Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

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.
.

When have I spoken for SpiritMeadow?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus has stated he is a Roman Catholic Theologian but that doesn’t give him authority to instruct Roman Catholics.

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic theologian. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “authority,” but I have been authorized by Jesuits, Dominicans and Christian Brothers to instruct in theology at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels, which I’ve been doing since 1985. I know Jesuits and Dominicans are not God, but they are up there, and they’ve been happy enough with my teaching to have me continue teaching.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

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

Hi Tim,

I don’t understand it that way at all. The Pope writes about convincing evidence but he immediately refers to the famous statement by Pope John Paull II like this: “In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paull II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

The only type of evolution that I know is taught is the neo-Darwinian form that denies divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. I believe that 100%. So no, I do not think the Church recognizes evolution as it has just been described.

Does Pope Benedict recognize the evidence presented thus far? Yes. Does he agree with the conclusions reached by neo-Darwinian evolution? No, I don’t think so. But I also believe he is willing to continue to examine the issue and consider all evidence.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

msg 1188

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, “…God is everywhere… the ground of all reality…permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality.”

[msg.1210]Yes, I am a Roman Catholic theologian…

You tinker with ideas.

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 as I asked. No Pope has said it!

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 immortal of 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?

 

[drpmjhess]

Well, Wildleafblower, I’m not sure what your quibble is. You may call God what you will (God, Allah, Gott, Dieu, Dyaus Pitar, Yahweh, the One, Brahman), and you may call “making” what you will (designing, creating, forming, planning, organizing, etc.), but the fact is, monotheists, including Roman Catholics, believe that God designed the universe.

Petrus, R.T.
Real Theologian, not “tinkerer with ideas”

 

[wildleafblower]

msg. 1189 -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.

Mr. ExNihilo, I haven’t yet read Petrus confirming that he loves Jesus, believes in the Resurrection, and believes in the Truine God. Official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church endorsed by BENEDICTUS PP. XVI in the newest version of the CATECHISM of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH explains the truth about our FAITH and confirms a Truine God, the Resurrection and our love as Catholics for Jesus:
vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
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
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. There isn’t anyone on the Scientific Advisory Committee that would agree that God is everywhere or in everything. The Pope won’t agree with panentheism or panethism (you can refer to my msg. 1069) :

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

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]

I don’t understand it that way at all. The Pope writes about convincing evidence but he immediately refers to the famous statement by Pope John Paull II like this: “In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paull II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

That’s right, he never supported every theory of evolution and in fact rejected several outright. But he also indicated that he clearly accepted evolution. The ONLY question is how it works.

The only type of evolution that I know is taught is the neo-Darwinian form that denies divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. I believe that 100%. So no, I do not think the Church recognizes evolution as it has just been described.

Then you don’t understand what is being taught. No doubt there are those who would deny divine providence, but that is actually not part of the science one way or the other. I know we have been down this road before, but if it is the fact that God isn’t mentioned in the theory of evolution, why don’t you have problems with ALL scientic theories since NONE of them mention God in any way?

Does Pope Benedict recognize the evidence presented thus far? Yes. Does he agree with the conclusions reached by neo-Darwinian evolution? No, I don’t think so. But I also believe he is willing to continue to examine the issue and consider all evidence.

He rejects those who specifically exclude God because they are outside the realm of science. Science cannot deny the presence of God any more than it can prove the existence of God. God is outside the realm of science. And that is exactly what at least the last two popes have said.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

My understanding is this: evolution as taught in high school textbooks - no God.

I’m not saying they should be forced to add God or that scientists should be forced, etc. I have concluded that, since science supposedly says nothing about God one way or the other is not the issue, the issue is this: the average person who is taught evolution understands that it involves no God. In other words, it works from start to finish without supernatural interference. So whether it intends to or not, evolution as taught encourages a “no, God did not create you” worldview.

I hope I’ve been clear. Most people who hear about evolution draw this conclusion. That is why most people in the United States are for Creation, in some form, to be taught as well. I’m not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of that idea, but I use it as an example to show that evolution, as taught, draws out the desire to credit God, as Pope Benedict states. God is behind it all and has made it so.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

My understanding is this: evolution as taught in high school textbooks - no God.

Yep, just like gravity.

I’m not saying they should be forced to add God or that scientists should be forced, etc.

Sure sounds like you are.

I have concluded that, since science supposedly says nothing about God one way or the other is not the issue, the issue is this: the average person who is taught evolution understands that it involves no God. In other words, it works from start to finish without supernatural interference. So whether it intends to or not, evolution as taught encourages a “no, God did not create you” worldview.

