How evolution undermines Salvation

[SpiritMeadow]

The fact that a famous museum has an ape or gorilla giving a woman a branch in the style of the Michaelangelo painting and that the ichtus fish was redesigned to have legs and say Darwin show that the evolutionists, the ones who know what’s going on behind the scenes, have another religion to replace Christianity

**What does this religion entail as you understand it? Is there a head like a pope? What is going to be worshipped? Who are the one’s who know what’s going on behind the scenes? What are they trying to accomplish as you understand it? **

. I learned that Mao had children first read Darwin, not Mao’s book or a book by Lenin or Stalin or Marx to replace other religions from schoolchildrens’ minds .
Yes indeed, some use evolutionary proofs incorrectly

Why the religious imagery instead of just a scientific presentation of evolution?
**SWhere is this religious imagery? In science books? **
Why a white martyrdom for those who do not believe in it when scientific findings were never meant to be dogmatized but, dare I say, evolving?
**What is white martyrdom? You may of course still believe in a YEC, but it does reflect a bit badly on the church if you talk to others like this. **

Evolution is a false religion masquerading as a science–that’s why.
**You would of course have to prove this. **
It has nothing to do with science. If it were any truth to it (well, microevolution can be proven, but that isn’t what’s emphasized), scientists have little faith in it by forcing us to believe it or get bad grades or no grants or scholarships.

**If it has nothing to do with science what does it have to do with? What is emphasized and present the proof that it is false please. So all scientists lie to get grants and scholarship. Who runs this massive tens of thousands large comspiracy? **
They once applauded Piltdown Man (which shows little regard for the scientific method) and, well, you give me that flying spaghetti monster (how that goes with creationism, I never could figure); I give you panevolution–alien seed coming here and evolving into us–the latest in the denial of God’s creation of us as humans that actually, in their opinion, merited a Hollywood movie in recent times.
**It was use of the scientific method as you call it that determined that piltdown man was a fraud. It seemed to work quite well. I have no clue about spaghetti, your alien invasion is not a scientific theory, Hollywood’s opinion is not science either. Hollywood is motivated by money. They make no claim there is any truth in anything they do. **

Evolution is a religion for true Nazis who find that some people are less of humans and can and should be eliminated as useless feeders and this religion is adhered to by some government-level conservatives as well as liberals (esp. at the UN, their affiliates, and other fascist organizations that rival only the terrorists in evil and ground covered)–those who cruelly make these people think they are being saved from the evil conservatives who hate them.

**Now its a religion for nazis? Evolution has nothing to do with making anyone less of a human. Do you have any proof whatsoever to all this ranting? Conservatives and liberals are nazi’s? and the UN. Sorry, your statements just are unintelligible. **

 

[reggieM]

God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world.

You believe, however, that science cannot provide any evidence at all that what you have asserted did actually happen.

Thus, science cannot provide any evidence that God was involved in the creation of the universe, as you would have it.

You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything.

It appears that in your view, whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the universe and nature itself. How does God’s presence does change anything in the universe or in nature?
Atheists, of course, say that God had no influence in nature and that science provides no evidence that anything other than blind accidental processes were at work.

You are saying, on the contrary … that if God was not involved the universe would be different? Measurements would be different? That God’s influence affects how we do science?

 

[reggieM]

NoPlumbing doesn’t, either. Is plumbing atheistic?

You’re comparing evolutionary science with plumbing.

It certainly must surprise you to find Pope Benedict involved in this controversy – or even that it is a controversy at all. You must also be surprised that there are passionate debates on this topic across the Western world and beyond.

You don’t see any theological implications in the notion that God’s influence in the universe is not subject to scientific observation at all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world.

You believe, however, that science cannot provide any evidence at all that what you have asserted did actually happen.

Right. Science is a very limited method, and it’s unable to deal with the supernatural. Fortunately, there are other ways to know about God:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Long before the scientific method, as it exists today, people understood this.

Thus, science cannot provide any evidence that God was involved in the creation of the universe, as you would have it.

Right. Science is too weak a method to find God.

Barbarian observes:
You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything.

It appears that in your view, whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the universe and nature itself.

Nope. That’s just another of your many misrepresentations.

How does God’s presence does change anything in the universe or in nature?

He created it and the rules by which it works. He remains intimately connected to every part of it.

Atheists, of course, say that God had no influence in nature and that science provides no evidence that anything other than blind accidental processes were at work.

Remember, they only accept scientific evidence; the evidence of those “invisible things, clearly seen” is not acceptable to them.

