Intelligent Design, most scientific

[reggieM]

When asked: “But what exactly is your position in this creation-evolution discussion?”

Barbarian replied:

As Pope Benedict acknowledged, common descent is virtually certain. But there are no consequences for being a creationist, or even a YE creationist, so long as one doesn’t believe the YE concept of “life ex nihilo”, which is contradicted by Genesis.

Science can only study natural things, and can’t even say if the supernatural exists.

Thus, Barbarian’s position on this discussion is that Pope Benedict said something and there are no consequences for being a creationist or YE creationist (except for …).

Additionally, science cannot assert that anything exists except for materialist nature – like the human intellect, memory or will.

I would call that about the most slender and ambiguous statement one could imagine from a person who posts some fairly unyeilding opinions defending Darwin’s theory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Always for the good, never changes the laws of nature… think about it.

Nope, I didn’t say that.

I said that. It’s demonstrably true.

I said “always for the good, always tinkering with nature”.

Sorry. No sign of changing any laws of nature, which always turn out the same whenever we observe them.

Why? Because perhaps nature’s laws tend to chaos

That’s a testable claim. So far, always the same.

In the same way, nature causes a tsunami. God’s intervention changes the law of nature and stops the storm from moving in the natural path. That’s a miracle.

No law of nature needs to be changed, and we have no evidence that it was. God can simply do a miracle, which affects nature appropriately. The tsunami (which isn’t a storm, BTW) can be deflected but continues to act according to natural laws.

The same may be true with the origin of life. “Natural laws” cannot produce life.

The evidence indicates that they do. And we have God’s Word in Genesis. What is your evidence that they can’t?

God’s intervention changed the law of nature by a miracle and produced life.

Did you already forget the definition of a miracle?

**The wonder of the miracle is due to the fact that its cause is hidden, and an effect is expected other than what actually takes place. Hence, by comparison with the ordinary course of things, the miracle is called extraordinary. In analyzing the difference between the extraordinary character of the miracle and the ordinary course of nature, the Fathers of the Church and theologians employ the terms above, contrary to, and outside nature. These terms express the manner in which the miracle is extraordinary.

A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow’s son (1 Kings 17). A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about. **
Catholic Encyclopedia

The same with the creation of a human being. Nature could not produce human intelligence through natural laws of random mutation or natural selection.

I know you want us to believe that, but your mere insistence that the evidence is wrong won’t suffice.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Benedict acknowledged, common descent is virtually certain. But there are no consequences for being a creationist, or even a YE creationist, so long as one doesn’t believe the YE concept of “life ex nihilo”, which is contradicted by Genesis.

Science can only study natural things, and can’t even say if the supernatural exists.

Thus, Barbarian’s position on this discussion…

Is that Pope Benedict is right about common descent of all living things. It is indeed virtually certain.

…and there are no consequences for being a creationist or YE creationist …

So long as one doesn’t accept the YE doctrine of “life ex nihilo”, which is contrary to God’s word in Genesis.

Additionally, science cannot assert that anything exists except for materialist nature…

Can’t assert that it doesn’t exist, either. Science is too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

I would call that about the most slender and ambiguous statement

I asserted the fact of common descent of living things on earth, and that creationism, except for “life ex nihilo”, while wrong, is not inconsistent with scripture.

Slender maybe. Ambiguous, no.

 

[The_Barbarian]

[Perhaps we don’t] fully recognize the total extent within which God does indeed intervene

Barbarian observes:
Or maybe we can’t find any orange leprechauns, because there aren’t any.

This is basically skepticism

No, it’s a refusal to invent supernatural causes to patch up things we don’t yet understand. Bad theology, and bad science, it is.

or a close resemblance to atheism.

Shame on you. I thought you were going to stop that sort of thing.

What is implied is that if we do not see God’s intervention (how do we see it?), then it is as imaginary as “orange leprechauns”.

Read Romans to learn how we see it. But inventing supernatural effects as a patch on reality is not a good idea.

Barbarian implies that he is able to “find” and recognize all of God’s actions.

