary processes, does this not still indicate that an “intelligence” has “designed” life by these same “evolutionary processes”?
In other words, as a Christian theist who accepts the scientific theory of evolution, do you not believe that God designed life by evolutionary processes?
On the other hand, if one is claming that God “set out the initial parameters” for life to unfold as we see it today, but that God “did not directly guide” the evolutionary processes that created life, then this is really not much different from deism either.
The only difference between deism and theistic evolution (in this sense) is that God did not “have to” withdraw from his creation but apparently “choose to” withdraw from his creation.
In other words, if this is so, then as a Christian you are in “some ways” a deist-- or, at the very least, you aparently ascribe behaviors to God that fit within the deistic framework of a Divinity who often “winds up the clock” and then lets the universe “run its course”-- even if you sometimes, unlike a deist, allow for a direct interaction between God and his creation.
See what I mean?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I quite agree with you that this whole business is tricky. It’s like a parent withdrawing enough to allow her child the freedom to develop, but remaining close enough to guide and protect the child.
I like the way it’s expressed in the Qur’an: Allah is lord of the immense universe, and yet closer to us than our jugular vein – this strikes me as a beautiful formulation of monotheistic divine cherishing of the cosmos. I have no cut-and-dried answer, except to say that I believe God cherishes the universe enough to allow it the freedom to become what it will within the parameters of its atomic, chemical, geological and biological unfolding.
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Yes – just as it took Copernicus, Galileo and Newton to show us what God was trying to say about the solar system; Vesalius and Harvey to show us what God was trying to say about cardiac physiology; and Einstein to tell us what God was trying to say about relativity. Human maturation is a long and slow process!
Petrus
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Mr. Ex Nihilo this is what you stated in message 1071,
???
Get a reality check!I never said you made that statement.
What are you talking about?
I didn’t say that Matthew Fox and his followers are mostly proponents of Intelligent Design. Actually, Matthew Fox is not part of the intelligent design movement. He’s considered a theistic evolutionist-- albeit, he mixes too much spirituality in his theistic evolution according to most of his critics.
Six years of research???
What are you talking about?
Perhaps you could provide some links to you posts. We are, as you know, at over 1000+ posts in this thread. I’m not reading through all of them just to find your points.
If you want me to consider your position, you have to explain it clearly so that I can understand it and evaluate it.
Excuse me. I didn’t “claim” that you loved Jesus. I accepted your testimony as a fact. And yet you’re suggesting that I don’t actually love Jesus?
Explain you position clearly wildleafblower. So far I’ve only read “from the hip” comments which presume some thesis that apparently you are aware of but not me.
Let’s start here…
Question 1: Exactly why do ypu think Matthew Fox (and his followers) are mostly proponents of Intelligent Design?
Question 2: Exactly why do you think Matthew Fox (and his followers) are mostly opponents to Theistic Evolution?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Indeed, God has to permit us freedom to grow or else we can become static I suppose (and even this raises a few issues).
Thank you for sharing that.
Do you know what wildleafblower is talking about?
I don’t see a direct connection with Matthew Fox and the intelligent design movement-- no more connection than most theistic evolutionary models make anyway.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Wildleafblower, I’ve been the target of your similarly unbalanced attacks on several occasions. I understand why Mr. Ex Nihilo is confused by this post. Can you please restate your points clearly and without ad hominem attacks?
Petrus
PS – I’m still not peddling panentheism in the back alleys, even though you think I have a stash of it with a pew value of $20…million!
D
drpmjhess
Guest
No, I don’t understand what Wildleafblower is talking about, even though I understand the words. And no, I don’t read Matthew Fox as a proponent of intelligent design.
To clarify, the “intelligent design” I and almost any theist would accept is that a God who created a universe must be “intelligent” (that sounds so condescending!) and has designed it, even if that design is not always apparent. What never ceases to astonish me – expressed by John Haught in his “theology of promise” – is that the world as we know it was all there, in potentia, in the sea of hot quarks moments after the Big Bang.
The program of the “intelligent design” movement that I and most others reject is their limitation of science: “you may not examine the biochemistry of cells because they are a black box, epistemically sealed from us.” “You may not propose that the mammalian eye has evolved, because it is irreducibly complex.” Science merely laughs at such proscriptions, and they just make religion look stupid.
Petrus
PS – Judgement Day airs Tuesday – let me know what you think of it.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Thanks Tim for your post #1074 regarding Petrus (drpmjhess).
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I stand behind my messages 1069 and 1072. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would understand what I wrote.