You are saying, on the contrary … that if God was not involved the universe would be different? Measurements would be different? That God’s influence affects how we do science?

Reggie, if God was not involved, there wouldn’t be a universe. Enlarge your concept of God a bit.

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, if God was not involved, there wouldn’t be a universe.

Why do you think that is true?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding the observation that biology and chemistry don’t require God as an assumption:
Plumbing doesn’t, either. Is plumbing atheistic?

You’re comparing evolutionary science with plumbing.

Right. Plumbing is also methodologically naturalistic. Even if your plumber is a theist, he doesn’t (and can’t) use God as a means of fixing your pipes. Even if he might admit the possibility that demons of blockage are the problem, he wouldn’t look for that sort of thing. And even if he suspected that might be the problem, he’d be unable to fix it by using plumbing.

It certainly must surprise you to find Pope Benedict involved in this controversy – or even that it is a controversy at all.

For him, it seems not to be a controversy. It is, as you know, largely based in fundamentalist protestantism, and among the seventh-day adventists who invented YE creationism.

You must also be surprised that there are passionate debates on this topic across the Western world and beyond.

From time to time, collegues in other countries ask me “do people really believe that God created everything in six literal days?” In spite of vigorous and well-funded campaigns by the ID people, creationism is not well-known in other countries (except, surprisingly, in Turkey)

You don’t see any theological implications in the notion that God’s influence in the universe is not subject to scientific observation at all.

God could have, if He chose, made Himself unambigously obvious to everyone. I suspect that for reasons of free will, He did not. And free will seems to be important to Him.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You believe, however, that science cannot provide any evidence at all that what you have asserted did actually happen.

Thus, science cannot provide any evidence that God was involved in the creation of the universe, as you would have it.

Science has not so far. Whether it could or not is yet to be determined I would guess. But my personal opinion is that it will not, for the simple reason that we are to believe on faith, not proof. Proof of God would simply make our journey (and I contend it is all about the journey) silly and unnecessary.

It appears that in your view, whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the universe and nature itself. How does God’s presence does change anything in the universe or in nature?
Atheists, of course, say that God had no influence in nature and that science provides no evidence that anything other than blind accidental processes were at work.

No, I don’t think so. It is very relevant to me,and I assume it was critical to the universe. Now your sentence is unintelligible…Please what does …".How does God’s presence does change anything in the universe or in nature?" mean? You slander others for being unable to write properly so I guess you are using this to avoid the question yourself now?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You’re comparing evolutionary science with plumbing.

I don’t think he was at all, but you have a point? what is it?

It certainly must surprise you to find Pope Benedict involved in this controversy – or even that it is a controversy at all. You must also be surprised that there are passionate debates on this topic across the Western world and beyond.

Why would it be surprising to find the pope in the mix. I assume the Church has every right to think, talk and reach its own conclusions wouldn’t you? There are almost no debates on this issue except in the the good old USA. We are the one’s stuck in this non issue created by fundamentalists who have an agenda to promote …fundamentalism.

You don’t see any theological implications in the notion that God’s influence in the universe is not subject to scientific observation at all.

Sure I do. God has no desire to give us some definitive proof that means we don’t have to have faith any more. The entire purpose of our journey with God is negated if he simply hides it somewhere in science waiting for us to find it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why do you think that is true?

Because I believe that a God exists and that everything was created by Him. What aren’t you getting? I’m really at a loss as to what concept is hanging you up. You seem not to read the same words as I or many others do. At least, most of the time you make the diametrically opposite conclusion that most everyone else does.

 

[wildleafblower]

God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world. You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything. It won’t even necessarily cost you your salvation. But if you accept His creation, His way, it would bring you closer to Him.

As a Roman Catholic for decades who has been involved in teaching RCIA, confirmation classes, and youth groups, etc., etc. etc. Never have I or others, including priests, taught God created nature. The following is what I truly believe about my loving and merciful God:

MIDNIGHT MASS
SOLEMNITY OF THE NATIVITY OF THE LORD
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Saint Peter’s Basilica
25 December 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
[snip]

In some way, mankind is awaiting God, waiting for him to draw near. But when the moment comes, there is no room for him. Man is so preoccupied with himself, he has such urgent need of all the space and all the time for his own things, that nothing remains for others – for his neighbour, for the poor, for God. And the richer men become, the more they fill up all the space by themselves. And the less room there is for others.

