Genesis v Evolution

[adrift]

NOBODY says evolution can be proven. I just don’t get your point

 

[drpmjhess]

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? God bless,
Ed

Ed, some of my family whom I love much live in trailers. I should have explained the context of that comment. A few years ago, a big-name creationist here complained bitterly that although he could go to any trailer park in the US and hold the audience in the palm of his hand, he was frustrated that he could not get the biologists at our first tier university to entertain him. It’s part of the perceived “culture war.” Pastor Ray Mummert, of Dover PA after the decision against ID: “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.”

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your explanation. The culture war is very real. It happens every day. It is the same battle for hearts and minds that has been going on for 2,000 years but it has been repackaged and relabeled for a new audience.

Go to any atheist forum and you will see what I mean. A group that is primarily supported by atheists and called Rally for Reason, decided to protest at the Creation Museum. There was also a petition circulated in regard to the museum, indicating that any students who might come away believing what the museum taught were less likely to succeed academically.

My point is, religious schools and Sunday schools, have not changed their message, but the New Atheism has become more militant. Richard Dawkins, with his books and foundation, Sam Harris with his articles, Bill Maher on TV, and comedians. If I could start a Ministry of Propaganda, I would hire all of them. Amateur theologian Whoopi Goldberg talking about the Bible to further an agenda, George Carlin (nuff said), and others, have made God, a belief in God and the Catholic Church, the enemy.

Did you see the movie Dogma? Two drug dealers obsessed with sex and barely a brain cell between them.

There have always been snake oil salesmen, but it would be a mistake to think that there is only one variety.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Montalban]

From Pope John Paul II:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”

That’s just to confuse the issue.

Evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT conflicts with theology. There’s no school-approved science book (that I know of) that admits that God is at work behind evolution. Every aspect of our being here is explained away through evolutionary means.

 

[cyberjacques]

For some time now it has been the official position of the Catholic church that you are free to believe in evolution, or young-earth creationism, or a combination thereof, as long as you believe that God did it. Because, as I stated in my last post, as interesting a topic as it is, it doesn’t really matter HOW God did it. The fact is that He did.

People on both extremes of the spectrum are unknowingly cooperating to turn people against God. Those on the extreme secular science side have been very successful at twisting the facts to make a belief in God look irrational. And those on the extreme biblical literalist side have done an equally good job at making Christians look like cavemen terrified of science by simply ignoring the facts.

Fearing perfectly reasonable scientific theories (and that’s all evolution is) demonstrates a profound lack of faith. Do you really think God can be destroyed by one half-proven theory? Even evolutionists admit (at least the honest ones) that the theory has huge holes in it. But the rest is pretty solid. As a result, more and more scientists are leaning toward the Intelligent Design idea. Do a bit of research and you’ll discover two very interesting things. First, quite a large number of scientists have actually converted to various Judeo-Christian religions as a result of their studies on the origins of life. And second, the hardcore secular scientists are in a panic to stifle the idea of intelligent design because it makes so much sense. Unfortunately, so are the biblical literalists, because they are afraid that it’s a trick to get people to believe in evolution.

God created a miraculous universe and bestowed it with life. I don’t know how He did it. But I know He did.

God bless!

 

[Montalban]

For some time now it has been the official position of the Catholic church that you are free to believe in evolution, or young-earth creationism, or a combination thereof, as long as you believe that God did it. Because, as I stated in my last post, as interesting a topic as it is, it doesn’t really matter HOW God did it. The fact is that He did.[/quiote]
Why would he use means that don’t require him?

The materialistic/naturalistic means Evolutionists believe were used don’t require God.

 

[Ahimsa]

That’s just to confuse the issue.

Evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT conflicts with theology. There’s no school-approved science book (that I know of) that admits that God is at work behind evolution. Every aspect of our being here is explained away through evolutionary means.

Are you suggesting that science classes should include theological discussions?

Is God measurable? Empirically observable?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Let’s try try again. Is it Ott’s opinion that Eve was specially created from Adam and that is Catholic dogma?

Where would you go to find out if Eve was specially created from Adam and whther that was Catholic dogma or not Catholic dogma?

If you asked Pope Benedict XVI if it was Catholic dogma that Eve was specially created from Adam what would Pope Benedict say?

Are some Catholics who support evolution uncomfortable with asking such questions?

As a theistic evolutionist such questions don’t bother me.

I believe that Eve Was specially created from Adam who was also specially created–that the Catholic Church has always and still does teach this and that evolution can also be true.

I believe that Adam and Eve were historical and really were the first homo sapiens.

I don’t believe that all of Genesis is literal but I believe that some of it really is literally true.

Am I crazy for believing that way?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

You’re arguing that if an atheist holds a position then a believer must hold some other opinion, by the mere fact the atheist holds it? Independent of whether the position is true or false? That just makes no sense Ed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;2895808:

.
That was just the title of the article dealing with Pope Benidict XVI first extended reference to evolution. It is a shame that you took the title of the piece without reading what the current pope has to say.

**Excuse me I did read it. I cite you to the NAC and The Smithsonian and you site me to USA Today. I did as well cite here several times to Popel Benedicts “In the beginning…” Your article does of course not say that Benedict denies evolution, he only cautions as he has always done, that we not forget the Spiritual, God side of the equation. **

You seem upset when anyone tries to have a discussion that you feel opposes what you believe in.

N**Nope, just posts that seem to be on both sides and make no point. **

Exactly! So I guess the answer to my question

Is no?

I think I’ve made myself quite clear. YEC are not forbidden to believe as they do. It is not however, doctrine.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you for your explanation. The culture war is very real. It happens every day. It is the same battle for hearts and minds that has been going on for 2,000 years but it has been repackaged and relabeled for a new audience.

Go to any atheist forum and you will see what I mean. A group that is primarily supported by atheists and called Rally for Reason, decided to protest at the Creation Museum. There was also a petition circulated in regard to the museum, indicating that any students who might come away believing what the museum taught were less likely to succeed academically.

My point is, religious schools and Sunday schools, have not changed their message, but the New Atheism has become more militant. Richard Dawkins, with his books and foundation, Sam Harris with his articles, Bill Maher on TV, and comedians. If I could start a Ministry of Propaganda, I would hire all of them. Amateur theologian Whoopi Goldberg talking about the Bible to further an agenda, George Carlin (nuff said), and others, have made God, a belief in God and the Catholic Church, the enemy.

Did you see the movie Dogma? Two drug dealers obsessed with sex and barely a brain cell between them.

There have always been snake oil salesmen, but it would be a mistake to think that there is only one variety.

God bless,
Ed

I have no interest per se in going to an “atheist site”. I’m not sure I would know one to go to. Might you explain what an atheist site is? A few links perhaps? I am just curious, since I don’t know why you would be going there.

I do very much see the sense in trying to boycott those ridiculous creationist museums though. I sure don’t want kids being taughtt hat stuff as real.

Sometimes Ed, I think you buy into that secularist agenda **** that Fox news and its redneck pandering spokepeople rail about. The only place it exists in is their heads. Do you really think that liberals are not faithful and God-loving people?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s just to confuse the issue.

Evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT conflicts with theology. There’s no school-approved science book (that I know of) that admits that God is at work behind evolution. Every aspect of our being here is explained away through evolutionary means.

**The schools are legally prohibited from teaching religion. You certainly aren’t arguing that they should begin are you? **

For some time now it has been the official position of the Catholic church that you are free to believe in evolution, or young-earth creationism, or a combination thereof, as long as you believe that God did it. Because, as I stated in my last post, as interesting a topic as it is, it doesn’t really matter HOW God did it. The fact is that He did.

People on both extremes of the spectrum are unknowingly cooperating to turn people against God. Those on the extreme secular science side have been very successful at twisting the facts to make a belief in God look irrational. And those on the extreme biblical literalist side have done an equally good job at making Christians look like cavemen terrified of science by simply ignoring the facts.

**You make it sound like those on the extreme “secular science side” are atheists. I have assumed all are believers here. Am I wrong? **

Fearing perfectly reasonable scientific theories (and that’s all evolution is) demonstrates a profound lack of faith. Do you really think God can be destroyed by one half-proven theory? Even evolutionists admit (at least the honest ones) that the theory has huge holes in it. But the rest is pretty solid. As a result, more and more scientists are leaning toward the Intelligent Design idea. Do a bit of research and you’ll discover two very interesting things. First, quite a large number of scientists have actually converted to various Judeo-Christian religions as a result of their studies on the origins of life. And second, the hardcore secular scientists are in a panic to stifle the idea of intelligent design because it makes so much sense. Unfortunately, so are the biblical literalists, because they are afraid that it’s a trick to get people to believe in evolution.

**I think everything depends on how Intelligent Design is defined. Some people define it as you seem to, God did it however he did it. Evolution seems to explain the real world pretty good for now. Some people define ID as the “God of the gaps”. This I think is faulty, because science keeps filling in the gaps. This definition would be unstable. So I guess we would need a whole discussion on what ID means. **
God created a miraculous universe and bestowed it with life. I don’t know how He did it. But I know He did it.

God bless!

cyberjacques;2897326:

For some time now it has been the official position of the Catholic church that you are free to believe in evolution, or young-earth creationism, or a combination thereof, as long as you believe that God did it. Because, as I stated in my last post, as interesting a topic as it is, it doesn’t really matter HOW God did it. The fact is that He did.[/quiote]
Why would he use means that don’t require him?

**Why would you say it didn’t need him? Obviously it NEEDED God or it wouldn’t have happened. He must have set up the laws of physics as well, and how they operate together. Seems awfully impressive to me. **

The materialistic/naturalistic means Evolutionists believe were used don’t require God.

Don’t need doesnt mean didn’t have. Evolutionists are scientists. Its not their job to place God in this. There is no empirical basis for doing so. Theology has that job.

 

[Orogeny]

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

I am saying that excluding polygenism doesn’t seem to be a true dogma. Do you agree, or is Cardinal Ratzinger espousing heresy?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

That’s just to confuse the issue.

Evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT conflicts with theology. There’s no school-approved science book (that I know of) that admits that God is at work behind evolution. Every aspect of our being here is explained away through evolutionary means.

You are absolutely right. It is the current chief weapon in the atheist arsenal. The miracles Jesus did showed how God works. Raising Lazarus and others from the dead, turning the water to wine, calming the wind… These are the things God can do. No science required. In order for a person to become a saint, two miracles are required. Things that are beyond natural explanation.

The young person who is taught that evolution is entirely complete within itself, requiring no supernatural intervention whatsoever, could be led away from the faith. Jesus Christ is alive and with us at this moment. He died and rose again for all. My intellectual capacity to understand God is limited, but those who exalt human beings above God err.

I strongly encourage you to ignore those who say it is not the “job” of science to discuss God. That is false. Scientists can and do make atheist statements. That is a fact

Humbly,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You are absolutely right. It is the current chief weapon in the atheist arsenal. The miracles Jesus did showed how God works. Raising Lazarus and others from the dead, turning the water to wine, calming the wind… These are the things God can do. No science required. In order for a person to become a saint, two miracles are required. Things that are beyond natural explanation.
**You seem to have the impression that “atheists” are grouped together in some determined effort to destroy your faith. Our government forbids teaching religion in schools. Many many people agree that that should be so. Miracles have nothing to do with science. They are supernatural. They are part of religion, not science. I’ve known as most people have undoubtedly, many many atheists. Not a one belonged to any atheist group. Same with “secularists”. They are a figment of the mind of the religious right in this country. **
The young person who is taught that evolution is entirely complete within itself, requiring no supernatural intervention whatsoever, could be led away from the faith. Jesus Christ is alive and with us at this moment. He died and rose again for all. My intellectual capacity to understand God is limited, but those who exalt human beings above God err.

Young children learn in more places than school Ed. It’s certainly not the job of school to teach any child about God. If they did, you’d undoubtedly not be happy then. Some baptist might be teaching Catholic kids, or worse, some native american. Parents and churches teach the religious side for obvious reasons.

I strongly encourage you to ignore those who say it is not the “job” of science to discuss God. That is false. Scientists can and do make atheist statements. That is a fact

**Science doesn’t address religious issues. Individual scientists may speak about anything they wish the same as you can. Please explain how it is science’s job to discuss God? **

 

[adrift]

I am saying that excluding polygenism doesn’t seem to be a true dogma. Do you agree, or is Cardinal Ratzinger espousing heresy?

Peace

Tim

take a look at Post 768 Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benidict XVI does not expouse poygenism.
Adam, Eve and Evolution

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

 

[rskempf]

All,

Someday, many years from now, natural science will come into alignment with the basic truths illustrated in the Bible and as stated by the Church. For now, we have to maintain faith and spread the faith.

As I stated earlier, this single topic holds many people back from developing faith, even the size of a mustard seed. We need to begin with faith and then help others do the same. It is with faith, that we see more clearly.

I hope to write again. If I drift off, I wish all of you my best, blessings, and prayers.

 

[rskempf]

One more point,

Another way to look at this issue is to presume two sides - one is Truth as revealed by God through divine revelation, the other is science that we develop through our own efforts. This latter part may be partially guided by God - we will know for sure someday.

Science and the development of our understanding of nature grows from a “fallen” nature - we are human and no longer in the Garden of Eden. It will take a lot of time and effort for us to reach the full truth on our own. If we take faith with us on this journey, it will act like a compass and map to guide us on our way.

God bless you all!

 

[Montalban]

Are you suggesting that science classes should include theological discussions?

Is God measurable? Empirically observable?

You just prove my point that Evolution doesn’t deal with God.

It’s an explanation system that has no place for God.

However, more to your questions - science should be about teaching ‘truths’ as understood in science.

I’m sure you’ll be telling me that there’s only one scientific method, next!

 

[Ahimsa]

You just prove my point that Evolution doesn’t deal with God.

As a scientific theory, evolution does not deal with God.

However, as a philosophical or religious theory, it might.