Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

I say all this to say,…its plain a waste of time to try to convince a fundamentalist of anything necessary to his/her delusion. Jesus could stand in front of them and they still would wait for the Magisterium to give them permission. That sounds harsh, but gosh, its just so frustrating. .

SpiritMeadow, I endorse what you say. I started following this thread because I wanted to find out what Catholics think about evolution, and now I realize most contributors are scientifically untutored fundamentalists. I believe you are quite right that the message of Jesus is of secondary importance to them, unless what Jesus says happens to agree with the Aquinas or the Magisterium. Jesus was of course silent on the question of biological evolution, St. Augustine said that it is shameful for a Christian to be ignorant about science.

Cardinal Avery Dulles makes an interesting point in his recent “First Things” article:
“Science can cast a brilliant light on the processes of nature and can vastly increase human power over the environment. Rightly used, it can notably improve the conditions of life here on earth. Future scientific discoveries about evolution will presumably enrich religion and theology, since God reveals himself through the book of nature as well as through redemptive history. Science, however, performs a disservice when it claims to be the only valid form of knowledge, displacing the aesthetic, the interpersonal, the philosophical, and the religious.”

I had hoped to find among subscribers to Catholic Answers a group of educated people who might be interested in exploring the implications for Catholic theology of a dynamic and evolving universe. I have such a group already in an interreligious context, but I am particularly interested in find fellow Catholics who want to engage at this level. It would be a waste my time to engage in further discussion with people whose comprehension of the scientific method is so elementary that we circle endlessly around the same point (like trying to argue for gravity to people ignorant of basic Newtonian physics!). If you or anyone else would like to continue this discussion privately, off list, please drop me a line. I have a book coming out on Catholicism and Science in Spring 2008, and am working on a second book exploring the implications of evolution for systematic theology, and I would be interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut. What do the doctrines of God, creation, Christology, soteriology, theodicy, theological anthropology, religious experience and eschatology look like in the context of a modern world view? I would be pleased to be in contact with you.

Warm regards,
Petrus

PS – Perhaps you could pull out of this fundamentalist time-space loop by starting a new thread entitled “Theology in an Evolutionary Context” or “Genesis in light of Evolution and Deep Time.”

 

[steveandersen]

SpiritMeadow, I endorse what you say. I started following this thread because I wanted to find out what Catholics think about evolution, and now I realize most contributors are scientifically untutored fundamentalists.

Ahem!
Have you actually read the whole thread? (or any of the 100 very similar threads?)

I believe you are quite right that the message of Jesus is of secondary importance to them, unless what Jesus says happens to agree with the Aquinas or the Magisterium……

Your ideological slip is showing

…I had hoped to find among subscribers to Catholic Answers a group of educated people who might be interested in exploring the implications for Catholic theology of a dynamic and evolving universe. I have such a group already in an interreligious context, but I am particularly interested in find fellow Catholics who want to engage at this level.

Plenty of us here
You just apparently have taken a skewed sample

It would be a waste my time to engage in further discussion with people whose comprehension of the scientific method is so elementary that we circle endlessly around the same point (like trying to argue for gravity to people ignorant of basic Newtonian physics!). If you or anyone else would like to continue this discussion privately, off list, please drop me a line.

You’re not really going to win hearts and minds with that attitude.

Charity and patience are valued here

I have a book coming out on Catholicism and Science in Spring 2008, and am working on a second book exploring the implications of evolution for systematic theology, and I would be interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut.

It sounds like you should read Phil’s web site
Which you would have learned about if you had read the thread

What do the doctrines of God, creation, Christology, soteriology, theodicy, theological anthropology, religious experience and eschatology look like in the context of a modern world view? I would be pleased to be in contact with you.

Warm regards,
Petrus

PS – Perhaps you could pull out of this fundamentalist time-space loop by starting a new thread entitled “Theology in an Evolutionary Context” or “Genesis in light of Evolution and Deep Time.”

Sure go ahead

 

[PhilVaz]

steve << It sounds like you should read Phil’s web site Which you would have learned about if you had read the thread >>

Thank you! From one partially scientifically tutored, non-fundamentalist to another who does not endorse Kent Hovind, Answers In Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, The Kolbe Center for Creation, or other such groups, but rather makes fun of them.