Saint John, in his Gospel, went to the heart of the matter, giving added depth to Saint Luke’s brief account of the situation in Bethlehem: “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not” (Jn 1:11). This refers first and foremost to Bethlehem: the Son of David comes to his own city, but has to be born in a stable, because there is no room for him at the inn. Then it refers to Israel: the one who is sent comes among his own, but they do not want him. And truly, it refers to all mankind: he through whom the world was made, the primordial Creator-Word, enters into the world, but he is not listened to, he is not received.

These words refer ultimately to us, to each individual and to society as a whole. Do we have time for our neighbour who is in need of a word from us, from me, or in need of my affection? For the sufferer who is in need of help? For the fugitive or the refugee who is seeking asylum? Do we have time and space for God? Can he enter into our lives? Does he find room in us, or have we occupied all the available space in our thoughts, our actions, our lives for ourselves?

Thank God, this negative detail is not the only one, nor the last one that we find in the Gospel. Just as in Luke we encounter the maternal love of Mary and the fidelity of Saint Joseph, the vigilance of the shepherds and their great joy, just as in Matthew we encounter the visit of the wise men, come from afar, so too John says to us: **“To all who received him, he gave power to become children of God” **(Jn 1:12). There are those who receive him, and thus, beginning with the stable, with the outside, there grows silently the new house, the new city, the new world. The message of Christmas makes us recognize the darkness of a closed world, and thereby no doubt illustrates a reality that we see daily. Yet it also tells us that God does not allow himself to be shut out. He finds a space, even if it means entering through the stable; there are people who see his light and pass it on. Through the word of the Gospel, the angel also speaks to us, and in the sacred liturgy the light of the Redeemer enters our lives. Whether we are shepherds or “wise men” – the light and its message call us to set out, to leave the narrow circle of our desires and interests, to go out to meet the Lord and worship him. **We worship him by opening the world to truth, to good, to Christ, to the service of those who are marginalized and in whom he awaits us. **
[snip]
It is the community of those who allow themselves to be drawn by Christ’s love and so become one body with him, a new humanity. The power that comes from the Cross, the power of self-giving goodness – this is the true kingship. The stable becomes a palace – and setting out from this starting-point, Jesus builds the great new community, whose key-word the angels sing at the hour of his birth: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to those whom he loves” – those who place their will in his, in this way becoming men of God, new men, a new world.
(continued)

 

[wildleafblower]

(continuation part 2 of 2)

[please read my entire msg. 90 which includes part 1 of
MIDNIGHT MASS
SOLEMNITY OF THE NATIVITY OF THE LORD
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Saint Peter’s Basilica
25 December 2007
…And truly, it refers to all mankind: he through whom the world was made, the primordial Creator-Word, enters into the world, but he is not listened to, he is not received…“To all who received him, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12)…]

Gregory of Nyssa, in his Christmas homilies, developed the same vision setting out from the Christmas message in the Gospel of John: “He pitched his tent among us” (Jn 1:14). Gregory applies this passage about the tent to the tent of our body, which has become worn out and weak, exposed everywhere to pain and suffering. And he applies it to the whole universe, torn and disfigured by sin. What would he say if he could see the state of the world today, through the abuse of energy and its selfish and reckless exploitation? Anselm of Canterbury, in an almost prophetic way, once described a vision of what we witness today in a polluted world whose future is at risk: “Everything was as if dead, and had lost its dignity, having been made for the service of those who praise God. The elements of the world were oppressed, they had lost their splendour because of the abuse of those who enslaved them for their idols, for whom they had not been created” (PL 158, 955f.). Thus, according to Gregory’s vision, the stable in the Christmas message represents the ill-treated world. What Christ rebuilds is no ordinary palace. He came to restore beauty and dignity to creation, to the universe: this is what began at Christmas and makes the angels rejoice. The Earth is restored to good order by virtue of the fact that it is opened up to God, it obtains its true light anew, and in the harmony between human will and divine will, in the unification of height and depth, it regains its beauty and dignity. Thus Christmas is a feast of restored creation. It is in this context that the Fathers interpret the song of the angels on that holy night: it is an expression of joy over the fact that the height and the depth, Heaven and Earth, are once more united; that man is again united to God. According to the Fathers, part of the angels’ Christmas song is the fact that now angels and men can sing together and in this way the beauty of the universe is expressed in the beauty of the song of praise. Liturgical song – still according to the Fathers – possesses its own peculiar dignity through the fact that it is sung together with the celestial choirs. It is the encounter with Jesus Christ that makes us capable of hearing the song of the angels, thus creating the real music that fades away when we lose this singing-with and hearing-with.
[snip]
In the stable at Bethlehem, Heaven and Earth meet. Heaven has come down to Earth. For this reason, a light shines from the stable for all times; for this reason joy is enkindled there; for this reason song is born there. At the end of our Christmas meditation I should like to quote a remarkable passage from Saint Augustine. Interpreting the invocation in the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father who art in Heaven”, he asks: what is this – Heaven? And where is Heaven? Then comes a surprising response: “… who art in Heaven – that means: in the saints and in the just. Yes, the heavens are the highest bodies in the universe, but they are still bodies, which cannot exist except in a given location. Yet if we believe that God is located in the heavens, meaning in the highest parts of the world, then the birds would be more fortunate than we, since they would live closer to God. Yet it is not written: ‘The Lord is close to those who dwell on the heights or on the mountains’, but rather: ‘the Lord is close to the brokenhearted’ (Ps 34:18[33:19]), an expression which refers to humility. Just as the sinner is called ‘Earth’, so by contrast the just man can be called ‘Heaven’” (Sermo in monte II 5, 17). Heaven does not belong to the geography of space, but to the geography of the heart. And the heart of God, during the Holy Night, stooped down to the stable: the humility of God is Heaven. And if we approach this humility, then we touch Heaven. Then the Earth too is made new. With the humility of the shepherds, let us set out, during this Holy Night, towards the Child in the stable! Let us touch God’s humility, God’s heart! Then his joy will touch us and will make the world more radiant. Amen.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20071224_christmas_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...nts/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20071224_christmas_en.html

 

[drpmjhess]

Barbarian observes:
God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world.
Reggie, if God was not involved, there wouldn’t be a universe. Enlarge your concept of God a bit.

The Barbarian, you are right that God created nature. And while I agree that on the practical order of things, plumbing can be godlessly or atheistically intepreted, theologically I think we can say that plumbing (remotely) can lead us to God. When we flush it is not proximately the will of God that things go down, but it is God who designed the parameters of the cosmos such that gravitational forces act upon liquids – “the heavens declare the glory of God.” Of course, this could be interpreted atheistically: things just happen, and flushed liquids flow downwards – that’s a brute fact. But the cosmic anthropic principle would suggest that we inhabit a just-so universe, in which gravity is among the constants that make life as we know it possible. An inhabitable universe without gravity is inconceivable: “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen…”

Petrus

 

[foolishmortal]

Melbourne Guy, evolution says nothing about ruling out a creator; it merely explains the diversity of life on earth. Ignore foolishmortal – his vacuous ramblings are unilluminating, warmed-over nonsense from various Young Earth Creationist sites.
Well, there’s the Roman martyrologies, there are Church Fathers, there is the self-proclaimed self-destruct button in Darwin’s theory that real science can prove was pushed, there is the eugenic mindset of Darwin and friends (though the ape-to-man part came later), there is the religious imagery aped by the Darwinists (that shows the real minds behind evolution, not their theistic-creationist lackeys who want to feel smart and reasonable and are probably ashamed of the Bible, were and are more interested in promoting their worldview than religion)–al these things put macroevolution into question. Unfortunately, real scientists have been branded as heretics by those who probably are self-hating in some way due to the past sins of their fellow churchmen and cannot get the real truth out to the public as a result. I am sure the real minds behind evolution, the movers and shakers, are laughing at the theistic evolution people–the sheeple they control because of the sheeple’s pride and self hate. These so-called reasonable people made a big Hollywood movie about panevolution once. In that, we are not even human, bt seeded by alien sperm.

BTW The Pope said there was possibly something to evolution. He did not seem to specify which kind.

I would recommend you read a book by Guy J. Consolmagno, S.J., an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory. In his autobiogrpahical Brother Astronomer, Consolmagno discusses his work and his Catholic faith. See more at clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R10…nsolmagno.html. In fact, I think you might find the website of the Vatican Observatory interesting, although there is not a lot up front on their programs. It’s best to click on the various staff pages to get an idea of the sort of astronomy and cosmology they do. I’m leaving for Hawaii in a few days to speak on theology and evolution, and Chris Corbally, S.J. will be speaking in the same session clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/CCorbally.html

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

God created** nature **and used it to create all other things in this world. You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything. It won’t even necessarily cost you your salvation. But if you accept His creation, His way, it would bring you closer to Him.

Hi Barbarian

You mentioned elsewhere that you are a scientist and I suspect a Roman Catholic? As I have previously mentioned God did not create nature. Have you read the ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Tuesday, 27 October 1998?

