Genesis v Evolution

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ex Nihilo, I’m trying to understand how you view the process of life developing on earth. Does God intervene in creating every genetic variation? Or does God intervene only occasionally, such as by sending asteroids to change the environmental circumstances that apply selective pressures?

I think it’s both-- and then some.

But I think the important factor in this is the idea that God has totally stepped out of the picture to allow things to go fall as they may. I think one needs to be careful with a statement like this lest one fall into a deistic framework rather than a theistic one.

To me, it appears that God would indeed be at least “spiritually involved” in the direction of evolution even if he doesn’t get “physically involved”. But if someone is saying that the random appearance of evolution is indeed random and unplanned (that God was not even spiritually involved) then they are talking more about a deistic God than a theistic one.

Catholic thoughts do not just state that God wound up the clock and allowed life to form “as it may” until humanity appeared. He actually directed the course of evolution to cause humanity to appear.

This, along with the nature of death, is one of the “key points” that I do not think theistic evolutionary theories have adequately delt with.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality.

Petrus

Perhaps this is what wildleafblower is identifying with panentheism or pantheism. I don’t think it does (and I understand what you mean), but I think others could misunderstand a statement like this.

Perhaps we could put forward this passage from Ephesians 4:4-6 for further examination?

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Could this passage be miscontrued by some to mean either pantheism or panentheism instead of theism?

Panentheism says that all is in God…

Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God’s body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God’s body, but God’s awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God–as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God’s purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent…

The most practical value of pantheism is that it recognizes the presence of God everywhere, but it does this at an enormous cost. It provides for the presence of God as the only actor; God’s presence is an overriding presence that cancels the possibility of the existence of anything else, of any genuine beloved, of any loving or unloving response to God. In pantheism, human existence or any other finite existence is at best a mystery. Explanation in any satisfying sense is impossible. There can be affirmation that there is nothing but God, but where that leaves the affirmer is unclear; his or her existence is no more than appearance, and enlightenment brings recognition of one’s illusory status as a unique, permanent perspective in reality.

To be fair, I think some aspects of both panentheism and pantheism can also be loosely seen in monotheism, even if none of the views are compatible. But perhaps we could start examining this distinction further in order to clarify some matters.

 

[Ahimsa]

Didn’t we do the preternatural gifts thing like 800 posts back? I don’t have the energy to find it. I will just say that nothing in evolution would deny God the power or authority to convey any gifts He wanted on anyone He wants to. Or do anything else He wants to.

So with that circle back I am checking out of this thread. 1200 or so posts is enough “I know you are but what am I?” arguing for me.

1200? That’s still the Middle Ages. We won’t make progress on this thread until 1859.

 

[drpmjhess]

But I think the important factor in this is the idea that God has totally stepped out of the picture to allow things to go fall as they may.

To me, it appears that God would indeed be at least “spiritually involved” in the direction of evolution even if he doesn’t get “physically involved”.

Catholic thoughts do not just state that God wound up the clock and allowed life to form “as it may” until humanity appeared. He actually directed the course of evolution to cause humanity to appear…

Mr. Ex Nihilo, I agree with you wholeheartedly that deism is to be rejected, not only by Christians but by any monotheists. But the other extreme is likewise ot be rejected – that the universe is merely God’s puppet theatre, and rational beings are mere marionettes.

The big issue at the heart of the ten years of CTNS-Vatican conference on divine action is how we are to conceive of God’s acting in the universe. The dozens of scholars involved in this series, sponsored in part by Pope John Paul II, all assumed of course the evolutionary framework. But there differed considerably in how they conceived of the locus of divine involvement. For some it is the quantum level; for others the molecular-genetic; for still others the social or psychological level.

Personally, I have difficulties with the claim that God tinkers directly with the divine creation, both because it would seem to impinge upon creaturely freedom, and because it is inexplicable why God would choose to intervene sometimes and not at others, such as, for example, causing Hitler to have been stillborn.

