Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

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

I would more readily recognize my moral kinship with these primate relatives than with stubborn, willfully ignorant young earth creationists who ignore their church and the scientific evidence, and who persist in misleading our children.

Petrus sum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

Read the documents, many of which have been printed in part here, most of which can be located on my blog under Church Documents. The popes are saying quite emphatically that they agree with the basic premise of evolution. I doubt anyone is committing heresy by personally believing otherwise, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to so state and NOT try to promote their own fundamentalist belief as Church doctrine. That is dishonest, immoral, and damaging to my Church.

 

[drpmjhess]

I doubt anyone is committing heresy by personally believing otherwise, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to so state and NOT try to promote their own fundamentalist belief as Church doctrine. That is dishonest, immoral, and damaging to my Church.

Nicely put, SpiritMeadow!

Petrus

 

[PhilVaz]

SpiritMeadow << 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. >>

Hey I’m basically on your side. I think you saw EdWest posting above, but it was actually PhilVaz, the pro-evolution guy in here.

Ludwig Ott I wouldn’t call out of date just yet. What about Denzinger, you got problems with Denzinger too?

And now, #1, The Larch. The. Larch. The Larch…or rather…Denzinger.

http://www.fromthehousetops.com/catalog/images/Denzinger.jpg

The Larch.

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

Ludwig Ott I wouldn’t call out of date just yet. What about Denzinger, you got problems with Denzinger too?

And now, #1, The Larch. The. Larch. The Larch…or rather…Denzinger.

The Larch.

Phil P

Interesting. I’ll examine these a bit closely:

– 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?

“First parents” seems a bit more inclusive than “Adam and Eve” alone. Perhaps the “first parents” were not one particular couple?

– 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?

A bit more tricky. I think the concept of bodily immortality need not be taken literally here. Another possibility: the gift of bodily immortality was, from the start, a gift that would have been given *after *death: that is, physical death was God’s plan for humans, from beginning. What God did not plan was spiritual death.

One possible scenario: originally, God planned for humans, immediately after death, to live forever in physical bodies. But the human Fall created a “spiritual-death” situation, in which we would not immediately enter into our eternal physical bodies, but we would enter into them, after the Judgment.

– 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

Why not take “God walking in the Garden” literally? Especially if “God” is actually “God the Son”? (Which is the ancient Eastern Orthodox perspective.)

– 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)

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

 

[Nullasalus]

Why are you friendly toward evolution? According to them, here are your relatives

Nope. According to certain (typically atheist) darwinists, there are my relatives. And what does that mean anyway? At some point, long in the past, a human was formed from a lower animal? From a strict literal reading of Genesis, I believe, human was formed from clay. Mud versus ape. What I came from in the past does not matter to me - what matters is what I (and all other humans) am now, thanks to the work of God. Whether that work came in the form of clay-forming, ex-nihilo creation, or evolution, my pride is of little concern in the matter. I’m grateful no matter how it went down.

That said, I try to respect the beliefs of those who disagree. I wouldn’t call them stupid or any such nonsense. But, I don’t believe evolution is a threat to orthodox Catholic teaching whatsoever.

 

[cyberjacques]

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).

According to the Bible, we’re made of dirt. Which do you find more insulting, that you come from dirt or monkeys?

The message of Genesis is that we’re made up of the same stuff as everything else in this universe. Our bodies are miraculous creations, however God accomplished it, but so is every other life form in the world. Our bodies are really nothing special compared to some other creatures. It’s our souls that makes us special. Our bodies and brains are well suited to allow us to do the things God wants us to do. But they are created in a manner not too different from any other mammal. Our souls are created in the image and likeness of God. Our bodies are mortal. Our souls are immortal. The discussion of how our bodies came to be what they are is an interesting one, but how God did it isn’t as important as the fact that He did.

God is an eternal being. Time is not an issue for Him. So what’s a few billion years to get the universe up and running, and to have life develop on this little blue world? Why is it unreasonable to believe that God guided that process every step of the way to create us the way we are? Even the Bible describes a process, and it’s not all that different from the scientific version.

 

[adrift]

Read the documents, many of which have been printed in part here, most of which can be located on my blog under Church Documents. The popes are saying quite emphatically that they agree with the basic premise of evolution. I doubt anyone is committing heresy by personally believing otherwise, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to so state and NOT try to promote their own fundamentalist belief as Church doctrine. That is dishonest, immoral, and damaging to my Church.

