Ignorance and evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is an Unsatisfied Evolutionist?
Apparently, one who thinks evolution isn’t the whole answer for everything. That would include almost all evolutionists.
The Pope Needn’t Believe in Evolution as an accurate scientific account,
He and Schoenborn both say that it is.
but i think that it has been made clear that the Church Does not reject the theory as heresy
Of course not. Heresy is inventing your own doctrines, contrary to the Church’s teachings. It is contrary to the Church’s teachings that evolution is contrary to the Magesterium. Hopefully, those who hold such a view are truly not aware of it.
 
Did you read what Cardinal Schoenborn wrote? The Catholic Church has not acquiesced to this theory. Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist. It is quite clear.
Peace,
Ed
I have read it now.
John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”
I think that even a good scientist who is Atheist, will point out that the Evolutionary process, isn’t a wholly random system of events; but are instead determined or incouraged by other factors.

Those who say otherwise, know very little or nothing about Evolution. So; when the Pope talks about “pure chance”, i don’t think he is attacking the actual Scientific account; but rather a version or interpretation of the scientific account of Evolution. Darwin, had no intentions to incourage an Atheistic account of Nature. He simply felt, as a scientist, that the objective evidence strongly pointed in the direction of what we now know as Evolution. Anti-religionist then hi jacked the theory and promoted it as a defence of Naturalism; argueing that all reality is reducible to energy or matter.

Being a “Theistic-evolutionist”; I don’t believe that the world is reducible to** pure **chance and necessity. This is an attack against Atheism, which i whole-heartedly support. I believe that nature is designed to bring about specific actualties under certain conditions. Chance, as in random events, has a small part to play. I think there are random aspects involved, but that which is guided and determined by the natural enviroment. In otherwords, there is a set balance in the universe, in respect of natural forces, which neccesarily gives rise to the actual events that God intended. I admit that one cannot see Immediate design in the Evolutionary mechanism or process; but, remember, its not by chance that any given mutation will give rise to a nervous system, or a heart, or a lung. These are the given potentialities which become actualised when a specific event takes place; when atoms are arranged into a specific pattern. When a specific arrangment of atoms have been achieved, the actuality necesarilly ocurrs or follows. It is in this that we see the design; and a deep thinker will see that evolutionary events do not undermine such design.

Atheistic Evolution, is a shallow excuse to disbelieve in God, since it does not explain the nature inherited by an object; it only explains the processes by how certain kinds of actualities arise.

I honestly don’t see the problem.
 
To my statement:

***They (scientists)are limited to explaining what has already been created. ***

Barbarian responds:
That’s what evolutionary theory, for example, does. All science is like that.
Yes. But ET doesn’t allow for ‘ex nihilo’ creation of a living thing in its entire substance at the beginning of time. It requires its production gradually over a long period of time.

He continues:
Creation if the universe may have been instantaneous, but creation goes on for a much longer time than six days.
Not according to the Lateran IV definition:

**
God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time
created each creature from nothing…**

“The words” from the beginning of time" have a special connotation as they relate to the traditional understanding of creation in six ordinary days as taught by the majority of the Church Fathers or in an instant as taught by St. Augustine and some others.

There is no leeway for a longer period.

Further to my conclusion:

**One must, therefore, agree that all things were created directly by God at the beginning, ‘ex nihilo’ in their full substance (added by Vatican 1 canon 5 in 1879). **

He asks:
This doesn’t seem to appear in any church documents. Can you give us a checkable soruce?
See Denzinger 1805

Barbarian concludes:
the Pope… thinks common descent of all creatures is virtually certain. That goes far beyond macroevolution.
Could you kindly give details of the Pope’s words on the subject?

Thank you - Peter
 
A NOTE OF CAUTION.

Accusations of the following nature can lead to closure of the thread.


Orogeny states:
You must understand, Barbarian, that Peter considers the current pope and the previous pope to be heretics. He has stated so in a round about way in previous threads.
As Orogeny knows one can only be a heretic if the heresy is recognised as such. I am convinced that neither the current not previous popes embracing theistic evolution realised their belief contravened Magisterial Teaching.

Peter
 
A NOTE OF CAUTION.

Accusations of the following nature can lead to closure of the thread.


Orogeny states:

As Orogeny knows one can only be a heretic if the heresy is recognised as such. I am convinced that neither the current not previous popes embracing theistic evolution realised their belief contravened Magisterial Teaching.

Peter
Thanks for the warning.

Pope Benedict teaches that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. Is this opposed to Magesterial teaching? If so, is he in “grave error” if he understood the Magesterial teaching you refer to when he made the statements?