Reggie, if you spent more time trying to put a cogent argument together and less time trying to invent ideas you’d like me to have, you’d do a lot better here.

If he cannot see or observe the direct actions of God, then they don’t exist.

Ditto that. Try to do better.

That’s been an essential part of his argument. Namely, that God doesn’t work any miracles that we’re not fully aware of.

**Thus, though the works of Divine grace, such as the Sacramental Presence, are above the power of nature, and due to God alone, they may be called miraculous only in the wide meaning of the term, i.e., as supernatural effects, but they are not miracles in the sense here understood, for miracles in the strict sense are apparent…The extraordinary element in the miracle – i.e. an event apart from the ordinary course of things; enables us to understand the teaching of theologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural or supernatural course of Divine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of natural forces. Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of nature. **
Catholic Encyclopedia

The problem, Reggie, is that you have a non-Catholic definition of “miracle.”

 

[joseph_virgen]

Intelligent design came about around 1991. By then Einstein was long dead. Einsteins’ comments had to do with the fact that some truths are outside of the natural world.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, maybe it’s time for you to tell us what you think it is, then.:

If we want to define a sign from God then we should probably start within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves where there are indeed many ‘signs’ given by God in order to vindicate his authority as Sovereign Lord.

This authority as Sovereign Lord was primarily focused on the ancient Israelites – but also extended beyond them to incoorporate the nations of the entire world in one form or another.

In discussing these things it should also be noted that the physical evidence of a sign could take on a wide range of outward appearances.

In many cases, the physical evidence of a sign could range anywhere from a mark or a token, a badge or a standard, or even a monument or a memorial.

The physical evidence of the signs given by the Lord usually almost always includes aspects of having a clearly definitive message pronounced as a warning, omen, or prodigy in conjunction with it.

Likewise, in almost all cases, some form of deeper spiritual symbolism is present – although many would argue over the semantics and reality of the symbolic meaning behind the physical evidence.

On the more exceptional occasions, a miracle (or miraculous sign) was given to otherwise establish the proof of his presence and to demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions.

In analyzing the concept of designated ‘signs’ within the Hebrew Scriptures, it should be noted that the Hebrew word for ‘sign’ is ot. The Hebrew word ‘ot’ signified something which could be shown or confirmed**, and pertained to the past, present and future.

As highlighted above, it is generally understood that the confirmation was an inducement to believe what was affirmed, professed, or promised.

At the most basic level, it was considered the ‘acid test’ of prophecy – as a true prophet was identified by the fact that the wonders or signs he predicted in the name of the Lord came to pass.

Incidentally, the Hebrew word ot often occurs within the same context as the Hebrew word mopet. The Hebrew word ‘mopet’ essentially translates into English as something akin to a ‘wonder’.

When ‘ot’ is used in conjunction with ‘mopet’, it is often collectively referred to as “signs and wonders” – or, at least, this is how most English speaking Christians are familiar with it within the Christian Scriptures translated into English in our modern day.

An example of this translation is clearly outlined within the Hebrew Scriptures as follows:

But I will harden Pharoah’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders

in Egypt, he will not listen to you.

Exodus 7:3 (NIV)​

Another example of this translation can be clearly seen within another section of the Hebrew Scriptures as follows:

Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders

, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?

Deuteronomy 4:34 (NIV)​

Or, again, as yet another example of this English translation, carefully examine the following Hebrew Scriptural text as follows:

Before our eyes the Lord sent miraculous signs and wonders

– great and terrible – upon Egypt and Pharaoh and his whole household.

Deuteronomy 7:22 (NIV)​

Considering that this entire evolution/creation discussion seems to be revolving around this very definition, would this be considered a good starting point when defining what is authentically considered a sign from God?

Or should we go back further?**

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m suggesting that your nervousness about the way God does things in this world is not justified.

Excuse me, but I’m not nervous about the way God does things in this world-- so please don’t project false intentions onto my words during this discussion.

It’s one thing to point out potential errors in one’s theodicy of God-- which is perfectly acceptable as far a debates and dialogues are concerned. I’m totally open to any criticisms that one may claim against my theodicy of God’s creative actions. But it’s entirely another thing to claim false intentions on the part of those you are talking with in order to “score points” in a debate.