If certain individuals wish to distort by cherry picking or quote-mining what I have written in those two messages(1069 and 1072) then they distort the truth of what I have stated within the content of those two statements. I have been a member since 2005 and have never before had a problem with being understood by members.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
drpmjhess: Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? Is His resurrection a suspension of the laws of the universe?
The reason I would like theistic evolutionists to answer this is I would like to p(name removed by moderator)oint those who are Catholic and those who are not.
Any that do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that His resurrection did in deed involve a suspension of the laws of the universe are not Catholic!
I can believe Both that God could create by evolutionary means but also that God could suspend the laws of the universe anytime He wanted and that could be the case when it comes to creation!
What I don’t get is this: why do some people who Say they believe in theistic evolution think that they know Everything about the way God created and maintain that it would be impossible for God to create in anyway other that evoution Exclusively? Where do they get off on that ominipotent mindset?
And how many people who do believe that God could Only create by evoutionary means would also Not believe in the Literal Actual Historical Reality of Christ rising from the dead and it Indeed being a suspension of the law of the universe? They seem to cherish and defend the laws of the unsiverse as revealed by science with a greater fervor than their belief in God Himself!
Bottom line: As a Catholic–theisitc evolution is defensible. Binding God and saying that He could never create in Any way other than evolutionary means is Blaspehemous–whether He employed only evolutionary means or not!
And belief in the resurrection of Jesus is required for anyone to be Catholic.
So really my questions here are not for people who really aren’t Catholic in doctrine related to creation–some of them don’t believe in anything that can suspend the laws of the universe anyway.
And my questions aren’t really for the ones who only believe in young Earth literal 6-day Creationism. They’re as guilty as evolutionary only types in Binding God to only create in a miraculous way versus an evolutionary way.
My question is for people who fancy themselves as Catholic theistic evolutionists: Do you Bind the way God can create? If you do you are wrong! Do you also reject Jesus rising from the dead? If you do that you are wrong, too!
In my opinion one can be a Catholic theisitic evolutionist if they
1)Don’t Bind God to creating by evolutionary means only–even if they believe that is the way He created.
2)Don’t oppose Catholic doctrine on creation as taught by the Catholic Church and there is much leeway in that
3)Do believe that sometimes God does in fact suspend the laws of the universe–such as Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and that He Could Have Chosen to do this in creation If He wanted to.
So my challenge to people who fancy themselves as Catholic theistic evolutionists is this: Take a stand here and say whether you are omnipotent and Know that God could only create by evolutionary means only and also take a stand on whether in the resurrection of Christ God did in fact act by suspending the laws of the universe?!
Anyone out there brave enough to take a stand?
The reason I would like theistic evolutionists to answer this is I would like to p(name removed by moderator)oint those who are Catholic and those who are not.
Any that do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that His resurrection did in deed involve a suspension of the laws of the universe are not Catholic!
I can believe Both that God could create by evolutionary means but also that God could suspend the laws of the universe anytime He wanted and that could be the case when it comes to creation!
What I don’t get is this: why do some people who Say they believe in theistic evolution think that they know Everything about the way God created and maintain that it would be impossible for God to create in anyway other that evoution Exclusively? Where do they get off on that ominipotent mindset?
And how many people who do believe that God could Only create by evoutionary means would also Not believe in the Literal Actual Historical Reality of Christ rising from the dead and it Indeed being a suspension of the law of the universe? They seem to cherish and defend the laws of the unsiverse as revealed by science with a greater fervor than their belief in God Himself!
Bottom line: As a Catholic–theisitc evolution is defensible. Binding God and saying that He could never create in Any way other than evolutionary means is Blaspehemous–whether He employed only evolutionary means or not!
And belief in the resurrection of Jesus is required for anyone to be Catholic.
So really my questions here are not for people who really aren’t Catholic in doctrine related to creation–some of them don’t believe in anything that can suspend the laws of the universe anyway.
And my questions aren’t really for the ones who only believe in young Earth literal 6-day Creationism. They’re as guilty as evolutionary only types in Binding God to only create in a miraculous way versus an evolutionary way.
My question is for people who fancy themselves as Catholic theistic evolutionists: Do you Bind the way God can create? If you do you are wrong! Do you also reject Jesus rising from the dead? If you do that you are wrong, too!
In my opinion one can be a Catholic theisitic evolutionist if they
1)Don’t Bind God to creating by evolutionary means only–even if they believe that is the way He created.
2)Don’t oppose Catholic doctrine on creation as taught by the Catholic Church and there is much leeway in that
3)Do believe that sometimes God does in fact suspend the laws of the universe–such as Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and that He Could Have Chosen to do this in creation If He wanted to.