Philosophy and Science Articles

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD05.gif

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

hecd2;2774344:

This is exactly the crux of the issue. Divine Revelation that Catholics have believed is in error? God’s tranmission of the truth is faulty? or is our receiving?

So we would appreciate a straightforward answer:

Which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Let’s put it more baldly: what is true?:

• infallible propositions can be changed by subsequent generations
• the pope and current church leadership are heretics
• your analysis is wrong.
  So which is it?

By the way, I don’t care which of these is true, but one of them must be true as this is a MECE list. So which one is it, in your view?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

See this article: actionbioscience.org/evolution/meade_callahan.html

Look under the heading: Mechanisms of spread of antibiotic resistance. Note the phrase “naturally resistant.” Bacteria can mutate but this is a built-in ability.

Ed, no-one denies that lateral gene transfer is a powerful mechanism for spreading bacterial resistance throughout a bacterial population, once the alleles for that resistance exist. But you are deeply wrong to suggest that mutations do not generate resistance to novel antibacterial factors or allow bacteria to digest novel substrates in the first place. The importance of mutation in creating genes that provide bacterial resistance in bacterial populations that originally do NOT HAVE that resistance has been known for several decades - it is an accepted fact and it’s simply no more a matter for debate than the fact that bodies are gravitationally attracted or that opposite charges attract. It’s a fact, proven many times, that you have to live with.I can post many many supporting references and if you force me to do so, I will, but it will embarrass you. Shall I embarrass you?

You have been clearly corrected now. If you continue to claim that horizontal gene transfer will provide antibiotic resistance in a monoculture that does not originally have that resistant gene then you are showing wilful ignorance.

Alec
evolutionpages

 

[hecd2]

This is exactly the crux of the issue. Divine Revelation that Catholics have believed is in error? God’s tranmission of the truth is faulty? or is our receiving?

So we would appreciate a straightforward answer:

Which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Let’s put it more baldly: what is true?:

• infallible propositions can be changed by subsequent generations
• the pope and current church leadership are heretics
• your analysis is wrong.
  So which is it?

By the way, I don’t care which of these is true, but one of them must be true as this is a MECE list. So which one is it, in your view?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

[Reposting to get the attributions right - I must be more careful in future]

 

[PhilVaz]

hecd << the pope and current church leadership are heretics >>

Some go with this one. They are called sedevacantists. Gerry Matatics is one, Mel Gibson’s father Hutton is another. I got his booklet “Is the Pope Catholic?” from Ebay. It is nutty. :whacky:

I say Buffalo (via Fr. Brian Harrison) analysis is wrong. A miracle is a miracle, if Eve came from the side of Adam literally, we have no way of knowing that from science. It is no more a problem to me than is the Virgin Birth or other miracles. Buffalo has been posting a link to that article since 2004 in here.

Since then I have created my own article on Catholic dogma on creation.

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

I’m a bit surprised to have been shown that regardless of what the facts say, the evolutionary interpretation must take precedence over them. I didn’t think I would be seeing this personally but here it is. Now I will be better able to look at scientific findings without the evolutionary interpretation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

I’m a bit surprised to have been shown that regardless of what the facts say, the evolutionary interpretation must take precedence over them. I didn’t think I would be seeing this personally but here it is. Now I will be better able to look at scientific findings without the evolutionary interpretation.

Ed,

There is no interpretation required. The **fact **is that monocultures of bacteria that do not contain the allele for a particular antibiotic, or that are unable to digest a particular substrate, have been shown many times to develop that resistance or that ability to digest that substrate, by random mutations, which then spread by natural selection and horizontal gene transfer.

That is the plain **fact **that you have been denying over and over again on this thread. Your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong about this fact, which stands counter to your prejudice, is noted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Ashcraft%20article.htm

 

[buffalo]

So we would appreciate a straightforward answer:

Which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Let’s put it more baldly: what is true?:

• infallible propositions can be changed by subsequent generations
• the pope and current church leadership are heretics
• your analysis is wrong.
  So which is it?

By the way, I don’t care which of these is true, but one of them must be true as this is a MECE list. So which one is it, in your view?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

[Reposting to get the attributions right - I must be more careful in future]

Infallible propositions can be changes therefore they are not really infallible.

Divinely revealed truth cannot be false.

Therefore a good Catholic will always test any science against divinely revealed truth for they must both be true to be valid. We know revealed truth is free from error, so guess what, science must be scrutenized thorugh correct reasoning.

 

[buffalo]

hecd << the pope and current church leadership are heretics >>

Some go with this one. They are called sedevacantists. Gerry Matatics is one, Mel Gibson’s father Hutton is another. I got his booklet “Is the Pope Catholic?” from Ebay. It is nutty. :whacky:

I say Buffalo (via Fr. Brian Harrison) analysis is wrong. A miracle is a miracle, if Eve came from the side of Adam literally, we have no way of knowing that from science. It is no more a problem to me than is the Virgin Birth or other miracles. Buffalo has been posting a link to that article since 2004 in here.

Since then I have created my own article on Catholic dogma on creation.

Phil P

So when did the church change its position?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ed,

There is no interpretation required. The **fact **is that monocultures of bacteria that do not contain the allele for a particular antibiotic, or that are unable to digest a particular substrate, have been shown many times to develop that resistance or that ability to digest that substrate, by random mutations, which then spread by natural selection and horizontal gene transfer.

That is the plain **fact **that you have been denying over and over again on this thread. Your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong about this fact, which stands counter to your prejudice, is noted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Ashcraft%20article.htm

Unfortunately there is nothing you can say that will change Ed’s mind. Ed needs to believe what he believes, and he will not be dissuaded. That is the only question Ed should address…Should he ever do so, he will understand all.

 

[hecd2]

Infallible propositions can be changes therefore they are not really infallible.

Divinely revealed truth cannot be false.

Therefore a good Catholic will always test any science against divinely revealed truth for they must both be true to be valid. We know revealed truth is free from error, so guess what, science must be scrutenized thorugh correct reasoning.

Your unwillingness or inability to answer a very plain question is noted. It is not a question about science, or a Catholic’s attitude to science, but what Catholics must believe. Since it is quite straightforward, I will repeat it:

Since the Church does NOT teach today that Catholics must believe literally and historically that Eve was created from the side of the sleeping adult Adam, which of these statements is true?:

• infallible propositions can be changed by subsequent generations
• the pope and current church leadership are heretics
• your analysis that the proposition was made infallibly is wrong.
  So which is it?

By the way, I don’t care which of these is true, but one of them must be true as this is a MECE (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) list. So which one is it, in your view? (If you stick by your analysis then the only logical conclusion for you is the second option.)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[melbourne_guy]

Ed, creationists typically construct three different meanings of evolution, with only one of which they disagree. The disputed issue over antibacterial resistance comes from a misconception that organisms evolve new structures in response to environmental change. Instead, it is more accurate to think of the variation already existing in the population, so that when the environment changes it selects for organisms at one end of the variation spectrum. This is evolution, and it takes millions of years. But of course, your a priori extra-scientific assumption of the short timeline in the Genesis cosmogonic myth, which you impose on science, precludes your reading genotypical and phenotypical change in light of the millions of years of geological time.

Hey drp, i would just like to congratulate you on your effort dispell the creationism myth. Creationists are making all of christianity look like a stupid stubborn child. I thank god for catholic scientists like you who show the athiests that there are resonable and rational people who believe in a god. Keep up the goodwork!

creationists, are you a bunch of robots?
If you honestly believe in a young earth then i believe you are.
Even if God came to me right now and said “hey pete the earth was created in 6000 years, just thought id let you know”
I still wouldnt promote a young earth! because even if it were true, without evidence its still an embarrassing claim.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

Hey drp, i would just like to congratulate you on your effort dispell the creationism myth. Creationists are making all of christianity look like a stupid stubborn child. I thank god for catholic scientists like you who show the athiests that there are resonable and rational people who believe in a deity. Keep up the goodwork!

creationists, are you a bunch of robots?
If you honestly believe in a young earth then i believe you are.
Even if God came to me right now and said “hey pete the earth was created in 6000 years, just thought id let you know”
I still wouldnt promote a young earth! because even if it were true, without evidence its still an embarrassing claim.