The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Excuse me, but I’m not nervous about the way God does things in this world-- so please don’t project false intentions onto my words during this discussion.

And you’re first throwing a stone, because…

And I will now apologize, for the tactic, but I did it intentionally to make a point. It’s been part of your otherwise well-reasoned arguments for a while.

It’s one thing to point out potential errors in one’s theodicy of God-- which is perfectly acceptable as far a debates and dialogues are concerned. I’m totally open to any criticisms that one may claim against my theodicy of God’s creative actions. But it’s entirely another thing to claim false intentions on the part of those you are talking with in order to “score points” in a debate.

Well said. Can it now stop?

The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism.

There could be no proper scientific criticism of the church. Even if a doctrine violated scientific laws, ( e.g. the Resurrection) science has no way to criticize a religious belief.

She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.

Intelligent Design is not specifically denied by the church, at least in the milder forms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Considering that this entire evolution/creation discussion seems to be revolving around this very definition, would this be considered a good starting point when defining what is authentically considered a sign from God?

Much better, I think. Pretty much what I showed you from the Catholic encyclopedia, which makes a distinction between miracles (which are signs) and God’s everyday maintainence of the universe, which is not considered a miracle.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Or maybe we can’t find any orange leprechauns, because there aren’t any.

So it comes back to this again?

Fine.

If you’re allowed to project intentionalities onto our discussions then we will certainly share our thoughts on this too.

Barbarian, we’ve been really trying to engage you on many points here, and yet your debate appears to be resorting to orange leprechauns.

I’m sorry, but if you wish to debate someone, then you should at least repsect the opinions of those you are debating with.

Atheists do indeed use the very same form of argument that you are using whenever they rail against the existence of God himself.

You are not railing against the existence of God– but you are railing against the idea of the existence of evidence of God interacting with his creation by employing the exact same arguments that atheists use when trying to disprove the existence of God himself.

This is a bluntly inane debating tactic that you are using in my opinion-- a spiritually unclean tactic which is leaving many within the Church wide open to the devil’s attacks.

In the end, if you are wrong in what you assert, and if you have led people away from God by using these generally atheistic tactics, and if you have not repented of this mortal sin of leading people away from God, then you will indeed be held accountable before God for leading people away from him.

My first hope in Christ is that this rebuke will help you to come to your senses and see the dangers in the tactics that you are employing.

If this does not come to pass, then my second hope in Christ is that you are simply invicibly ignorant of the dangers of the things that you claim so that God’s mercy will be upon you on that last day.

However, considering that level of intelligence you display, I actually don’t see much chance of this second hope coming to pass.

Oh, and by the way, if you claim that I’m in the same danger, I would disagree.

I am open to God using both purely natural and supernatural methods to create and speciate life on earth converging toward humanity-- and this includes the idea of God simply setting up the initial parameters and then allowing life to naturally flow from his initial point of creation.

I’ve been open to either since the begining of this thread and well beyond too. I’ve consistently maintained that one can believe either-- exactly as the Church of Christ allows people to do.

What I am doing, however, is trying to discern the justifications of the arguments presented on all sides of this debate to see which conform more properly to the Church’s understing of God’s creative acts within his creation.

In my opinion, based on the answers given at this time, the idea of idea of God simply setting up the initial parameters and then allowing life to naturally flow from his initial point of creation from purely natural processes without directly intervening simply smacks too much of deism as far as I can tell.

This is indeed a view which is foreign to the Scriptures and the majority of Early Fathers as far as I can tell. The Scholastics did not entertain this idea to the extent that you are claiming either. This view more properly corresponds to some form of deism (as there are many forms) which emerged during the Enlightenment period.

Consequently, claiming that God intervening in his creation would lead the universe toward chaos simply does no justice toward the Catholic faith. In fact, it is an insult to our faith not much different form the insulting and dismissive tone that you yourself use when addressing our questions.

If you want to discuss things, then answer our questions clearly without the innuendo-- and stop dismissing our concerns as merely an illogical conflation with athesim when you yourself really are using a form of argumentation that atheists really do use.

We’ve made every attempt to reasonably answer your questions to the extent that we believe God has revealed them to us-- and yet you seem to be possibly delighting in being aloof or highly evasive in presenting any information that you provide when we ask you questions related to this issue.

If you are not equipped to actually answer these questions and engage in a reasonable dialogue which respects the opinions of others, then perhaps you should simply admit this and give while you are behind.

 

[inthecloud]

Intelligent Design is not specifically denied by the church, at least in the milder forms.

True but Church teologians do not use either because is bad theology in the long term.

1. It denies Genesis literal story anyways so you will still have to use the non literal way of interpreting Genesis of Theistic Evolutionists.
2. If a God of the Gap theory that made proving God existance depend of Gaps in scientic knowledge to say God did it.
   It science eventualy explain the Gap away faith will suffer.

That why Popes had prefered the Theistic Evolution way of explaining things.
Russian Orthodox evolutionary scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the expresion God of the Gap to describe the errors Intelligent Designers are falling in today.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If you’re allowed to project intentionalities onto our discussions then we will certainly share our thoughts on this too.

I’m suggesting to you, that it would be better that no one do that. I see that you didn’t like it very much. Neither do I. Shall we avoid it from now on?

Barbarian, we’ve been really trying to engage you on many points here, and yet your debate appears to be resorting to orange leprechauns.

“Orange Leprechauns” are no different than any other imagined supernatural intervention for which there is no evidence.

Atheists do indeed use the very same form of argument that you are using

Atheists also believe that theft is a bad thing. But that won’t make me begin stealing.

You are not railing against the existence of God-- but you are railing against the idea of the existence of evidence of God interacting with his creation by employing the exact same arguments that atheists use when trying to disprove the existence of God himself.

No. I’m pointing out that using “Godmustadunnit” to cover everything we don’t know, is a bad idea. I’m pointing out that God doesn’t change the rules. They remain the same. He just, from time to time, does a miracle to show us.

As you saw from the Catholic Encyclopedia, imagined interventions that no one notices are not miracles. And we shouldn’t try to use them to shore up our faith; what God gave us is sufficient.

This is a bluntly inane debating tactic that you are using in my opinion–

If so, you seem rather unhappy with it. If it’s not logical and effective, that would seem to give you the advantage.

a spiritually unclean tactic which is leaving many within the Church wide open to the devil’s attacks.

Rather, less open. “Spiritually unclean” would be inventing new, unseen “miracles” where there is no evidence of them.

In the end, if you are wrong in what you assert, and if you have led people away from God by using these generally atheistic tactics, and if you have not repented of this mortal sin of leading people away from God, then you will indeed be held accountable before God for leading people away from him.

And if that is what you are doing, so shall you. But since the Church teaches:
**The extraordinary element in the miracle – i.e. an event apart from the ordinary course of things; enables us to understand the teaching of theologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural or supernatural course of Divine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of natural forces. Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of nature. Again, the justification of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence, the sacramental effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course of God’s supernatural Providence…Now in a miracle God’s action relative to its bearing on natural forces is analogous to the action of human personality. Thus, e.g., it is against the nature of iron to float, but the action of Eliseus in raising the axe-head to the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) is no more a violation, or a transgression, or an infraction of natural laws than if he raised it with his hand. Again, it is of the nature of fire to burn, but when, e.g., the Three Children were preserved untouched in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3) there was nothing unnatural in the act, as these writers use the word, any more than there would be in erecting a dwelling absolutely fireproof. In the one case, as in the other, there was no paralysis of natural forces and no consequent disorder. **
newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

, I am at least within the Magisterium in this opinion, which should be worth something.

My first hope in Christ is that this rebuke will help you to come to your senses and see the dangers in the tactics that you are employing.

One should always and constantly reflect on one’s opinions and beliefs. If the above is true, perhaps it would be beneficial for us both to consider carefully, um?

If this does not come to pass, then my second hope in Christ is that you are simply invicibly ignorant of the dangers of the things that you claim so that God’s mercy will be upon you on that last day.

Have you considered the possiblity that you are wrong?

However, considering that level of intelligence you display, I actually don’t see much chance of this second hope coming to pass.

Oh, and by the way, if you claim that I’m in the same danger, I would disagree.

I guess not.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**The extraordinary element in the miracle – i.e. an event apart from the ordinary course of things; enables us to understand the teaching of theologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural or supernatural course of Divine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of natural forces. Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of nature. Again, the justification of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence, the sacramental effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course of God’s supernatural Providence…Now in a miracle God’s action relative to its bearing on natural forces is analogous to the action of human personality. Thus, e.g., it is against the nature of iron to float, but the action of Eliseus in raising the axe-head to the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) is no more a violation, or a transgression, or an infraction of natural laws than if he raised it with his hand. Again, it is of the nature of fire to burn, but when, e.g., the Three Children were preserved untouched in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3) there was nothing unnatural in the act, as these writers use the word, any more than there would be in erecting a dwelling absolutely fireproof. In the one case, as in the other, there was no paralysis of natural forces and no consequent disorder. **
Catholic Encyclopedia

I am open to God using both purely natural and supernatural methods to create and speciate life on earth converging toward humanity-- and this includes the idea of God simply setting up the initial parameters and then allowing life to naturally flow from his initial point of creation.

I’ve been open to either since the begining of this thread and well beyond too. I’ve consistently maintained that one can believe either-- exactly as the Church of Christ allows people to do.

What I am doing, however, is trying to discern the justifications of the arguments presented on all sides of this debate to see which conform more properly to the Church’s understing of God’s creative acts within his creation.

See above.

In my opinion, based on the answers given at this time, the idea of idea of God simply setting up the initial parameters and then allowing life to naturally flow from his initial point of creation from purely natural processes without directly intervening simply smacks too much of deism as far as I can tell.

If that’s what happened. But of course, God sustains creation and is constantly engaged in it. He just doesn’t change the rules.

Consequently, claiming that God intervening in his creation would lead the universe toward chaos simply does no justice toward the Catholic faith.

Let’s take another look;

Now in a miracle God’s action relative to its bearing on natural forces is analogous to the action of human personality. Thus, e.g., it is against the nature of iron to float, but the action of Eliseus in raising the axe-head to the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) is no more a violation, or a transgression, or an infraction of natural laws than if he raised it with his hand.

In fact, it is an insult to our faith not much different form the insulting and dismissive tone that you yourself use when addressing our questions.

Funny how people who do that, never realize they are being arrogant, um?

If you want to discuss things, then answer our questions clearly without the innuendo-- and stop dismissing our concerns as merely an illogical conflation with athesim

It’s not merely that. But as in your above statement, it is certainly that.

We’ve made every attempt to reasonably answer your questions to the extent that we believe God has revealed them to us-- and yet you seem to be possibly delighting in being aloof or highly evasive in presenting any information that you provide when we ask you questions related to this issue.

And you said I was projecting intentionalities on you, too…

If you are not equipped to actually answer these questions and engage in a reasonable dialogue which respects the opinions of others, then perhaps you should simply admit this and give while you are behind.

Well, you know how dumb barbarians are. I guess I’m just too stupid to know when I’m whipped. But I’d still feel better if the personal attacks moderated a bit.

 

[The_Barbarian]

That is very good. God’s action seems to be part of nature. But nature cannot produce a human soul. So God’s action “disturbs” the law of nature in this case.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of nature.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Intelligent Design is not specifically denied by the church, at least in the milder forms.

True but Church teologians do not use either because is bad theology in the long term.

I think so, but Catholics still may accept it.

1. It denies Genesis literal story anyways so you will still have to use the non literal way of interpreting Genesis of Theistic Evolutionists.

1. If a God of the Gap theory that made proving God existance depend of Gaps in scientic knowledge to say God did it.
   It science eventualy explain the Gap away faith will suffer.

Of course, and it’s not just a possibility; this has happened numerous times.

That why Popes had prefered the Theistic Evolution way of explaining things.