Creationism (both YEC and IDC) are at the marionette end of the spectrum, with God intervening constantly to adjust genomes, or creating a world merely with the appearance of great age. Newtonian deism is at the opposite end, not far from Laplacean atheism.

Our belief “in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and in all things, seen and unseen,” speaks volumes but without committing on details.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

Perhaps this is what wildleafblower is identifying with panentheism or pantheism. I don’t think it does (and I understand what you mean
drpmjhess;2959675:

Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality.

Petrus

Mr. Ex Nihilo, The Holy See including its Scientific Advisory Committee will not accept panentheism or pantheism since it destroys science and Catholicism . I’ve made this very clear throughout many posts on this topic. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church endorses the Theory of Evolution by Alec MacAndrew
1)evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
2) The Pope on evolution again
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp
I think it would be important to read the following article as well, there apparently has been a lack of sufficient information provided some members in response to their questions:
**A process for human/chimpanzee divergence **
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm

Mr. Ex Nihilo and Petrus are either of you on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee or instructed by the Vatican to teach to Roman Catholics? I’m just curious. I doubt seriously that either of you have the authority to change what the Popes have stated as doctrine. By the way, I totally disagree with your statement above Petrus, " Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality." Petrus, what’s your source of information. Where exactly did you get the information in your statement?

Yes, God is the designer of the universe, in our Catholic view, and in the view of other theists
[snip]
Petrus

Petrus, please give me a link from the Vatican website that endorses your statement above. I don’t agree with your statement. I’ve been a Roman Catholic for decades and have never been told by a priest or bishop or read from any Pope that “God is the designer of the universe”.

Petrus has stated he is a Roman Catholic Theologian but that doesn’t give him authority to instruct Roman Catholics. And Mr. Ex Nihilo, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind telling me what specifically you are searching for and why. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.

Petrus

Petrus, I am shocked by your comment, “I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.” Petrus (Peter) what about the lawsuits!!! Tax payer’s money, the hours and years spent to keep the Intelligent Design advocates out of public schools?
All the antievolution bills that still crop up!!!??? Do you honestly think the ID movement is over? You think it is harmless!!!?? I doubt seriously the ID movement is harmless.
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007

The Intelligent Design Movement is a real force advancing in Europe! Wake-up and smell the coffee. And Behe has a new theory. Maybe you could tell us about it. And please please correct me if I’m wrong but YOU don’t believe in an immortal soul as Tim noted in msg.1074. If you don’t accept Catholic doctrine about the immortality of the soul then you have ruled out heaven. I do believe in the immortal soul and heaven just for the record. I believe it with all my heart, mind, body and soul all the way from my head down to my toes that tingle! I know without a doubt that I love Jesus more than mere mortal words can express. How much do you love Jesus, Petrus? What does Jesus mean to you? Petrus, do you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

 

[drpmjhess]

By the way, I totally disagree with your statement above Petrus, " Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality."

Source: the Nicene Creed. “We believe in one God, the father almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” If that’s not a ground of all reality, I don’t know what is.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

To whom do we pray? Why was Jesus born? The folly of evolutionary theory as presented here, is that it contains only science and not the other form of reason to which Pope Benedict referred to. As only science, it is not complete.

As only science, it teaches the following:

A) You are an animal, not willed by God.

B) No supernatural intervention of any kind ever occurred.

c) You are a biological device designed only to successfully reproduce. A genetic robot controlled by your genetic programming and nothing supernatural exists.

This is against the person of God, who is alive and active in our lives at this very moment. A personal God who loves us, not a bystander. We each have a personal relationship with Him.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

To whom do we pray? Why was Jesus born? The folly of evolutionary theory as presented here, is that it contains only science and not the other form of reason to which Pope Benedict referred to. As only science, it is not complete.

Geology is incomplete, as it does not teach us how to pray. Physics is incomplete as it contains only science. Baseball is incomplete, as it does not include slam dunks. What’s your point?

 

[wildleafblower]

Perhaps this is what wildleafblower is identifying with panentheism or pantheism. I don’t think it does (and I understand what you mean
drpmjhess;2959675:

Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality.

Petrus

Mr. Ex Nihilo, The Holy See including its Scientific Advisory Committee will not accept panentheism or pantheism since it destroys science and Catholicism . I’ve made that very clear throughout many posts on this topic. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church endorses the Theory of Evolution.
1)evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
2) The Pope on evolution again
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp

I think it would be important to read the following article as well since there apparently has been a lack of sufficient information provided some members in response to their questions:
**A process for human/chimpanzee divergence **
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm

Mr. Ex Nihilo and Petrus are either of you on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee or instructed by the Vatican to teach to Roman Catholics? I’m just curious. I doubt seriously that either of you have the authority to change what the Popes have stated as doctrine. By the way, I totally disagree with your statement above Petrus.

Yes, God is the designer of the universe, in our Catholic view, and in the view of other theists
[snip]
Petrus

Petrus, please give me a link from the Vatican website that endorses your statement above. I don’t agree with your statement. I’ve been a Roman Catholic for decades and have never been told by a priest or bishop or read from any Pope that “God is the designer of the universe”.

Source: the Nicene Creed. “We believe in one God, the father almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” If that’s not a ground of all reality, I don’t know what is.Petrus

Petrus, your reply does not support “God is the designer of the universe.” I want to see a link from the VATICAN supporting your statement "“God is the designer of the universe”as I asked. No Pope has said “God is the designer of the universe!” FYI, if they did then it could be implied God is the Architect of the UNIVERSE and that would be Freemasonary!!! And there isn’t a Pope alive that will agree with that.

Petrus has stated he is a Roman Catholic Theologian but that doesn’t give him authority to instruct Roman Catholics. And Mr. Ex Nihilo, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind telling me what specifically you are searching for and why. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.

Petrus

Petrus, I am shocked by your comment, “I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.” Petrus (Peter) what about the lawsuits!!! Tax payer’s money, the hours and years spent to keep the Intelligent Design advocates out of public schools?
All the antievolution bills that still crop up!!!??? Do you honestly think the ID movement is over?
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007

The Intelligent Design Movement is a real force advancing in Europe! Wake up and smell the coffee. Behe has a new theory. Maybe you could tell us about it. And please please correct me if I’m wrong but YOU don’t believe in an immortal soul as Tim noted in msg.1074. If you don’t accept Catholic doctrine about the immortality of the soul then you have ruled out heaven. I do believe in the immoral soul and heaven just for the record. I believe it with all my heart, mind, body and soul just as I know without a doubt that I love Jesus more than mere mortal words can express. How much do you love Jesus, Petrus? What does Jesus mean to you?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo…

Thanks for your time wildleafblower.

1: Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee or instructed by the Vatican to teach to Roman Catholics?

Me? No. I’m just a Catholic layman who has much to learn even after about 10 years looking into this “controversy”.

2: Am I a pantheist or a pantheist?

No. I am neither. I believe in the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

1. God as Designer?

In Romans chapter one Paul explains that all people know about God simply by observing the design of the created world. And in Acts 17 he uses this “design argument” to point the Greek listeners to God as the Grand Designer of the world and of their lives as well.

Consequently, a Thomist might agree with Behe’s epistemological claim that no current or foreseeable future attempt at explanation for certain biological complexities is satisfactory. Yet, a Thomist will reject Behe’s ontological claim that no such explanation can ever be given in terms of the operation of nature.

And, most certainly, Thomas (and traditional Thomists in general) were well known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of creation. Vatican I (working from Thomas Aquinas) did indeed affirm a solemn definition that God’s existence can “be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made.”

Does this not imply an epistemological claim for design?

Pope Benedict XVI has indeed moved into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an “intelligent project” and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

While I don’t think this should be confused with the intelligent design movement, it does reinforce a very strong tradition within Catholicism.

1. Loving Jesus?

I think Petrus loves Jesus. I think Petrus believes in the Resurrection too. I think Petrus has also stated that he believes in the Triune God as well.

1. Regarding myself, I’m searching for answers because I’ve found the current answers within the creation/evolution debate to be less than satisfactory.

 

[wildleafblower]

Thank you for your extremely courteous reply Mr. Ex Nihilo I have access to everything the Pope writes but have yet to find him using the word “design”. The media may have stated that
Pope Benedict XVI has remarked “intelligent project” though I have yet to locate it. IF he did it would imply that we are the co-creators hence forth we are the intelligence behind every advancement of mankind for the glory of God.

I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow. You are a gentle person. May the Holy Spirit grant you peace of mind and joy within your heart. You are blessed, yes you are a blessed soul. Peace be with you.

 

[wildleafblower]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, The Holy See including its Scientific Advisory Committee will not accept panentheism or pantheism since it destroys science and Catholicism . I’ve made that very clear throughout many posts on this topic. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church endorses the Theory of Evolution.
1)evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology
2) The Pope on evolution again
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/708_the_pope_on_evolution_again_7_26_2007.asp

I think it would be important to read the following article as well since there apparently has been a lack of sufficient information provided some members in response to their questions:
**A process for human/chimpanzee divergence **
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
Human/chimpanzee divergence

Mr. Ex Nihilo and Petrus are either of you on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee or instructed by the Vatican to teach to Roman Catholics? I’m just curious. I doubt seriously that either of you have the authority to change what the Popes have stated as doctrine. By the way, I totally disagree with your statement above Petrus.

Petrus, please give me a link from the Vatican website that endorses your statement above. I don’t agree with your statement. I’ve been a Roman Catholic for decades and have never been told by a priest or bishop or read from any Pope that “God is the designer of the universe”.

Petrus, your reply does not support “God is the designer of the universe.” I want to see a link from the VATICAN supporting your statement "“God is the designer of the universe”as I asked. No Pope has said “God is the designer of the universe!” FYI, if they did then it could be implied God is the Architect of the UNIVERSE and that would be Freemasonary!!! And there isn’t a Pope alive that will agree with that.

Petrus has stated he is a Roman Catholic Theologian but that doesn’t give him authority to instruct Roman Catholics. And Mr. Ex Nihilo, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind telling me what specifically you are searching for and why. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Petrus, I am shocked by your comment, “I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.” Petrus (Peter) what about the lawsuits!!! Tax payer’s money, the hours and years spent to keep the Intelligent Design advocates out of public schools?
All the antievolution bills that still crop up!!!??? Do you honestly think the ID movement is over?
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007
natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp?year=2007

The Intelligent Design Movement is a real force advancing in Europe! Wake up and smell the coffee. Behe has a new theory. Maybe you could tell us about it. And please please correct me if I’m wrong but YOU don’t believe in an immortal soul as Tim noted in msg.1074. If you don’t accept Catholic doctrine about the immortality of the soul then you have ruled out heaven. I do believe in the immortal soul and heaven just for the record. I believe it with all my heart, mind, body and soul just as I know without a doubt that I love Jesus more than mere mortal words can express. How much do you love Jesus, Petrus? What does Jesus mean to you?

I’m sorry. I’m sleepy headed though was compelled to read again what ii wrote. I made a spelling error which I have corrected by highlighting in red. I meant to say I do believe in the immortal soul . D I was just reading this from John, CHAP 3, Vers 5-8. Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not wonder that I said to thee,“You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its sound but dost not know where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

 

[TMC]

I am surprised at the suggestion that Catholics don’t believe that God is everywhere. The Baltimore Catechism taught:

1. Q. Where is God?
   A. God is everywhere.

Pretty plain, not as authoritative as the Creed, but pretty straightforward.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Baltimore Catechism has been replaced by the newest version of the CATECHISM of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

The **Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH **and the **CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH **was approved for publication on March 20, 2005 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Special Commission. On June 28, 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in his first year of his Pontificate, BENEDICTUS PP. XVI gave his approval and publication of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As Catholics it is extremely important when reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church to refer to the Compendium.

Here is the COMPENDIUM: vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Here is the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I encourage you to read the COMPENDIUM, especially
Part One, The Profession of Faith, Section One
“I believe” – “We believe”.

I like this part because God can’t possibly be everywhere or in everything! It would ruin science :

*29. Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?

159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)*
I love science and my Faith in God shines ever the more thanks for the help Jesus! Oh, I love the Holy Spirit !

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To whom do we pray? Why was Jesus born? The folly of evolutionary theory as presented here, is that it contains only science and not the other form of reason to which Pope Benedict referred to. As only science, it is not complete.

**What else is science supposed to be comprised of? I cannot under any possible theory understand why you think scientists should hold degrees in theology before they are allowed to do science. Apparently they are not to do science if it conflicts with Ed’s view of the universe. You know better. **

As only science, it teaches the following:

A) You are an animal, not willed by God.

**No it does not. It does not reference God because God is not the object of Science. Hold old are you? **

B) No supernatural intervention of any kind ever occurred.

**It does not say this either. What science doesn’t know it doesn’t know. It makes no claim as to what it does not know is or how it came to be. It may suggest ideas which are then subject to the usual testing procedures. **

c) You are a biological device designed only to successfully reproduce. A genetic robot controlled by your genetic programming and nothing supernatural exists.

**Just give me a quote of some scientist saying this. this is just your stubborn angry ranting that the world won’t conform to the view you would have. **

This is against the person of God, who is alive and active in our lives at this very moment. A personal God who loves us, not a bystander. We each have a personal relationship with Him.

**Obviously true, and nothing you have said changes that one iota. **

 

[wildleafblower]

SpiritMeadow, I have to admit that I’m having a difficult time believing you support science and scientists in light of the fact that you’ve declared you are a panentheist and a Catholic. This may also be a problem for Ed too. SpiritMeadow, please correct me if I am wrong, you are an advocate for the Intelligent Design movement, a fan of Teilhard de Chardin, and a panentheist. If you don’t correct me then it will be set in stone that my statement about you is 100% correct.

And, I think you are old enough to at least speak for yourself and not have Petrus (Peter) answer for you as you have done in the past when I have asked you questions.

FYI, I’m not an advocate for the Intelligent Design movement nor a panentheist or pantheist.

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, a few here do not understand that I offer criticisms of ideas, not criticisms of their person.

Also, a few here suffer from legalism. A missing word here or there immediately makes an argument invalid in their eyes.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because ‘the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence’ (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).” From Part 69 of Human Persons Created in the Image of God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed, you need to read A response to Cardinal Schönborn’s attack on science by Alec MacAndrew: It’s a wonderful article and contains truth in your above quote by Cardinal Ratzinger.
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Ed, it is extremely important to know a person’s belief system otherwise as Roman Catholics we aren’t able to explain to them the truth of the Catholic Church. We could spend hours running around in circles. Often times there are individuals who will call themself a Catholic though they aren’t willing to accept the full truth of our Faith. They in turn share with others misinformation about the Church. It’s not a personal attack on the person only a lack of correct information with hope they respect, acknowledge, and enlighten other Catholics that may tend to stray away from the truth.

I encourage you to read the COMPENDIUM, especially
Part One, The Profession of Faith, Section One
“I believe” – “We believe”.

I like this part because God can’t possibly be everywhere or in everything! It would ruin science :

1. Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?

159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)

 

[Orogeny]

Unfortunately, a few here do not understand that I offer criticisms of ideas, not criticisms of their person.

Except that you are not just criticising ideas, you extend that to people.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because ‘the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence’ (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).” From Part 69 of Human Persons Created in the Image of God.

Exactly!!! The Pope supports evolution but rejects a natural (read godless) mechanism for evolution. As I have said over and over and over, evolution is a fact and the Pope has indicated that he accepts that. The mechanisms of evolution are the theory part. Of those, he rejects those that SPECIFICALLY DENY THE ROLE OF THE CREATOR.

Now that you have quoted that, can I assume that you now understand that the Pope and the Church accepts evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

I like this part because God can’t possibly be everywhere or in everything! It would ruin science :
!

Wildleafblower, where does it say this? I looked and couldn’t find it.

Petrus