Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Pope Benedict is a very smart man, and sees the issues, including the false ones, quite clearly. I agree with the way he is handling things:

cardinalschonborn.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

And I will continue to listen to the Church and only the Church on this matter.

I will continue my studies of chemistry and electronics. I have enjoyed studying non-ideological science since I was a boy.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think Pope Benedict is a very smart man, and sees the issues, including the false ones, quite clearly. I agree with the way he is handling things:

cardinalschonborn.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

And I will continue to listen to the Church and only the Church on this matter.

I will continue my studies of chemistry and electronics. I have enjoyed studying non-ideological science since I was a boy.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Wonderful to hear that Ed…congrats…I knew if you read “In the Beginning…” you would realize your error…Welcome back to sanity…👍 :extrahappy:
 
edwest2 said:
I think Pope Benedict is a very smart man, and sees the issues, including the false ones, quite clearly. I agree with the way he is handling things:

cardinalschonborn.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

And I will continue to listen to the Church and only the Church on this matter.

I will continue my studies of chemistry and electronics. I have enjoyed studying non-ideological science since I was a boy.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Thanks for that edifying quote Ed. Wow! I am listening to the Pope’s book on CD these days. Notice how in one chapter, he takes the advice of historical critical evaluations and displays their shifting sands with their obvious limitations and yet does not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

After hearing the ungracious harsh criticism of our brother Hovind, I thought that sealed the nail on the coffin of open hearted dialogue and Loving seeking of the Truth with one another, but your words and link to the Church’s actions leave me with hope that not all our Catholic brethren would dismiss St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Cyril and host of other trusted early church fathers so openly, while proclaiming communion with all our saints and the body of Christ.

I’ll admit easily that I don’t know all the answers, but if a man with a “mill” degree can defeat 3 top college professors so easily in an evolutionary friendly aerospace university, there must be something much stronger in his message than his humble status.

humbly and lovingly,
D.A.
 
LoveofGod said:
I’ll admit easily that I don’t know all the answers, but if a man with a “mill” degree can defeat 3 top college professors so easily in an evolutionary friendly aerospace university, there must be something much stronger in his message than his humble status. humbly and lovingly, D.A.
Click to expand...
Fighting creationism is like wrestling a hologram: you defeat it effortlessly every time, and yet the thing is still there!
 
Love << I’ll admit easily that I don’t know all the answers, but if a man with a “mill” degree can defeat 3 top college professors so easily >>

Oh Hovind “wins” his debates by getting every bit of science wrong, and the audience doesn’t know the difference. You actually think Hovind is credible after reading the sites provided below? Ungracious harsh criticism? Open hearted dialogue and loving seeking of the truth? Hello? There’s nothing to discuss as the guy is a nut and we should all feel sorry for him and his family.

Now if you’d like to bring up one good argument he makes that doesn’t completely get the science wrong, I’d like to hear it. I’ve watched several of his debates and videos in the past.

Analysis of Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind FAQ
Wikipedia on Kent Hovind

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
The definition we find in the Catechism and a source like Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is:
  1. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De Fide)

Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent communis)

Original Sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De Fide)

In the state of Original Sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De Fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatis, Denz 788ff)

Other De Fide teachings are the following:

– God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
– The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
– The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
– God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
– God has created a good world. (De Fide)
– The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
– God alone created the world. (De Fide)
– God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
– God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
– The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
– Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
– Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
– Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
– The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
– Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
– Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
– Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

That’s what I affirm, but I admit all of this is difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary view without radical re-interpretation. According to Haught, there were no “our first parents.”

Phil P
Click to expand...
Oddly, I fail to see how most of the listed dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. Then again, some of that seems to hinge on whether humanity can see in its origins two first parents, but even if that view were reconsidered (Two first actors within a group of theretofore non-spirited humans? Adam and Eve themselves representing choices the group made against God’s commandment?), the difficulties seem minimal at best to me.

I understand the worry of not wanting to ‘redefine’ things in the manner of Spong. But I also don’t see a modern scientific understanding of Genesis as requiring a major change to our views, so much as filling in blanks that simply were not provided in the bible and didn’t need to be. As another has said, taken in a scientific light, I see Genesis as being downright amazing in what it was describing.
 
Nulla << Oddly, I fail to see how most of the listed dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. >>

Perhaps I was exaggerating since I was tired, but to be specific, some of the difficulties are:

– God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide) → Requires fitting in God’s guidance with Darwin’s natural selection, chance and randomness – not too difficult I’ve seen this attempted.

– The first man was created by God. (De Fide) → Requires a change to “created by God and evolution” – not too difficult I’ll agree.

– Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide) → Seems to require Adam/Eve as “our first parents” and how does this sanctifying grace fit, and how did they lose it in an evolutionary context?

– The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide) → Another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve) and how does this divine gift of bodily immortality fit in an evolutionary context? How did they lose it?

– Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide) → Another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve), the rest can be seen as some divine command that was disobeyed somehow, I don’t take the fruit or apple or “talking snake” or “God walking in the Garden” literally

– Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide) → Yet another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve)

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
Perhaps I was exaggerating since I was tired, but to be specific, some of the difficulties are:
Click to expand...
It’s probably just terminology. I don’t see much difficulty presented even in what you highlight - something we may not be completely informed about or may have to look at with a new perspective, sure. I think we’re in agreement, word choice aside. Oh, and…
– The first man was created by God. (De Fide) → Requires a change to “created by God and evolution” – not too difficult I’ll agree.
Click to expand...
Picky point, but: I’m not sure I’d even go that far, on this one. God AND evolution? Whatever processes may have been involved in man’s origin, it was the result of intention on God’s part. God may have used evolution, just as God may have used RNA-world abiogenesis, but those are tools. “The first man was created by God” strikes me as standing regardless of origin process. Whether it was the most literal-YEC “molding out of clay” view or an evolutionary view, both involve a process with God acting as creative agent.
 
Nulla << Whatever processes may have been involved in man’s origin, it was the result of intention on God’s part. >>

Well as Ken Miller writes in the introduction to Finding Darwin’s God:

Who made us? God made us.
a few pages later…
Who made us? Evolution made us.

But I see your point. How about changing “created” to “The first man was evolved by God.” :confused:

Phil P
 
Ha, it’s a minor point to be picky on, so I won’t pursue it further - just wanted to chime in as yet another Catholic who’s largely friendly to evolution.
 
edwest2 said:
Why are you friendly toward evolution? According to them, here are your relatives:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1935558.stm

All one needs is millions of years, and “poof” man. The Church is against the idea of polygenism (Humani Generis).

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, that is not necessarily true.
From bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
Now, you can claim that that paper doesn’t carry much weight because it was written while he was a Cardinal and not Pope, or that he was mistaken or that he is a heretic for writing that, but keep in mind that he DID approve it and he HASN’T retracted it since he became Pope.

So, it looks to me that you are completely at odds with the Pope on this one.

Peace

Tim
 
edwest2 said:
You didn’t read the link I provided?

Sure, apparently you refuse to read Benedict himself. And you said you trusted him in this matter. …Soooo…are you gonna follow him or not?
PhilVaz;2890281:
Nulla << Oddly, I fail to see how most of the listed dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. >>

Perhaps I was exaggerating since I was tired, but to be specific, some of the difficulties are:

– God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide) → Requires fitting in God’s guidance with Darwin’s natural selection, chance and randomness – not too difficult I’ve seen this attempted.

– The first man was created by God. (De Fide) → Requires a change to “created by God and evolution” – not too difficult I’ll agree.

– Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide) → Seems to require Adam/Eve as “our first parents” and how does this sanctifying grace fit, and how did they lose it in an evolutionary context?

– The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide) → Another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve) and how does this divine gift of bodily immortality fit in an evolutionary context? How did they lose it?

– Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide) → Another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve), the rest can be seen as some divine command that was disobeyed somehow, I don’t take the fruit or apple or “talking snake” or “God walking in the Garden” literally

– Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide) → Yet another reference to “our first parents” (Adam/Eve)

Phil P
Click to expand...
If its all so obvious to you, why do you think that all the modern popes have spoken in favor of evolution as a model ? I am really tired of this disengenuous display. You simply refuse to follow the Church on this issue, siting continuously to pre-vatican statements to further your personal agenda to turn the Church backward. You do the Church and all catholics a great disservice.
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
Why are you friendly toward evolution? According to them, here are your relatives:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1935558.stm

All one needs is millions of years, and “poof” man. The Church is against the idea of polygenism (Humani Generis).

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis, signaled acceptance of the basic principles of evolutionary theory.
““The church does not forbid that…… research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from preexistent and living matter,”” Pius wrote.

You can continue to promote falsehoods Ed, and I will continue to cite the Popes who have DIRECTLY SPOKEN.

your continuing refusal either to read or admit what Benedict said in “In the beginning…” as well as JPII’s various statements including “Theology of the Body” on this issue means only that this is some personal need on your part. You are in agreement with Baptists, not our Church.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis, signaled acceptance of the basic principles of evolutionary theory.
““The church does not forbid that…… research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from preexistent and living matter,”” Pius wrote.

You can continue to promote falsehoods Ed, and I will continue to cite the Popes who have DIRECTLY SPOKEN.

your continuing refusal either to read or admit what Benedict said in “In the beginning…” as well as JPII’s various statements including “Theology of the Body” on this issue means only that this is some personal need on your part. You are in agreement with Baptists, not our Church.
Click to expand...
Please clarify. Do you believe that the Church’s position is that evolution is a fact and that those who wish to believe that creation was instantaneous are going against Church teachings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top