Once again, the average person is not taught that God is responsible for gravity either.

I find it funny that you would make that claim to someone who was taught about evolution without the mention of God and yet has absolutely no problem understanding that God created everything.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

I think you’ve been discussing this subject long enough to know that gravity and electricity have no bearing on human origins. That is one more facet to look at. No bearing at all. I don’t understand why you bring them into this discussion.

Apparently, you have this strange idea that forcing religion into a science classroom is my goal. It is not.

Once again, and this is consistent with the Catholic Church, neo-Darwinian evolution excludes God from having any causal role in the development of life, therefore, most people in the United States understand this means God did not create any living thing, so they want some form of Crationism taught that acknowledges, as the Catholic Church acknowledges, God’s role in Creation.

For the record, I am against forcing my beliefs on anyone, but this is what I believe. If there was any evolution, and the evidence for it is slim, God guided all aspects of it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Well, Wildleafblower, I’m not sure what your quibble is. You may call God what you will (God, Allah, Gott, Dieu, Dyaus Pitar, Yahweh, the One, Brahman), and you may call “making” what you will (designing, creating, forming, planning, organizing, etc.), but the fact is, monotheists, including Roman Catholics, believe that God designed the universe.

Petrus, R.T.
Real Theologian, not “tinkerer with ideas”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Orogeny]

I think you’ve been discussing this subject long enough to know that gravity and electricity have no bearing on human origins.

Totally irrelevant to your argument. You argue that evolution is leading people away from God because God isn’t included in the theory. That means that you MUST reject those other theories because they don’t include God either. It makes no difference whether or not they have a bearing on human origins. They are part of God’s creation, just as the evolution of life is.

Apparently, you have this strange idea that forcing religion into a science classroom is my goal. It is not.

I get that from your writing. See below.

Once again, and this is consistent with the Catholic Church, neo-Darwinian evolution excludes God from having any causal role in the development of life, therefore, most people in the United States understand this means God did not create any living thing, so they want some form of Crationism taught that acknowledges, as the Catholic Church acknowledges, God’s role in Creation.

OK, let’s cut to the core question, shall we? Do you accept any form of evolution?

For the record, I am against forcing my beliefs on anyone, but this is what I believe. If there was any evolution, and the evidence for it is slim, God guided all aspects of it.

No, you are not against forcing your beliefs on anyone. You just want God’s role in creation acknowledged in the science classroom.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

Thanks for your thoughts!

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is great! Jack Haught and I both gave papers at the 2005 Teilhard Society meeting in Philadelphia, where the Catholic nuns who had organized the event concluded the conference with Teilhard’s “Mass on the World.”

(Jack Haught wondered why he saw me in the student computer centre, and I told him my computer had crashed the night before I flew to the conference, so my paper wasn’t yet finished. He responded (with characteristic humour) that “the universe is not finished.”

Petrus, RT
Real Theologian, not a “tinkerer with ideas”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Tim,

My understanding is this: evolution as taught in high school textbooks - no God.

**Correct, no more than astronomy teaches about God in regard to the Big Bang. **

I’m not saying they should be forced to add God or that scientists should be forced, etc. I have concluded that, since science supposedly says nothing about God one way or the other is not the issue, the issue is this:

the average person who is taught evolution understands that it involves no God
**To the degree that this is true who’s fault would this be? Parents? I would like to see the stats of this claim btw. **
. In other words, it works from start to finish without supernatural interference. So whether it intends to or not, evolution as taught encourages a “no, God did not create you” worldview.

**So does astronomy, geology, anthropology and paleontology. Again who is held responsible for the “wrong” picture? Parents. **

I hope I’ve been clear. Most people who hear about evolution draw this conclusion.
That is why most people in the United States are for Creation, in some form, to be taught as well.

**Do you have proof of this claim? **
I’m not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of that idea, but I use it as an example to show that evolution, as taught, draws out the desire to credit God, as Pope Benedict states. God is behind it all and has made it so.

**unless you are claiming its the school’s responsibility to devise extra teaching for each child based on the faith they profess or don’t, then I guess its still the parents responsibility to instruct their children on God and his place as Supreme Creator of all that is seen and unseen. **

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

When have I spoken for SpiritMeadow?