So my challenge to people who fancy themselves as Catholic theistic evolutionists is this: Take a stand here and say whether you are omnipotent and Know that God could only create by evolutionary means only and also take a stand on whether in the resurrection of Christ God did in fact act by suspending the laws of the universe?!
Anyone out there brave enough to take a stand?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
It’s not hard to imagine at all. It took science that long to discover these things. God could of course just told us, but why spoil our fun of learning? And we were not decended from apes by the way. We have a common ancestor. There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation. I think its pretty darn neat.
Ever seen those subs who go down 7 miles to the bottom of the ocean? Like may less than 20 people in the entire history of the planet have ever seen the life there. You really expect God made it all for those 20 people? Rather more likely that God created a universe wherein God has sparked life throughout with a tenacity to survive in the most amazingly harsh circumstances. I’d say God was way powerful.
Declaring that God created 10,000 varieties of fly (just a figure I have no idea the true number) by design makes little sense. One would have sufficed it seems to me, or maybe 5. The incredible multiplicity of life, plus its location is the most inhospitable places all support an obvious conclusion that these are natural events. I am simply in awe at the laws God created that can produce this incredible diversity. Its hugely more impressive than just snapping one’s fingers and voile creating a new species of ant, for no apparent reason.
E
edwest2
Guest
But that is precisely what Jesus Christ did. He touched the blind, the lame, and made them whole. He did not use “science.” His disciples did the same. Did He turn the water to wine with science? Did he calm the wind with science? He showed what He could do by calling Lazarus forth from the tomb alive. He said He had the power to lay down His life and raise it up again. This is how God works.
He was aware of what physicians did.
When He ascended into heaven, didn’t the angels tell the men of Gallile that He would return in the same manner?
Do you know how the Church grants sainthood today? Two miracles that are thoroughly investigated and even then, there is someone who argues against the evidence. Why isn’t this brought up here? Is the Catholic Church just some human invention and God just some symbolic idea? Decide where you stand.
Do you believe you became a new creature when you accepted Christ?
God bless,
Ed
He was aware of what physicians did.
When He ascended into heaven, didn’t the angels tell the men of Gallile that He would return in the same manner?
Do you know how the Church grants sainthood today? Two miracles that are thoroughly investigated and even then, there is someone who argues against the evidence. Why isn’t this brought up here? Is the Catholic Church just some human invention and God just some symbolic idea? Decide where you stand.
Do you believe you became a new creature when you accepted Christ?
God bless,
Ed
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I disagree with you. I wish to focus strickly on this particular comment of yours SpiritMeadow, “There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation.” SpiritMeadow, I’ve read that you are a panentheist and claim to be a Catholic. God isn’t in evolution.
This is Theory of Evolution: evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Thank you for clarifying your position wildleafblower. It makes things much clearer.
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
“It’s not hard to imagine at all. It took science that long to discover these things. God could of course just told us, but why spoil our fun of learning? And we were not decended from apes by the way. We have a common ancestor. There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation. I think its pretty darn neat.”
There is a big difference between allowing someone to discover a fact previously unknown, and having generations believe what you have said, only to have later generations discover that what you said is not true. That is not neat at all.
If humans and apes had a common ancestor (God forbid!), what would you call it? It would have to be some sort of simian creature. Now, according the the evolution theology, evolution means progress. Why have humans been able to go to the moon, build computers, write books and worship their creator whil apes still swing in trees? Humans have written and spoken languages. They build on the knowedge of previous generations. Apes still swing in the trees.
How can you believe this nonesense? Apes are apes. They have always been apes and they always will be. Apes eight or ten thousand years ago were at the same level that apes are today. They have made no progress.
The is a tremendous gulf between humans and animals. Chemically, we are very similar, but intellectually we are miles apart.
We hear that evolution is going on now. Well, why is it that we still have humans and we still have dumb animals? Why haven’t the animals progressed? Why don’t we see some sort of simian surpassing human accomplishments? Theoretically they have been evolving as long as we have.
What is the mechanism for evolution? How can random mutations make a superior product? We never see this in real life. Take a fuzzy photograph and keep making copies of it. Does it ever get sharper?
Evolution is a mindset, it is not science. It is based on the assumption that natural forces could have “evolved” the human race from some ape-like ancestor.
Believing that natural forces brought about the human race takes more faith than believing that Mount Rushmore is the result of erosion. After all, given millions of years…
How can anyone fall for this?
There is a big difference between allowing someone to discover a fact previously unknown, and having generations believe what you have said, only to have later generations discover that what you said is not true. That is not neat at all.
