B
buffalo
Guest
That God did it is Catholic teaching. No one here is debating that.
The question we have been debating is how.
- Status
The question we have been debating is how.
E
edwest2
Guest
The how aspect is part of an ongoing campaign to diminish and then eliminate established Church teaching and the divine work of the Holy Spirit. To set Scripture outside of its appropriate context and established interpretation is only looking at part of the how. In mantra-like fashion, supporters of a particular ideology have separated the Bible and Revelation from apropriate inclusion in scientific discussions that fall outside of the realm of pure investigation and research.
This is the primary issue I have with scientific interpretations. They run forward, propelled primarily by an ideology that excludes God, comments to the contrary notwithstanding. The Church cannot and does not exclude God from this subject. And even from the standpoint of pure scientific research, there is still the question of the first cause. Science is unwilling since the ideological faction is too committed to promoting a godless worldview. I would like to remind everyone here that great scientists of the past had no problem identifying God in their work. It is only in relatively recent time that such discussion has been prohibited.
God bless,
Ed
This is the primary issue I have with scientific interpretations. They run forward, propelled primarily by an ideology that excludes God, comments to the contrary notwithstanding. The Church cannot and does not exclude God from this subject. And even from the standpoint of pure scientific research, there is still the question of the first cause. Science is unwilling since the ideological faction is too committed to promoting a godless worldview. I would like to remind everyone here that great scientists of the past had no problem identifying God in their work. It is only in relatively recent time that such discussion has been prohibited.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
You are correct. Prior Popes have warned about liberalism and modernism. That is why faith and reason cannot be opposed and it is correct to challenge the interpretation of science (reason). They must harmonize.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Ed did you even read this? I did. I certainly doesnt support your position and is pretty exactly what most folks have been saying here.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I was unclear. I was not alluding to Ed being God, only to his idolization of a book as mediator, limiting his opportunity to experience God more fully. It’s my contention that fundamentalists who almost always only like one translation, are idol worshipers, or pharisee’s…both apply quite well.HummI’m sure Ed doesn’t think he is God. I don’t agree with his point of view but I sure wouldn’t deny him the right to express himself. He is a human being just like the rest of us. He isn’t crippled, only in need of being nudged toward the right path.
We’ve been down this road before with Ed.
E
edwest2
Guest
Adam and Eve were two actual people. “Evolution does not deal with individuals, only populations.” Do you see the difference?
The Church teaches that because these, our parents, sinned, the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ was made necessary. This is the corner stone.
God bless,
Ed
W
wildleafblower
Guest
A translation of ‘what’? You didn’t specify.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
That’s it Ed. Close your eyes, plug your ears, believe what YOU want. For you, realizing the obvious is excluding God. Why is that?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I was unclear. I was not alluding to Ed being God, only to his idolization of a book as mediator, limiting his opportunity to experience God more fully. It’s my contention that fundamentalists who almost always only like one translation, are idol worshipers, or pharisee’s…both apply quite well.
wildleafblower;2792165:
SpiritMeadow, Ed wasn’t idolizing a book as you mentioned. Ed was discussing an article link for Pope Benedict’s statement.Humm
SpiritMeadow;2792001:
E
edwest2
Guest
D
drpmjhess
Guest
No. “ădāmah” is the Hebrew word for “earth” or ground." “Adam” is not a proper name but the generic term for humanity; hence the lovely play on words. “Eve” or “Chava” means life or living being – again, a delightful use of language in this wonderful creation myth.
(PS – the common anti-homosexual sneer “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” misses this linguistic point entirely.)
Petrus
E
edwest2
Guest
Then why was Jesus Christ born?
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
F
freesoulhope
Guest
What your talking about, Sounds alot like “animism” to me.
I think God did guide the natural world, but through random variations-/mutations and the eviromentally-determining factors of the natural enviroment in which any given organism may exist; rather then divine intervention.
Don’t you think that this is possible for God?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No, though I believe the DNA work being done now, suggests that through mitocondrial DNA, there is a genetic “Eve”. The account is rich in wonderful meditations though
E
edwest2
Guest
As A Catholic, I am obliged to consider a literal Adam and Eve.
geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/evolution.html
Science, though valuable, is not the repository of all truth. Divine revelation, and the purpose of the life, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ clearly adds the other necessary parts to the information science provides.