Petrus
wildleafblower;2958972:

Petrus, FYI I wasn’t talking to you. However since you have decided to respond to me, you are rude, obnoxious, and obviously lack the ability to comprehend what I have written, neglecting to admit that as a Roman Catholic Theologian you claim to represent members of the Roman Catholic Church which you continually fail to do. And when you fail, you insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you that are Roman Catholic. Your disgraceful conduct is noted. You remind me of a playground bully, especially one who continuously enjoys taunting a woman (me) in a public forum. This is the first time in my entire life, in real life or in any group on the Interent, I’ve seen a man do this and what makes it horrible is it is you, a Roman Catholic Theologian! My opinion is that you get an an adrenalin high off of doing it which in truth feeds into a false sense masculinity of an over inflated ego. I ask you kindly Petrus, please leave me alone.

Wildleafblower, you remind me of Joe McCarthy, the communist hunter. Except that instead of communists you see panentheists under every bed. They’re really after you, aren’t they? They know where you live, and they have long, sharp claws, and they roar their terrible roars and gnash their terrible teeth; that they do, where the panentheists live…
wildleafblower;2953186:

I disagree with you. I wish to focus strickly on this particular comment of yours SpiritMeadow, “There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation.” SpiritMeadow, I’ve read that you are a panentheist and claim to be a Catholic. God isn’t in evolution.

This is Theory of Evolution: evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology

[Msg. 1111]There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation. I think its pretty darn neat.

Well Petrus, she apparently never replied to me due to your intrusion until just now after asking her again about panentheism

Thanks for your thoughts!:thumbsup
wildleafblower;2964098:

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.

Well SpiritMeadow, I figured you were an Intelligent Design advocate and a panentheist and a Teilhard de Chardin fan. Thanks for the evidence which I had earlier commented regarding the Intelligent Design movement has proponents that are followers of Teilhard de Chardin and are panentheists. Of course you aren’t really a Roman Catholic!

And Petrus do you love Jesus, believe in the Resurrection and a the Truine God?

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is great! Jack Haught and I both gave papers at the 2005 Teilhard Society meeting in Philadelphia, where the Catholic nuns who had organized the event concluded the conference with Teilhard’s “Mass on the World.”

(Jack Haught wondered why he saw me in the student computer centre, and I told him my computer had crashed the night before I flew to the conference, so my paper wasn’t yet finished. He responded (with characteristic humour) that “the universe is not finished.”

Petrus, RT
Real Theologian, not a “tinkerer with ideas”

Humm, and only 351 people attended from what I read online. Teilhard de Chardin hasn’t really helped advance SCIENCE since his followers are Intelligent Design Advocates. The Vatican (Holy See) doesn’t support Intelligent Design. Oh, but ya all can join Phillip Pullman who is a fan of Teilhard using junk science in his novels. His Dark Materials. Junk! The only I Ching is $$$$$. Pitiful! Voodoo dolls and science. Ridiculous pseudo-scientific garbage.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

You seem to be a bit swept up in current modernism or fashion, by which I refer to certain common or current ideas which are considered “fashionable” or “modern” by a few. I have my own thoughts and draw my own conclusions.

No, I cannot accept the theory of evolution that is taught in high school textbooks as true. Only a God-guided Intelligent Project. A form of Intelligent Design that rejects all of the political baggage, and that clearly states that in order for life to have appeared, it had to have a beginning, a first cause, a designer. A machine that makes parts has no self-awareness, but we do. This comes from a source.

And I will continue to reject the “if you don’t believe in one theory you must not believe in any others” as deflecting and diffusing the issue at hand.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Only a God-guided Intelligent Project. A form of Intelligent Design that rejects all of the political baggage, and that clearly states that in order for life to have appeared, it had to have a beginning, a first cause, a designer. A machine that makes parts has no self-awareness, but we do. This comes from a source.
God bless,Ed

Ed, I can certainly sign on to the sort of intelligent project in which God designed the universe. How much supervision does your version require? I presume you would need God designing and initiating creation, but you would not need God assembling every single cell of every creature from fetus to adult. Where on the spectrum of divine intervention do you draw the line for where nature requires immediate creation, and where God can leave it up to secondary causes?

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Humani Generis clearly defines the start, Adam and then Eve. All of us are descended from them. However, after they separated themselves from God by sin which they freely chose, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, was sent.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Please read dear viewing audience of Catholic.com read my following messages in their entirety:
msg. 1203

…

msg. 1205

…

msg. 1215

…

Thank you. Very important for Roman Catholics to realize and understand why the Church doesn’t support the Intelligent Design Movement. and desires for it’s members to listen to the advise of our Pope and the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee.