Intelligent Design, most scientific

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

So far, we don’t have any evidence for it. God uses nature for almost everything in this world.

But God sustains all things by his powerful word Barbarain. You simply can’t argue around this part because it’s plainly stated so in the Scriptures and agreed upon by Tradition…
Hebrews 1:3:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

To sustain is to to keep in existence; maintain, supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for, support from below; keep from falling or sinking, support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of, etc.

How many times do the Scriptures testify to this sustaining principle?

Ruth 4:15 says hewill renew your life and sustain you in your old age.

Nehemiah 9:21 say that for forty years you sustained them in the desert; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen.

Psalm 3:5 says I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the LORD sustains me.

Psalm 41:3 says the LORD will sustain him on his sickbed and restore him from his bed of illness.

Psalm 119:116 asks the Lord to sustain me according to your promise, and I will live; do not let my hopes be dashed.

And, as already stated, Hebrews 1:3 says quite clearly that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

In it most simplest form, the softer version, intelligent design simply says that without God’s intervention we would simply stumble into ignorance and eventually decay away into death-- that all of the abundance of life is the result of God’s grace.

For example Job 32:8 says that it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.

Job 33:4 also says the Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

And Job 34:13-15 speak even more bluntly, asking and answering…

Who appointed him over the earth?

Who put him in charge of the whole world?

If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
all mankind would perish together
and man would return to the dust.

For that matter, Colossians 1:16-18 reveals Christ himself as the very subtrate upon which all things hold together, explaining quite clearly how all of creation, properly understood, is thoroughly christological toward her Creator.

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

And we also have John 1:10-13…

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

And this comes right back to Romans 1:20…
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

And Hebrews 11:3 as well…
Hebrews 11:3:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

So exactly what do you mean when you say we don’t have any evidence for it?

The Scriptures are quite clear, over and over again culminating toward Jesus, that all things are sustained by Christ.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Barbarian on God and “undetectable miracles”: But if that’s what he did, it would be indistinguishable from nature as it is now.

No. Apparently, according to you, this would result in total chaos if the Lord were to perform miracles whenever he infused an immortal soul in the flesh of a child at the point of conception.

No one said He did. But the conception and birth of a new human shows no evidence of a miracle, since the infusion of a soul leaves nothing scientifically investigatable.

And yet the infusion of an immortal soul in the flesh of a child at the point of conception is indeed a miracle in the sense of a supernatural intervention that is apparently occuring at a rate of around 10,000 new souls per hour, about 3 souls per second-- and yet I don’t see the entire world falling away into total chaos because of these miraculous events.

Are you saying that too many miracles will cause the world to fall away into total chaos or merely the evidence thereof?

No, you’re asking me to accept that it is not the way the evidence shows it to be.

I already told you He did. What’s wrong with admitting that He uses nature for everything else?

Because both Scriptures and Tradition are quite clear that God sustains all things by his powerful word.

In the sense that it points out the folly of trying to explain natural phenomena with non-scriptural miracles.

So me claiming that God sustains all things by his powerful word is actually a fallacious attempt to explain natural phenomena with non-scriptural miracles?

Franciscan spirituality isn’t based on imagining a miracle for everything we don’t understand.

Yes, but Franciscan spiritually does indeed see God’s presence in everything around them. Thus, as with St. Francis himself, when they encountered nature, they encountered God’s presence. They see everything and everyone through the eyes of faith. One of the main attributes of God was that of Creator. Thus, all beings animate or inanimate, were therefore creatures that respond to their Creator’s will.

St Francis was not an animist or a pantheist; that is he did not worship “god” in the tree, the stone or the water. Rather, he saw God’s providential love expressed in and through all creatures: the beauty of a forest, the simplicity of a solitary leaf, the wondrous complexity of a human hand; all of them shouted to Francis that “God is here.”

For Francis, the world about him drew him to God and was a display of divine love. At the core of Francis’ “spirituality,” was not some “pseudo-new-age” style of “unitarianism”, but his firm belief in the Oneness of God: that only in and through God is the whole of creation united and connected and that in Jesus Christ, all are equal in the sight of God.

So far, it is. What do you think is unpredictable in principle? I can think only of quantum events. What on our level of existence?

I think science is unpredictable in principle.