Please define “grave error” again for us please.

Both popes, but especially Pope Benedict XVI, are/were very strong theologians and historians of the Church. Do you really believe that they were not aware of this Magesterial teaching?

Peace

Tim
 
Pope Benedict teaches that all things evolved from a common ancestor? He also said that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

Peace,
Ed
 
Pope Benedict teaches that all things evolved from a common ancestor? He also said that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.
In **COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, **he said:
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Common ancestor.

I guess you missed that part.

How are those citations coming?

Peace

Tim
 
They (scientists)are limited to explaining what has already been created.
Barbarian observes:
That’s what evolutionary theory, for example, does. All science is like that.
Yes. But ET doesn’t allow for ‘ex nihilo’ creation of a living thing in its entire substance at the beginning of time.
Neither does Genesis, which says that the earth brought forth living things after the initial creation.
It requires its production gradually over a long period of time.
So Pope Benedict says. I find it hard to believe he would be unaware that the Magesterium says otherwise.

Barbarian observes:
Creation if the universe may have been instantaneous, but creation goes on for a much longer time than six days.
Not according to the Lateran IV definition:
Then that would mean you could not be a creature of God. Are you very sure you have it right?
God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing…
“The words” from the beginning of time" have a special connotation as they relate to the traditional understanding of creation in six ordinary days as taught by the majority of the Church Fathers or in an instant as taught by St. Augustine and some others.
But how does that square with all the things that have appeared since that “instant?” God didn’t create those? Who did?
There is no leeway for a longer period.
If so, the last two popes and Scripture itself are at odds with Vatican I. Or possibly, you’ve misconstrued it. I think the latter is more likely.
One must, therefore, agree that all things were created directly by God at the beginning, ‘ex nihilo’ in their full substance (added by Vatican 1 canon 5 in 1879).
Barbarian suggests:
This doesn’t seem to appear in any church documents. Can you give us a checkable soruce?
See Denzinger 1805
Sorry, nothing on the web that supports your story. Nothing in Vatican I, either. Do you have any link at all?

Barbarian observes:
Pope Benedict thinks common descent of all creatures is virtually certain. That goes far beyond macroevolution.
Could you kindly give details of the Pope’s words on the subject?
Sure:

“Converging evidence furnishes mounting support for evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth. It is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s report to Pope John Paul as Chair of the International Theological Commission
 
Vatican I on Creation:

**"Canons
  1. On God the creator of all things
  2. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
  3. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
  4. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
  5. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
  6. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema."**
Since the Catechism has this to say about humans as creatures:

"Humans are created in the image and likeness of God; Humans are called to happiness and holiness; Humans are rational and free’ Humans are moral beings; Humans have passions or feelings; Humans are blessed with a conscience; Humans are able to sin., it is quite clear that although the universe and everything in it was created by God from nothing, that does not in any way mean (as Genesis and the Catechism make clear) that God cannot or does not create things from pre-existing things.

The argument that “creation” cannot apply to things produced from pre-existing matter is contradicted by Holy Scripture and the Magesterium of the Church.
 
A NOTE OF CAUTION.

Accusations of the following nature can lead to closure of the thread.


Orogeny states:

As Orogeny knows one can only be a heretic if the heresy is recognised as such. I am convinced that neither the current not previous popes embracing theistic evolution realised their belief contravened Magisterial Teaching.

Peter
Well my goodness, you must have sent a lot of letters to the Vatican by now to straighten then out. How about sharing some of them with us? Seriously, I cannot believe the number of people on this site who contend that they have understood the various documents ever so much better than the pope or any of his hundreds of scholars and doctors who specialize in these matters. Astounding.
 
Pope Benedict teaches that all things evolved from a common ancestor? He also said that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.
Ed
that’s because he is a smart man and knows that nothning in science is ever considered “proven” Of course we have told you this at least 3 times before as well…I’m gonna keep track from now on Ed. This needless recycling of your arguments without citation is getting most tiresome.
 
Peter: these may help. If nothing else, they certainly help dispel the myth that the Pope approves of materialistic evolution.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/mbrumley_origins_aug06.asp

cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Evolution/Evolution.htm
Of course Pope Benedict has not approved of materialistic evolution. No pope before him has, either. However, materialistic or atheistic evolution is not scientific evolution. I previously explained this in post 132. Materialistic evolution is not strictly science and is another track. Again, materialistic evolution incorporates philosophical materialism into its theory, and as such, it is not a strictly scientifc theory.

Pope Benedict supports the science of evolution. By rejecting materialistic evolution, he is not rejecting the science of evolution and what it has to say about origins.

The science of evolution, as science, has nothing to say about ultimate origins. That remains beyond the scope science. Scientific evolution only deals with proximate causes of origins. The question of ultimate origins is a question for philosophy and theology. The answers given by the theologian and philosopher should not contradict the answer given by the scientist because truth cannot contradict truth. If there is a contradiction, it needs to be determined who is in error.

The Pope’s position is one that supports the findings of evolutionary science that are true, or at least are true as best as science can determine at this point in time. Science always progresses with deeper and more accurate understanding of natural phenomena. Scientific evolution is just getting off the ground, and has made wonderful progress thus far. There is still much, much more to be learned. A myriad of unanswered questions remain.

A theory of evolution that teaches that God is the ultimate origin of the universe and everything in it, goes beyond science. It incorporates philosophical and theological insights. This is great, and it is not a problem just so long as everyone realizes that theistic evolution is no more strictly natural science than is atheistic evolution.

A complete understanding of origins, though, as complete as is humanly possible, requires the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology.

In summary, “materialistic evolution” is not strictly science and it is not synonymous with “evolution”. Debates get confused and go nowhere unless the proper distinctions, such as I have mentioned here, are made in the beginning. As Aristotle said, “A little error in the beginning amounts to a colossal one in the end.”

I think you are ending up with colossal errors and need to backtrack and make the necessary distinctions and agree upon meanings of the terms that are being used in the discussion.

~The End~

itinerant1 :tiphat:
 
One Darwinian atheist attacking another. But there’s “nothing to discuss here” because everybody knows evolution is a fact. 😉

townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/21/desecrating_darwins_cathedral
Wilson begins, “Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory.” Moreover, “We are both atheists in our personal convictions.” Then Wilson gets to his point. “When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published, I naturally assumed he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues.” Rather, Dawkins has subjected his atheist readers to “sleights of hand.” He has produced a “diatribe against religion” that is “deeply misinformed.” Indeed he is “just another angry atheist trading on his reputation as an evolutionst and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.”
 
The evolution of Darwin’s bad influence

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2004129030_darwinday20.html

John G. West, who disbelieves in Darwinism, has written a book on its bad cultural consequences, from eugenics to permissive sex education. West’s opponents will not read it, because he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that has championed Intelligent Design. And that is too bad, because even those who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, as I do, can concede that some things done in its name have been less than pleasing.

He shows that those who defend science from incursions by the believers can make shameless forays of their own. For example, when scientists say they cannot determine when a fetus becomes a human being, and conclude that government has no reason to restrict abortion, they are making a moral argument. Writes West, “What the scientists … most definitely did not say was that since science is silent, legislators were [to] feel free to consult philosophy, ethics or religion to come to an answer.”

One moderate view is that Darwinism and religion are compatible. But West argues that the two are generally combined in a way that favors Darwin, and that the agendas of the evolutionists are less often examined:

“Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of evolution, they almost never explore the metaphysical baggage carried by many of evolution’s staunchest defenders. Yet … the teaching of evolution in American schools has been intertwined with theological, social and even political agendas from the very beginning.”
 
reggie << One Darwinian atheist attacking another. But there’s “nothing to discuss here” because everybody knows evolution is a fact. >>

One atheist biologist attacking another atheist biologist about how one writes about religion. Has nothing to do with science because both atheist biologists and theist biologists accept the science and know evolution is a fact.

Read a darn book will ya? :rolleyes: :eek: The longer you and Ed don’t read any books the longer this thread will go on and we may just break the creation-evolution thread record! For that I’m grateful. 😛

“Common descent is a general descriptive theory that proposes to explain the origins of living organisms…Because it is so well supported scientifically, macroevolution is often called the ‘fact of evolution’ by biologists…the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. This is why scientists call universal common descent the ‘fact of evolution.’ None of the evidence above assumes that natural selection is true or that it is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Thus, the macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless of the mechanism.” (from my Nov 2002 summary of Theobald’s Evidences)

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” in American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

“…there has been a confusion, partly deliberate, of the fact that organisms have evolved with theories about the detailed mechanics of the process. The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker…the present complex living forms have evolved by an unbroken and continuous process from the simplest living forms of the pre-Cambrian era. To assert, on the contrary, that the earth and life on it are a paltry ten or hundred thousand years old and that the complex forms living today arose in an instant from unorganized matter is in contradiction not simply with the corpus of biological knowledge but with all scientific knowledge of the physical world. To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Lewontin, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983] )

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

“In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (ITC statement 2004)

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top