Agreed. I (strongly) oppose creationism yet am in favor of the doctrine of Creation. There is apparently a damning difference between the two. Creationism is terribly anti science, a mockery of theological opinion and makes Christianity seem a hopeless joke whereas Creation is simply the doctrine that an External Unmoved Being has/is capable of creating the Universe that we see today.

By the way, this topic should be stickied because these questions are starting to become redundant and painful to see again and AGAIN! Any takers?

 

[wildleafblower]

What I was trying to say was that science was one more way to understand Creation

Hello Steve,

You’ve beautifully encapsulated in a simple yet profound sentence the totality of life in the evolution of the Universe starting off with the Big Bang then as is today what Pope John Paul II expressed 'God is beside me’ in my spiritual life journey.

I watched a great flick on DVD recently that may interest you and others, POPE JOHN PAUL II, ‘based on the powerful true story’ of his life. “Shot on location in Rome and Poland with the cooperation of the Vatican, this moving film takes an intimate look at the man who touched millions and changed the face of the Church and the world". I was fortunate to have seen him years ago. Of course, we know Pope John Paul II believed that science was truth!

I’ll return to the remainder of your comments later. Wild? me? I’m reminded by what a priest mentioned time and time again, look for the the extraordinary within the ordinary.

 

[buffalo]

Hey drp, i would just like to congratulate you on your effort dispell the creationism myth. Creationists are making all of christianity look like a stupid stubborn child. I thank god for catholic scientists like you who show the athiests that there are resonable and rational people who believe in a god. Keep up the goodwork!

creationists, are you a bunch of robots?
If you honestly believe in a young earth then i believe you are.
Even if God came to me right now and said “hey pete the earth was created in 6000 years, just thought id let you know”
I still wouldnt promote a young earth! because even if it were true, without evidence its still an embarrassing claim.

If we weren’t given free will we all would be robots.

 

[edwest2]

To my fellow Catholics:

You need to understand the relentless commentary here that is pro-Evolution is not designed to promote science but to remove God from His creation. Embarrassment is a non-issue, but the truth is important. As Pope Benedict recently stated, Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I encourage you to not be more concerned about Evolution than Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church.

Evolution is not more important than Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

To my fellow Catholics:

You need to understand the relentless commentary here that is pro-Evolution is not designed to promote science but to remove God from His creation.As Pope Benedict recently stated, Evolution cannot be scientifically proven.

Ed, two points:
(1) The scientific theory of evolution is an explanatory framework to account for species diversity, NOT a philosophy. Methodologically it does not include God any more than does plate tectonics (I presume you don’t assume that it is God’s index finger that is pushing the North American plate along the edge of the Pacific plate). True, “evangelical atheists” like Richard Dawkins illegitimately insinuate their atheistic philosophy into the conversation, but atheism is no more a requisite presupposition for using the evolutionary explanation than is theism, or deism, or agnosticism.

(2) Science does not try to prove anything. Rather, methdolgoical doubt proceeds by attempting to disprove or falsify hypotheses. (Pope Benedict could truthfully say that “gravity cannot be scientifically proven,” but that would hold no more relevance for physicists than the statement “evolution cannot be proven” holds for biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc.) If anything, challenges to aspects of the current evolutionary theory have been consistently disproven over the last century, including Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics and Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” hypothesis.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To my fellow Catholics:

You need to understand the relentless commentary here that is pro-Evolution is not designed to promote science but to remove God from His creation. Embarrassment is a non-issue, but the truth is important. As Pope Benedict recently stated, Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I encourage you to not be more concerned about Evolution than Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church.

Evolution is not more important than Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Ed

Sadly Ed, I really believe you know that this is not true. You know we have no desire to remove God from creation. We seek to keep Catholicism if not Christianity from looking rediculous in the eyes of the world. God is Not removed from creation. We all believe sincerely that God is the Creator, we just don;t idolize a book’s version.

And I know you know better about Pope Benedict. He is on record, and I’ve given you the site, with his acceptance of science as a better source of scientific history than the bible.That follows JPII and Pius XII, who both publically stated that evolution was not in opposition to church teaching.

No theory is ever “proven” and I think you know that also. That has virtually nothing to do with anything. Look up the NAS 1999 address on Science and Creation.

If you need to believe otherwise Ed, so be it, but at least be intellectually honest here where we known what you’ve been given as evidence. Don’t pretend you didnt.