If humans and apes had a common ancestor (God forbid!), what would you call it? It would have to be some sort of simian creature. Now, according the the evolution theology, evolution means progress. Why have humans been able to go to the moon, build computers, write books and worship their creator whil apes still swing in trees? Humans have written and spoken languages. They build on the knowedge of previous generations. Apes still swing in the trees.
How can you believe this nonesense? Apes are apes. They have always been apes and they always will be. Apes eight or ten thousand years ago were at the same level that apes are today. They have made no progress.
The is a tremendous gulf between humans and animals. Chemically, we are very similar, but intellectually we are miles apart.
We hear that evolution is going on now. Well, why is it that we still have humans and we still have dumb animals? Why haven’t the animals progressed? Why don’t we see some sort of simian surpassing human accomplishments? Theoretically they have been evolving as long as we have.
What is the mechanism for evolution? How can random mutations make a superior product? We never see this in real life. Take a fuzzy photograph and keep making copies of it. Does it ever get sharper?
Evolution is a mindset, it is not science. It is based on the assumption that natural forces could have “evolved” the human race from some ape-like ancestor.
Believing that natural forces brought about the human race takes more faith than believing that Mount Rushmore is the result of erosion. After all, given millions of years…
How can anyone fall for this?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
It may be the way or it might not be the way. I think that we need to be careful to not say that the theory of evolution necessarilly disproves that God specifically created humanity.
While I think that God does have us in mind to discover many things that he created (I think that God delights in us discovering his creations in the same way that a loving parent delights in their children learning how to tie their shoes and opening Christmas presents), I still don’t think that everything that he created was specifically designed by him for us to discover.
In other words, I would suggest that we need to balance a passage like this…
Job 7:17-18:
With a passage like this…
Job 38:25-27:
So while it is clear that God does intend for us to discover the wonders of his creation, it’s also clear that he doesn’t do everything solely for the benefit of mankind either.
It may, however, make more sense if there is some particular genetic structure within each variety of fly which likewise benefits the whole of creation en masse in giving praise to God. We can ask why would God do this, much like how many ask why God allows suffering, but there can be many reasons why God would specifically design life this way.
People also say it would have sufficed if God never allowed death in the first place-- but death clearly does have a purpose for humanity. To say that one would have sufficed (or maybe 5) presupposes that we already understand all the ecological interactions within his creation that God has brought forth in manifold genesis. But, simply put, we don’t understand everything.
And yet they are still guided by God, are they not?
How can one say these events are random and purposeless if God has apparently directed them? Surely he could have some reason for bringing them forth, even if that reason is not immediately apparent right now.
And how is this different from deism?
Perhaps God loves his whole creation and wants to be a part of it. The loving God of Christianity does stand in contrast to the God of Deism, although the two positions overlap.
Again, this goes beyond “no apparent reason” and presumes that there is “no reason”-- and I think there’s a big difference between these two points. It’s no different than the distinction between the “unknown” and the “unkowable”-- something that I think we all confuse sometimes.
Consequently, I am actually more in awe with someone who can create a brand new lifeform from the dust of the earth than someone who can cause things to naturally happen over time. In both cases, precision is the pre-requisite, but the former trumps the latter as far as the sheer magnitude of the control of power necessary goes-- concentrating billions of years worth of energy into a few seconds of creative action without annihilating the universe in the process is extremely awesome to me.
The Resurrection of our Lord testifies to this power too.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I agree that there is no incompatibility between God and evolution, but it is true that, evolutionarily speaking, the human body did evolve from apes. Humans did not evolve from the currently existing species of apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.), but from an extinct species of ape, as you can see from this diagram.
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
Well I don’t agree. I don’t accept the divine revelation of Charles Darwin and his followers.
How anyone can call this science is beyond me. Nobody was there to observe it (it never happened). It is conjecture of overactive minds.
I think that is is funny that millions of Christians believe that they are descended from some “common ancestor” to the apes. Remember, at one time “science” believed in the spontaneous generation of life in the case of fruit flies.
People, even educated people can be made to believe in almost anything. The Germans elected Hitler. Look at what the Americans have elected. Millions were worried about Y2K. The “hole” in the ozone layer, Global Warming. The list goes on.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Agreed. I understand that, the poster I was responding to seems to be quite new at this discussion, since seasoned YEC usually know the basics. We decended from an ape-like creature that is long ago extinct. From that ancestor, both we and certain present day apes evolved.
Your point here is inappropriate. Most of these events are too different in kind to be used as examples of whatever you are attempting to portray. How is scientists being misled into error shown by people electing bad politcians? And plenty of folks believe Global warming is real.
- Status