This does not answer my question. Do you believe that evolution is the doctrine of the Church?

 

[adrift]

BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation.

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

“The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” the pope said…
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

 

[Orogeny]

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

And scientists would agree with him that evolution cannot be proven any more than germ theory can be proven.

Peace

Tim

 

[adrift]

Ed, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, that is not necessarily true.
From bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
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

Are you saying that polygenism according to Cardinal Ratzinger is true?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow << 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. >>

Hey I’m basically on your side. I think you saw EdWest posting above, but it was actually PhilVaz, the pro-evolution guy in here.

**Bowing most humbly…Indeed I did screw up my stack of posts. These cascades get a bit cumbersome at times. My apologies. **

Ludwig Ott I wouldn’t call out of date just yet. What about Denzinger, you got problems with Denzinger too?

And now, #1, The Larch. The. Larch. The Larch…or rather…Denzinger.

http://www.fromthehousetops.com/catalog/images/Denzinger.jpg

The Larch.

Phil P

I’m not familiar with Denzinger. Please tell me more!

 

[edwest2]

SpiritMeadow,

To whom do you pray? Do you believe God answers your prayers? Do you know that the Church makes people saints on the basis of at least two miracles; real occurrences that are outside the natural realm?

Did Jesus Christ raise Lazarus from the dead among others? Did he use science to do it? Did He turn water into wine?

Your passionate belief in science and careful use of quotes from various Popes indicates that you are more loving of science than the supernatural God. You feign ignorance on ocassion when I point out such things, but otherwise appear to be a learned person.

You are on a path away from God and into a legalist play with definitions, i.e, evolution is no more proven than germ theory. This is not a joke and aligns with the strong trend toward atheistic naturalism and the worship of the human mind. This is nothing new. In the past, so-called philosophers wrote: “Man invents himself.” And “Man is the measure of all things.”

It should be plain and obvious to everyone here that a lifelong commitment has been made by those who hold science above all, including God. How long before they tell you that it is unreasonable to pray to a God who isn’t there? How long before they tell you to accept that you are nothing more than a chemical construction whose genes caused humanity to invent God? How long? This is the path they are on. You do not exist. Not really. Your genes contrrol you and guide you. The invisible man in the sky is a delusion created to allow your genes to continue and for you to reproduce successfully. That’s all.

I write this as a warning and encouragement to all. A deception, an effective deception, makes your enemy do what you want him to do.

God bless everyone,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

NOBODY says evolution can be proven. I just don’t get your point. If you would go the NAS 1999 report on Science and Creationism you will see a full discussion of what hypothesis, theory and law mean scientifically. I think you’re getting all upset for no reason. NO one as I said says evolution is proven. The Church does however, accept that it is a valid scientific pursuit, that it indeed explains our world in a material way, and that we must not lose sight of the fact that God is the beginning of Creation and it is His handiwork.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

To whom do you pray? Do you believe God answers your prayers? Do you know that the Church makes people saints on the basis of at least two miracles; real occurrences that are outside the natural realm?

These questions have what purpose to the question at hand?

Did Jesus Christ raise Lazarus from the dead among others? Did he use science to do it? Did He turn water into wine?
What would science have to do with any of this?
Your passionate belief in science and careful use of quotes from various Popes indicates that you are more loving of science than the supernatural God. You feign ignorance on ocassion when I point out such things, but otherwise appear to be a learned person.
**You might recall using some quotes selectively I would state…and in any case, you can’t deny what is said. Your quotes are the given all that I have said in favor of scientific exploration of these things…I wish to caution you that…and thats where you begin… I site the former and you can’t and won’t answer it because you CHOOSE to believe otherwise. I don’t love science, the vast majority of which i understand poorly…but I enjoy learning what i can teach me about the world. I come to faith for a very different reason. **
You are on a path away from God and into a legalist play with definitions, i.e, evolution is no more proven than germ theory. This is not a joke and aligns with the strong trend toward atheistic naturalism and the worship of the human mind. This is nothing new. In the past, so-called philosophers wrote: “Man invents himself.” And “Man is the measure of all things.”