*Mr President,
Dear Academicians,

1. I am pleased to welcome you this morning and to offer you my cordial greetings during the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the changes concerning the concept of nature. I thank Prof. Nicola Cabibbo for his kind words. I cordially greet Archbishop Giuseppe Pittau, former Chancellor of your Academy, and I thank Mons. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who has agreed to succeed him. *

[snip]

1. In Catholic philosophy and theology and in the Magisterium, the concept of nature has an importance which it would be good to point out. First of all, it calls to mind the reality of God in his very essence, thus expressing the divine unity of “the holy and ineffable Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, [who] is one God by nature, of one substance, of one nature, and of one majesty and power” (11th Council of Toledo, DS 525). The same term also explains creation, the visible world which owes its existence to God and is rooted in the creative act by which “the world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 338). According to the divine plan, creation finds its purpose in the glorification of its maker (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 36). Thus we see that this concept also expresses the meaning of history, which comes from God and advances towards its end, the return of all created things to God; therefore history cannot be understood as cyclical, for the Creator is also the God of salvation history. “**It is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Encyclical Fides et ratio, n. 34). **
   [snip]
2. At the end of our meeting, I encourage you to continue your scientific work in a spirit of service to the Creator, to man and to the whole of creation. Thus human beings will praise God, since all things come from him (cf. 1 Chr 29:14); they will respect the dignity of every individual and will find the answer to the fundamental questions about their origin and their ultimate end (cf. Encyclical Fides et ratio, n. 1). They will care for creation, which “**God willed as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him” **(Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 299), and which is good by its nature (cf. Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, DS 1333).

In wishing you fruitful work in a rich dialogue between the different disciplines you represent, I cordially give you my Apostolic Blessing.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19981027_p-a-ciencias_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ts/hf_jp-ii_spe_19981027_p-a-ciencias_en.html

This is another very important document you should read.
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE, PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE, JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE, A Christian reflection
on the “New Age”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Look both ways and remember Jesus is counting on you to walk down the right path.

 

[drpmjhess]

Hi Barbarian As I have previously mentioned God did not create nature. )

Who or what created nature, if not God? The Fathers of the Church in the first centuries argued against the Aristotelian notion that the universe is eternal, with the demiurge (demiourgos) fighting against recalcitrant matter. Thus, they came up with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo by an eternal God.

Petrus

 

[foolishmortal]

I can’t believe I am agreeing with the last poster on anything. Anyway, since not everyone has time for all evolution debate posts, here is a copy from another.

Maybe there were primitive humanoids created by God. Who said they had to develop into someone like Adam? Why couldn’t they coexist? There is no evidence that one became the other. It doesn’t happen.

We still have apes. Why are there no homo erectuses or Australopithicas africansises walking around if apes are still here? Where are more advanced transitional animals or people? How could a lower species adapt better than a higher one?

Why is religious imagery used for evolution? They don’t use mustardish gimmicks to promote the health benefits of ketchup to mustard fans. They don’t make yellow ketchup or red mustard. This evolution bit has no more to do with science than women’s liberation has to do with doing anything for women or the latter would be storming China about aborting or abandoning their girls. This is communism/illuminati (who did exist and may be the U.N., Bildebergers or both in modern times), pure and simple.

 

[drpmjhess]

We still have apes. Why are there no homo erectuses or Australopithicas africansises walking around if apes are still here? Where are more advanced transitional animals or people? How could a lower species adapt better than a higher one?.

Ah, that argument. Well, my ancestors are Europeans, so why are there still Europeans?

 

[The_Barbarian]

God created all things, including nature. (Nature being the physical universe)

Much of creation was done by natural means within this universe, as God mentions in Genesis, where life is brought forth from earlier created things.

 

[The_Barbarian]

We still have apes. Why are there no homo erectuses or Australopithicas africansises walking around if apes are still here?

Apes didn’t compete with humans until very recently, when people began large scale forest clearing. Primitive hominids did compete with each other for resources, and so many became extinct.

Many apes also became extinct, but because they had a different niche than hominids, the extinctions of Australopithecines wan’t a factor for them.

Where are more advanced transitional animals or people? How could a lower species adapt better than a higher one?.

“Lower” means nothing in biology. Chimps are highly advanced primates in their own right, as much as we are. They just advanced in a different direction. Not surprisingly, they can outdo us in a number of physical capacities and at least one mental capacity.

 

[drpmjhess]

“Lower” means nothing in biology.

Yes – “lower” is a holdover from the “Great Chain of Being” so popular in the early modern period.