Science, used only as a study of life as a mechanism, cannot grasp this totality and as an explanation for human life, is biased toward mechanistic causes. As a biological mechanisn, man extrapolates an explanation that fulfills this bias. As organic devices, or so the explanation goes, man has no more relevant existance than a plant or animal. Whatever abilities he possesses are simply the result of his genetic programming. This sort of extrapolation degrades the dignity of the human person and reduces him to an ambulatory robot valued only for its temporary utility. I am against separating man from the living God who loves him and cares for him.
God bless,
Ed
geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/evolution.html
Science, though valuable, is not the repository of all truth. Divine revelation, and the purpose of the life, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ clearly adds the other necessary parts to the information science provides.
Science, used only as a study of life as a mechanism, cannot grasp this totality and as an explanation for human life, is biased toward mechanistic causes. As a biological mechanisn, man extrapolates an explanation that fulfills this bias. As organic devices, or so the explanation goes, man has no more relevant existance than a plant or animal. Whatever abilities he possesses are simply the result of his genetic programming. This sort of extrapolation degrades the dignity of the human person and reduces him to an ambulatory robot valued only for its temporary utility. I am against separating man from the living God who loves him and cares for him.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Yes, freesoulhope – this sounds quite reasonable to me, although I am curious as to how you distinguish between “guiding” and “divine intervention.”
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
As a Catholic, I am obliged to follow my conscience in accepting the world view that now makes sense, and interpreting my theology in light of this on-going cultural conversation. I have abandoned the flat earth, the geocentric cosmos, the young earth; I have abandoned vitalism and mechanicism and spontaneous generation. I have accepted the findings of modern physics and cosmology, biochemistry and neuroscience, geology and evolutionary biology. My Catholic faith is all the stronger for it!
Petrus
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Well, I don’t agree with you because of the following reasons which I will present in two parts:
Part I
Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE (1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003. His article THE FACTS OF LIFE begins on page 71 of this pfd:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...en/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf
Here are two excerpts from his article :
Pg. 75: *In recent years, opposition to the notion of a natural origin of life has been voiced by a very small but vocal minority of scientifically trained persons who, while subscribing to the notion of a LUCA appearing de novo on Earth and evolving into present-day living organisms, claim that these phenomena could not possibly have taken place by purely natural processes, but required the intervention of some nonmaterial guiding entity that forced the raw materials of life to interact so as to produce the first living cells and also, as will be mentioned later, directed the further course of evolution (Behe, 1996; Dembski, 1998; Denton, 1998). Known under the name of ‘intelligent design’, this theory, which is close to vitalism, has been magnified much beyond its merits because of its alleged philosophical and theological implications . I shall come back to it when discussing evolution. Let me simply state now that serious flaws have been detected in the scientific arguments brought forward in its support. . . *(pls. read on.)
Pg. 76: 5. *The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms. *]###
And please let’s not forget that Alec (Hecd2) has stated in the past, “The Theory of Evolution is the proposed mechanism for the fact of evolution.”
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Part II
The Pope’s Astrophysicist, MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) by Margaret Wertheim, Wired Magazine, Issue 10, December 12, 2002
*[snip]
In 1891, long after the Church had accepted the heliocentric universe, Pope Leo XIII officially founded the Observatory so that “everyone might see clearly that the Church and her Pastors are not opposed to true and solid science.”
[snip]
Coyne a courtier who haunts its inner sanctum. Ironically, though, it’s science that got him here. As a Jesuit novitiate from Baltimore, his life consisted mostly of prayer and study. He pursued astronomy and theology with equal vigor, earning a PhD from Georgetown in 1962 and a priest’s collar in 1965. In 1978, he became the director of the Vatican Observatory. Today, he also serves informally as science adviser to the Pope.
Our party is ushered into a room to await His Holiness. He enters accompanied by a burst of song - young priests chanting hosannas. Our conference has been wrestling with evolution, both biological and cosmological. And so has he, John Paul tells us. “The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man.” Though “Revelations teaches us that man was created in the image and likeness of God,” says the Pope, “new knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” It’s good to hear, but hardly breaking news. The Catholic Church has long accepted an evolutionary worldview, complete with descent from apes and a big bang beginning. John Paul in particular has championed science and lent his personal support to “Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action,” a decade-long program of which our conference is a part.
As the Pope finishes speaking, Coyne approaches the dais. Their lives have followed similar paths: Both were rigorously schooled in theology and philosophy, both speak multiple languages, and both hail from humble backgrounds. But what a difference a throne makes — without hesitation, Father Coyne drops to his knees to kiss his superior’s ring. As a Jesuit, he is bound by absolute obedience to the Pontiff. Symbolic, ritualized, and utterly expected by a priest, it’s an act of self-abnegation that seems shockingly out of place in a scientist. In this gesture lurks a fundamental tension: How can Coyne live both in the hierarchical world of the Catholic Church and the egalitarian world of science, where there is no higher authority?
[snip]
Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.
Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?
Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. "God is love."
What’s missing in “this privileging of the cognitive over the empathetic,” as Coyne puts it, is the concept of faith. The crux of the problem is that belief in God requires a leap outside anything science can describe or prove. Coyne insists that this leap does not happen on its own and does not sustain itself. For him at least, it must be continually rekindled: “I thank God constantly that He chose me. But it is not a rock of ages. It’s something I have to renew every day.”
What Coyne calls “the gift of faith” troubled his old friend Carl Sagan, who once asked him, “George, how come God chose you and not me?” If God is so generous, Sagan wondered, then why has He not extended this gift to us all? Coyne’s answer: He has. “God chooses everyone sooner or later,” he told Sagan, “but not everyone realizes it.” Then, with the solicitude that only a true believer could show toward an avowed atheist, Coyne finished his thought. “I hope, Carl,” he said, “that when God chooses you, you will recognize it.”*
wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html
www.wired.com
Love ya Father Coyne
Take care I’m praying that your health will improve. Sending you oodles of love 
The Pope’s Astrophysicist, MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) by Margaret Wertheim, Wired Magazine, Issue 10, December 12, 2002
*[snip]
In 1891, long after the Church had accepted the heliocentric universe, Pope Leo XIII officially founded the Observatory so that “everyone might see clearly that the Church and her Pastors are not opposed to true and solid science.”
[snip]
Coyne a courtier who haunts its inner sanctum. Ironically, though, it’s science that got him here. As a Jesuit novitiate from Baltimore, his life consisted mostly of prayer and study. He pursued astronomy and theology with equal vigor, earning a PhD from Georgetown in 1962 and a priest’s collar in 1965. In 1978, he became the director of the Vatican Observatory. Today, he also serves informally as science adviser to the Pope.
Our party is ushered into a room to await His Holiness. He enters accompanied by a burst of song - young priests chanting hosannas. Our conference has been wrestling with evolution, both biological and cosmological. And so has he, John Paul tells us. “The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man.” Though “Revelations teaches us that man was created in the image and likeness of God,” says the Pope, “new knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” It’s good to hear, but hardly breaking news. The Catholic Church has long accepted an evolutionary worldview, complete with descent from apes and a big bang beginning. John Paul in particular has championed science and lent his personal support to “Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action,” a decade-long program of which our conference is a part.
As the Pope finishes speaking, Coyne approaches the dais. Their lives have followed similar paths: Both were rigorously schooled in theology and philosophy, both speak multiple languages, and both hail from humble backgrounds. But what a difference a throne makes — without hesitation, Father Coyne drops to his knees to kiss his superior’s ring. As a Jesuit, he is bound by absolute obedience to the Pontiff. Symbolic, ritualized, and utterly expected by a priest, it’s an act of self-abnegation that seems shockingly out of place in a scientist. In this gesture lurks a fundamental tension: How can Coyne live both in the hierarchical world of the Catholic Church and the egalitarian world of science, where there is no higher authority?
[snip]
Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.
Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?
Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. "God is love."
What’s missing in “this privileging of the cognitive over the empathetic,” as Coyne puts it, is the concept of faith. The crux of the problem is that belief in God requires a leap outside anything science can describe or prove. Coyne insists that this leap does not happen on its own and does not sustain itself. For him at least, it must be continually rekindled: “I thank God constantly that He chose me. But it is not a rock of ages. It’s something I have to renew every day.”
What Coyne calls “the gift of faith” troubled his old friend Carl Sagan, who once asked him, “George, how come God chose you and not me?” If God is so generous, Sagan wondered, then why has He not extended this gift to us all? Coyne’s answer: He has. “God chooses everyone sooner or later,” he told Sagan, “but not everyone realizes it.” Then, with the solicitude that only a true believer could show toward an avowed atheist, Coyne finished his thought. “I hope, Carl,” he said, “that when God chooses you, you will recognize it.”*
wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html
The Pope's Astrophysicist
MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) We have come to meet the Pope. It’s tourist season, and the Sistine Chapel is punishingly full. Visitors from around the world crowd together, ogling Michelangelo’s ceiling. At the back of...
Love ya Father Coyne
Take care I’m praying that your health will improve. Sending you oodles of love - Status