**Yes I know you desire to see it this way but that does not make it so Ed. Evolution is not proven and we’ve told you that a million times. You use the improper words but you have been told better countless times. Again, you reduce your argument to calling people atheists. Shame on you. **

It should be plain and obvious to everyone here that a lifelong commitment has been made by those who hold science above all, including God. How long before they tell you that it is unreasonable to pray to a God who isn’t there? How long before they tell you to accept that you are nothing more than a chemical construction whose genes caused humanity to invent God? How long? This is the path they are on. You do not exist. Not really. Your genes contrrol you and guide you. The invisible man in the sky is a delusion created to allow your genes to continue and for you to reproduce successfully. That’s all.

**Some of us have developed a commitment indeed, and that is to preserve our Church from the intrepretation you would try to force her to…The more you harrangue us the more vigilant we shall be. You cannot return the Church to some pre-vatican supposed fairy land of mystery. The Church IS IN the World to serve. And she will. **

I write this as a warning and encouragement to all. A deception, an effective deception, makes your enemy do what you want him to do.
Read “In the Beginning” and Theology of the Body

God bless everyone,
Ed

The progression of your argument over the weeks has been

1. You raised “scientific” arguments against evolution and were completely trounced by a few people with real science backgrounds.
2. You switched to arguing that this was church doctrine. That’s been completely demolished.
3. You went then, to everybody who believed in evolution being a “God-hater” and now lastly, just plain “atheist”.

Thanks a pretty sad record Ed. Look at yourself. Ask yourself, why do I NEED to believe that the creation account in the bible is correct against so much impeccable unchallenged evidence to the contrary. Why does it threaten my faith if I am told the story is about how God is the supreme and perfect Creator of all that is, everywhere, and He did it on a magnificent scale, in ways we are still trying to understand, all to provide an opportunity for us to find our way to sentience, look up and wonder, and meet for the first time Our God. ? That its not meant and never was meant to describe the actual details of how God created all. That man simply couldn’t begin to understand how, but tried. and did a wonderful job of getting across what truly was important. Why why does this threaten you?

I don’t call you anything Ed. but I find you sad, and I pity such a narrow way of seeing God.

 

[edwest2]

You call me sad and question my sanity. Some of your words are the same as those who promote atheism. Go to any atheist forum if you don’t believe me.

God bless and peace,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Someone with Ott’s Fudamentals of CathoDogma answer this: Is it Catholic dogma that Eve was specially created from Adam?

 

[drpmjhess]

That said, I try to respect the beliefs of those who disagree. I wouldn’t call them stupid or any such nonsense. But, I don’t believe evolution is a threat to orthodox Catholic teaching whatsoever.

Nullasalus and Ed, I respect the right of Young Earth Creationists to believe as they wish, just as I respect the freedom of belief of Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, and people who awaited salvation by means of a space ship hidden behind comet Hale Bopp.

What I do not respect are charlatans and liars such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Duane Gish, who have zero scientific credentials, and yet who lie blatantly to suit their cause. No matter how often they are shown to be lying about the fossil record, genetics, or a myriad other scientific facts supporting the theory of evolution, they will take these same lies and pander them to their next audience of sincere and earnest trailer dwellers on fixed incomes whom they sucker into spending their pensions on idiotic “Creation Museums.” Simple and ignornant but well-meaning creationists I can respect; outright liars who fleece simple people I cannot respect.

Petrus sum

 

[edwest2]

Your contempt for your fellow human beings, i.e. “trailer dwellers,” is strange. God is no respecter of persons. Do you honestly believe if they left their trailers, or small towns, and moved to a large city, their IQs would go up?

Science is only part of the answer but the other part is rarely examined in threads like these. Documented miracles that the Church acknowledges and elevates people to sainthood, even in “modern” times.

Do you think that when the clock struck the 21st Century that knowledge and wisdom poured into anyone’s head?

As for the individuals you mention, by their fruit you will know them. But I have also seen the venomous words of the unbelievers against any who would question the new “scientific priesthood.” We do not live in a time where all human deceit has disappeared.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ahimsa]

Someone with Ott’s Fudamentals of CathoDogma answer this: Is it Catholic dogma that Eve was specially created from Adam?

Ott is simply one theologian expressing his considered thoughts on what is Catholic dogma:

Recently, on a Q & A Forum, Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.[2] requested of an enquirer the source of a particular statement; the reply was from Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. As the particular matter appeared to be questionable, Fr. Horn’s response was: “Good book. But it’s not an official document of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an official document. It is my duty in this forum (and as a priest) to clarify the official doctrines of the Church, not the opinions of Father X, Theologian Y, or Book Z.”