In other words, the scientific method cannot actually prove itself true.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that it’s just a matter of perception. Reality is not what we make it. It has an objective existence on its own. And no, ignoring a starving child does not change reality. Nor does abortion. There is an objective reality, and wishing it otherwise does not make it change.

So you’re saying there’s no difference when someone choses to let a child starve to death or not-- or abort a child or not for that matter?

I think the difference is life or death to be honest.

I do believe, by the way, that there is an objective reality. It’s this same objective reality, expressed at the most basic level within Natural Law, which discerns between that which is right and that which is wrong. I’ve never claimed there wasn’t an objective reality either.

I’ve only claimed that God doing the miraculous all the time would not lead this universe into total chaos.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is very good and essential to the discussion. If God intervened constantly in nature with miraculous actions that sustained the processes of the universe (tinkering with nature), then His “tinkering” would not cause destruction but rather beauty, order and design – precisely what we see.

So the argument that says “God wouldn’t tinker because that would make the universe unpredictable” assumes that God would accidentally cause damage by intervening in nature.

But God’s interventions and miracles do not cause damage – they are always for the good. Thus, God could be working miracles constantly – a fact (if true) that evolution dismisses in the assumption that there is no divine intervention at all.

God indeed is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth-- and all of creation gives praise to her Creator too. In fact, I would suggest that all of creation was designed to lead us toward Christ-- because Christ is the very pinacle for which creation was made to labour. Jesus is the very hope for which God impregnated his divine will into the creation itself…
Romans 8:22:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

And yet, even as nature groans in her longing for the Sons of God to be revealed, even though she aches and pains under the bondage of decay – like a woman going through labor pains pushes past the anguish because of her expectant joy of the future child that will be born into the world – all of creation continues to give praise to the Lord notwithstanding the anguish she undergoes…
Psalm 148:

Praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD from the heavens,
praise him in the heights above.

Praise him, all his angels,
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.

Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars.

Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.

Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for he commanded and they were created.

He set them in place for ever and ever;
he gave a decree that will never pass away.

Praise the LORD from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,
lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,
you mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars,
wild animals and all cattle,
small creatures and flying birds,
kings of the earth and all nations,
you princes and all rulers on earth,
young men and maidens,
old men and children.

Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is exalted;
his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.

He has raised up for his people a horn,
the praise of all his saints,
of Israel, the people close to his heart.

Praise the LORD.

From the angels in the heavens to the lowliest creatures of the earth, I would actually go one step further and say that I think that God did use evolution to speciate physical life on earth. But I think that evolution occured by God’s sustaining grace-- with all of creation calling out for their Maker, giving praise to God, and offering up humanity as a place for God to come and indwell amongst his own creation.

In other words, because God poured out his love intimately on his creation, his creation had the God-given means to offer in love back to God. We love because God first loved us. And I think his creation loves too-- because God first loved it as well.

This is what I would consider an intelligent design.

 

[reggieM]

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

This is a perfect example.

You were asked directly for “your position” on creation-evolution.

Here you reveal that you dodged the question and simply gave something that I “couldn’t refute”.

You reveal here that your personal position is “refutable”, and therefore you didn’t want to reveal it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No. Apparently, according to you, this would result in total chaos if the Lord were to perform miracles whenever he infused an immortal soul in the flesh of a child at the point of conception.

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

And yet the infusion of an immortal soul in the flesh of a child at the point of conception is indeed a miracle

Apprently not for us as Catholics. See above.

Barbarian observes:
No, you’re asking me to accept that it is not the way the evidence shows it to be.

I already told you He did. What’s wrong with admitting that He uses nature for everything else?

Because both Scriptures and Tradition are quite clear that God sustains all things by his powerful word.

His Word is that he uses nature for his purposes in this world.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that it points out the folly of trying to explain natural phenomena with non-scriptural miracles.

So me claiming that God sustains all things by his powerful word is actually a fallacious attempt to explain natural phenomena with non-scriptural miracles?

The part about doing miracles we can’t detect, that’s the folly. As you see, that’s not what the Church teaches.

Barbarian observes:
Franciscan spirituality isn’t based on imagining a miracle for everything we don’t understand.

Yes, but Franciscan spiritually does indeed see God’s presence in everything around them.

Me too. The difference is that I don’t have a problem with the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
So far, it is. What do you think is unpredictable in principle? I can think only of quantum events. What on our level of existence?

I think science is unpredictable in principle.

Wouldn’t seem so. Nothing else we do has been as successful at explaining the works of nature.

In other words, the scientific method cannot actually prove itself true.

Science is inductive, going from particulars to conclusions, drawing inferences from evidence. That might seem wrong to you, but it has one saving quality; it works. Works better than anything else we can do for that purpose.

Barbarian observes:
And no, I don’t buy the argument that it’s just a matter of perception. Reality is not what we make it. It has an objective existence on its own. And no, ignoring a starving child does not change reality. Nor does abortion. There is an objective reality, and wishing it otherwise does not make it change.

So you’re saying there’s no difference when someone choses to let a child starve to death or not

I’m saying what people think of it, doesn’t change the fact one iota.

I think the difference is life or death to be honest.

Wrong. He’s just as dead, even if our “perception” is that it is justified, or that “it isn’t really taking a human life.” I cannot understand that kind of thinking.

I do believe, by the way, that there is an objective reality. It’s this same objective reality, expressed at the most basic level within Natural Law, which discerns between that which is right and that which is wrong. I’ve never claimed there wasn’t an objective reality either.

So you don’t think it’s a matter of perception after all. That’s good.

I’ve only claimed that God doing the miraculous all the time would not lead this universe into total chaos.

God fiddling with the laws of nature all the time, that certainly would do it. Again, I would urge you to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia link, and read the entire article to get a sense of what this is really about.

 

[reggieM]

life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator

How about that?

As I said, you’re playing games – as Darwin was here.

If life was originally “breathed by the Creator”, then it didn’t emerge from solely natural processes as you asserted before.

You failed to affirm that it was God’s direct action of “breathing” that brought forth life – in fact, you argued against it. Now suddenly you bring this out as if this is your belief. Why didn’t you claim this before when asked directly?

I can see you simply twisting your own opinions around in an attempt to avoid making your position clear. You contradict yourself many times and refuse to remain consistent or clear on your beliefs. As I said, this is somewhat of a game for you.

When asked for your personal view, you avoided it in order to give statements that “could not be refuted”.

Personally, this is one reason I don’t like arguing with people for too long of a period of time. After a while, it becomes a game to see who will “win”. This is not a matter of seeking the truth but rather of playing hide and seek. After a long time of “fighting” like this on line, both parties would feel too humiliated to be considered “wrong” and so there is less direct exchange of views.

You clearly have some personal convictions about evolution. Basically, you believe in Darwinian materialism, but you try to find some place for God within that concept. You both claim that God is the Creator, but also that God had no direct involvement in the origin of life or the creation of the human soul.

You say both that God was directly involved and that He wasn’t involved. You say that God does not use supernatural power to sustain, change, develop or create the things of nature because God only works a few miracles. When I point out that God’s direct involvement is “above nature” (quoting the text you provided to prove the difference between that and miracles), you fall back to argue about the definition of the word “miracle”.

It’s clear to me that you don’t want to give a straight-forward presentation of your views. For whatever reason, you don’t like that idea. This makes it easier for you to argue both sides of the topic – both for God, as a believer, and against God’s direct involvement as a Darwinian materialist.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Interesting to see that you cut out part of your own quote.

 

[reggieM]

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

St. Paul says that God’s invisible qualities are “clearly seen” from his creation.

 

[reggieM]

And yet the infusion of an immortal soul in the flesh of a child at the point of conception is indeed a miracle in the sense of a supernatural intervention

Exactly right, as proven by the quote that Barbarian posted:

“Thus … the works of Divine grace … may be called miraculous … as supernatural effects”

The infusion of a soul in a child is a “work of Divine grace”. Thus it is miraculous.

But again, this is Barbarian’s word game to try to dodge the point. The point is, that God’s direct action in nature is something “above nature”, or supernatural (or call it miraculous in the meaning given above).

 

[The_Barbarian]

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

Barbarian observes:
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?

As I said, you’re playing games

No, I’m simply pointing out that you have a very mistaken idea of what Darwin wrote. His final statement expressing faith that God created the first living things, directly contradicts your claim about his ideas.

If life was originally “breathed by the Creator”, then it didn’t emerge from solely natural processes as you asserted before.

Right. I believe God did it as He says in Genesis, by natural means. You do understand that I was pointing out you were completely wrong about Darwin’s ideas, not that I was endorsing him as a theologian, right?

You failed to affirm that it was God’s direct action of “breathing” that brought forth life

Yes. I’m just pointing out that you were wrong about Darwin.

Now suddenly you bring this out as if this is your belief.

(sigh) No. I’m just pointing out that Darwin’s writings directly contradict your assertions about what he believed.

I can see you simply twisting your own opinions around in an attempt to avoid making your position clear. You contradict yourself many times and refuse to remain consistent or clear on your beliefs. As I said, this is somewhat of a game for you.

I’m beginning to think you think you can win by finding a more clever way to word things. It won’t work. Some things are just wrong. Your assertion that Darwinism assumes an origin of life without God is flat out wrong.

When asked for your personal view, you avoided it in order to give statements that “could not be refuted”.

You received an answer; you just didn’t like it. Ask again, whatever you want to ask; you’ll get an answer again.

Personally, this is one reason I don’t like arguing with people for too long of a period of time. After a while, it becomes a game to see who will “win”.

For you, maybe. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

You clearly have some personal convictions about evolution. Basically, you believe in Darwinian materialism,

As you learned, Darwin wrote his book with the belief that God created life. You’ve confused theism and materialism.

You both claim that God is the Creator, but also that God had no direct involvement in the origin of life

No, you made that up. God created all things. Scripture says He created life by natural means. That does not mean He didn’t do it.

or the creation of the human soul.

I told you God directly gives a human soul to each of us. Shame on you.

You say both that God was directly involved and that He wasn’t involved.

C’mon, Reggie. Be honest with yourself, at least. No one here, least of all me, said that He wasn’t involved.

You say that God does not use supernatural power to sustain, change, develop or create the things of nature

I did? Show us, Reggie.

When I point out that God’s direct involvement is “above nature” (quoting the text you provided to prove the difference between that and miracles), you fall back to argue about the definition of the word “miracle”.

I cited a Catholic authority. The truth matters. If you want to define “miracle” in a non-Catholic way, why are you surprised that it’s not well received on a Catholic board?

It’s clear to me that you don’t want to give a straight-forward presentation of your views.

It’s clear that you figured out that the facts aren’t on your side, and maybe it would work better if you tried assailing me personally. Big mistake, Reggie.

 

[reggieM]

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?

I think it basically hinges on the notion of “likely”. So it’s first a view of probability. How likely was it that humans evolved from low forms of life through natural processes alone? If the “evidence” that is used to assert this notion was convincing, there would be little debate on this topic. But that is not the case.

 

[reggieM]

Barbarian claims that human intelligence (an element of the soul) was created by nature (materialism).

Thus, this would indicate that the human soul was not created directly by God, accordingly.

“… the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God …” Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian claims that human intelligence (an element of the soul) was created by nature (materialism).

If so, the Pope is a materialist.

Thus, this would indicate that the human soul was not created directly by God, accordingly.

The intellect is not the soul. The soul, as I reminded you earlier, is given to each of us directly by God.

… the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God …" Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis.

Very good. But let’s not conflate body and soul.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

Is this related to Matthew 12:38?

The fact that we can’t see any evidence for it. It could be that God, every day, resets all the laws, and just happens to use the same ones each time. But why bother with such an unneccessary assumption, with no evidence for it?

He doesn’t have to reset them Barbarian.

Again, you seem fixated on insisting that a miracle must dramatically change something. It doesn’t, there are both minor and major miracles-- and some miracles are simply sustaining miracles which we would not even know existed until the miracles were removed.

That’s a fact. If He was always changing the rules, it would be precisely unpredictable chaos.

Changing the rules of creation itself has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong in God’s eyes. The only thing that does not change, as far as I can tell, is God’s will-- the determination of good and evil. And, even then, the final judgement of his will can be graceously and significantly delayed so that he can allow more time for those who need it.

For example, within the Hebrew Scriptures, the Kingdom of God seems to be presented as something that will happen soon, and yet the Coming of the Kingdom was delayed for thousands of years until the Virgin Birth of Christ. The same thing can be seen with the second coming of Christ-- it is presented as something that will happen soon and yet it’s been thousands of years since his Vigin Birth too.

Couldn’t be any other way. Why do you think nature works by a set of invariant rules?

No. I think that nature is consistent because God sustains it to act that way-- because God himself is consistent. I also think that if God’s sustaining presence were to depart from his creation, all the rules of physics that we are familiar with would suddenly break down into an unpredictable chaos and violently collapse back into the singularity we emerged from.

By the way, sin does cause God’s creation to break down. Consequently, if you are claiming that God doing too many miracles results in the break down of his creation, then you are effectively saying that God would be a sinner if he did this.

We are to count on the gifts He gave us to get along in this world. A constant and reliable world is one of those things.

That’s because God sustains it. The universe doesn’t sustain itself.

Again, Hebrews 1:3 clearly states…

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

The NIV passage used above says “sustaining”, which is a good translation for the NIV to use in this instance. The word “sustaining” is translated “upholding” in the KJV. And the Amplified Bible seeks to bring out the richness of the Greek by stating “upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power.”

Regardless of which translation you use, the Greek word (pheron) is in the present active indicating a concept that is dynamic, not static. In other words, the Son’s work of sustaining involves not only support, but also movement. He is the One who carries all things forward on their appointed course.

Do you at least have any Scriptural references that allude to what you are claiming?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes. What does that have to do with it?

You’re saying that you know everything that happened in the past?

No. Actually, you, just like me, actually don’t know everything that happened in the past-- and you do know that this is the context that I’m speaking in.

I can make some reliable predictions, precisely because God has made a constant and reliable universe.

You can make some reliable predictions because God, who is constantly reliable, is sustaining his creation by his powerful word.

Seems like you’re having trouble with the arguments I’m presenting, and are now arguing with ones you’d rather deal with.

Can you actually point out some Scriptural passages which at least suggest your point of vew on this argument?

It seems to me that you’re the one changing the subject over and over again whenever the course of the argument goes against the direction you’d like to dictate it.

It’s not actually going in the direction you want it to go if you’re looking to change God’s creative act into some form of pseudo-deism which demands that God himself doesn’t intervene because he already knows what he will do in the future and therefore cannot actually change his mind-- so he simply allows the laws he made to do the “work” for him.

Indeed, even “The Law” points toward the Wisdom of Christ. Christ is indeed the Wisdom spoken of long ago and hidden within the Law was given by God to guide us toward him.

I never bet on anything that can talk.

Well then why are you betting more on God’s creation than God himself? If we keep quiet, the stones will cry out. Besides that, Jesus talked. And Jesus is true God and true man too.

But what else?

I don’t know.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, He could do anything, but in the absence of any evidence for it, we probably shouldn’t make up things.

So am I just making things up when I say that that all things are sustained by God’s powerful word?

In the context of this discussion, it’s called a “non-sequitur.”

How does it not follow that creation is dependent upon her Creator to sustain and guide her?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Exactly right, as proven by the quote that Barbarian posted:

“Thus … the works of Divine grace … may be called miraculous … as supernatural effects”

The infusion of a soul in a child is a “work of Divine grace”. Thus it is miraculous.

But again, this is Barbarian’s word game to try to dodge the point. The point is, that God’s direct action in nature is something “above nature”, or supernatural (or call it miraculous in the meaning given above).

Hey, you know what ReggieM, I think you’re right on here. Barbarian really does seem to be playing word games to try to dodge the points we bring up.

It appears to me that he simply doesn’t like the idea of God directly intervening within his creation “too much” because it treads too much on the scientific methods which he apparenlty cherishes.

If he holds this view, I will respect it. But the way he dismisses the arguments without actually addressing the arguments are simply too much. This has been a most futile discussion in my opinion.

Perhaps, if nothing else, it will display the dangers of using these kinds of tactics in a debate-- because they really are damaging to the faith as far as I can tell.

I’ll take one last look and see if there’s anything worth replying to that hasn’t already been said before.

In the end, I will simply need to pray more for this and hope that God will lead me (and others) to others who are better informed about the “evolutionary parables” that I’m searching for.

Clearly, these kinds of philosophical naturalistic arguments are not helping things in people’s defense of theistic evolution.

Instead of focussing on the teleological reasons why God is not our Creator we need to focus more on the ontological reason why he is our Creator.

I guess I’ll leave it at that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(asked if he knows what went on in the past)

Barbarian observes:
Yes. What does that have to do with it?

You’re saying that you know everything that happened in the past?

No. "Everything, " you added later.

Barbarian observes:
I can make some reliable predictions, precisely because God has made a constant and reliable universe.

You can make some reliable predictions because God, who is constantly reliable, is sustaining his creation by his powerful word.

Very good.

Barbarian observes:
Seems like you’re having trouble with the arguments I’m presenting, and are now arguing with ones you’d rather deal with.

Can you actually point out some Scriptural passages which at least suggest your point of vew on this argument?

Which particular point would you like?

It seems to me that you’re the one changing the subject over and over again whenever the course of the argument goes against the direction you’d like to dictate it.

I don’t think personal attacks are going to help you much.

It’s not actually going in the direction you want it to go if you’re looking to change God’s creative act into some form of pseudo-deism which demands that God himself doesn’t intervene because he already knows what he will do in the future and therefore cannot actually change his mind-- so he simply allows the laws he made to do the “work” for him.

You actually think someone believes that? Wouldn’t it be better to deal with what I’m arguing, instead of what you wish I said?

Barbarian observes:
I never bet on anything that can talk.

Well then why are you betting more on God’s creation than God himself?

I’m afraid you’ll have to get someone else to argue that against you. You seem to be arguing with yourself, here.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, He could do anything, but in the absence of any evidence for it, we probably shouldn’t make up things.

So am I just making things up when I say that that all things are sustained by God’s powerful word?

When did I say that? Is it possible you could deal with what I said, instead of things you made up?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If so, the Pope is a materialist.

Whoa, hold on a second there. The Pope is not a materialist.

Going back to Pope Pius XII…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own.

Humani Generis 37

I’m going to repeat this part… it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled.

Pope John Paul II’s statments did not reconcile this. Neither has Pope Benedict XVII’s statments reconciled this either. It has simple been left open until further evidence is provided.

This leaves us with a few points…

From the theological POV, Adam and Eve were literal people who really did transmit original sin to all people, save Mary and Christ.

Again, from the theologicval POV, Adam and Eve may have indeed evolved from pre-existing life-forms-- but they clearly did not have intercourse with them to produce offspring which were non-human.

From the scientific POV, Adam and Eve, speaking from a purely genetic profile, would have most likely lacked the genetic diversity necessary to produce all of humanity that we see today.

Again, from the scientific POV, Adam and Eve could not have had a purely human soul without God breathing this into them-- without this soul, from a purely scientific POV, they would have had nothing to distinguish them from the animals around them.

This, therefore, seems to lead us back to the theological POV again.

Let’s check it out…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Pope Benedict XVI has said the following…
Pope Benedict XVI:

1. … 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. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
2. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think virtually certain means that God stepped back anywhere near to the level you’re claiming.

You’re preaching a variation of Deism brother-- not true Catholicism.

Actually, based on this, I would say that Pope Benedict XVI is indeed marrying softer forms of intelligent design with softer forms of theistic evolution in order to produce a consistent theological view which mirrors the very concepts the Catholic Church has been teaching all along.
Barbarian:

The intellect is not the soul. The soul, as I reminded you earlier, is given to each of us directly by God.

…which is a miracle in the “broader sense” according to the Catholic Encyclopedia-- something which you seem to completely ignore when you claim that God directly intevening with his creation through miracles “too much” would result in total chaos, right?

I have read that article before. :yup:

Anyway, thanks for you time. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Please be sure to keep me in yours as well-- because I think we both have a lot to learn yet.

 

[Maningo]

That quote purportedly from Pope Benedict XVI, about microorganisms evolving billions of years ago, sounds to me like something drafted by a committee somewhere rather than something he penned himself that acurately reflects his own beliefs.

Here is an account of his thinking regarding creation and evolution from before he became Pope:

The fact that evolutionary philosophy had an extremely bad impact upon Catholicism has been recognized by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Addressing members of the European Doctrinal Commissions held near Vienna in May, 1989, he asked where the difficulties lay which people have with the Faith today, and he went on to discuss the roots of the problems.

He spoke of the almost complete disappearance of the doctrine of Creation and its replacement by a secularized philosophy of Evolution. The resultant decline also meant that the figure of Jesus Christ was reduced to a purely historical person. The Cardinal stressed his concern that a renewed Christianity could only be accomplished if the teaching on Creation is developed anew—“such an undertaking ought to be regarded as one of the most pressing tasks of theology today.”

That is from the introduction of the book Creation Rediscovered by Gerard Keane.

Maningo