Russian Orthodox evolutionary scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the expresion God of the Gap to describe the errors Intelligent Designers are falling in today.

Still, if one waters down “design” to simply mean “intent”, then there is nothing really erroneous to it. I just think it would be more precise to say “create.”

 

[reggieM]

the works of Divine grace, such as the Sacramental Presence, are above the power of nature

It’s pure sophistry to make a distinction between the above and what we call a “miracle”. The topic had to do with Darwinian naturalism that excludes both those things “above the power of nature” as well as “miracles”.

As in other things, you’re playing games with the words in order to avoid the concepts at stake.

This is clear in the statement you gave on your “position” on creation-evolution. You dodged the question.

But you also made it clear that you believe that “nature” created not only human intelligence but life itself.

Thus, the act of creating the soul (wherein is found the intelligence) is not a work of Divine grace and therefore is not an act “above the power of nature” but an act “of nature” for you.

This is basically Darwinist materialism – the belief that all of life emerged from natural, material elements without the “work of Divine grace”.

This is proximate to a formal heresy. Certainly it is skepticism since it denies God’s direct power (a power above nature, not of it).

 

[reggieM]

“The same with the creation of a human being. Nature could not produce human intelligence through natural laws of random mutation or natural selection.”

I know you want us to believe that, but your mere insistence that the evidence is wrong won’t suffice.

The record shows that you believe that human intellligence is a product of random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it was produced by nature and not by the direct action of God.

*“Natural laws” cannot produce life. *

The evidence indicates that they do.

You believe also that life emerged through a natural process in non-living material. You assert that there is “evidence” which indicates that natural laws created life from non-living things. Thus, you assert that abiogenesis is supported by evidence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The same with the creation of a human being. Nature could not produce human intelligence through natural laws of random mutation or natural selection."

Barbarian observes:
I know you want us to believe that, but your mere insistence that the evidence is wrong won’t suffice.

The record shows that you believe that human intellligence is a product of random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it was produced by nature and not by the direct action of God.

That’s how it was with life, too:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

“Natural laws” cannot produce life.

They can, if you believe Him. That’s what the evidence says, too.

You believe also that life emerged through a natural process in non-living material.

So God says.

You assert that there is “evidence” which indicates that natural laws created life from non-living things.

Yes. The evidence continues to accumulate. Would you like to learn about some of it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)
Thus, though the works of Divine grace, such as the Sacramental Presence, are above the power of nature, and due to God alone, they may be called miraculous only in the wide meaning of the term, i.e., as supernatural effects, but they are not miracles in the sense here understood, for miracles in the strict sense are apparent.

It’s pure sophistry to make a distinction between the above and what we call a “miracle”.

If you think so, you are at odds with the teachings of the Church.

As in other things, you’re playing games with the words in order to avoid the concepts at stake.

I’m pointing out what the Church teaches about this.

This is clear in the statement you gave on your “position” on creation-evolution. You dodged the question.

Rather, I gave you an answer you couldn’t refute.

But you also made it clear that you believe that “nature” created not only human intelligence but life itself.

You were supposed to stop saying I said things I did not. Shame on you.

Thus, the act of creating the soul (wherein is found the intelligence) is not a work of Divine grace and therefore is not an act “above the power of nature” but an act “of nature” for you.

I think you have badly misinterpreted what the Church teaches. I think it would be useful for you to go to the link, and read the entire article on the subject, to understand what the Church actually teaches about it.

This is basically Darwinist materialism – the belief that all of life emerged from natural, material elements without the “work of Divine grace”.

You’ve been snockered on that one. The final sentence of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species:”

**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. **

How about that?

This is proximate to a formal heresy.

I didn’t know the Catholic Church gave nihil obstat and imprimatur to formal heresies. Is it possible that you are wrong, and the Church is right?

Certainly it is skepticism since it denies God’s direct power (a power above nature, not of it).

Nonsense. It merely acknowledges the way He does it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Is this a science question or a theology question:

Assuming that humans evolved from low forms of life, was this a likely outcome, or an outcome so unlikely that God must have helped ‘random’ events occur in the way necessary for humans to evolve?