Intelligent Design

[StAnastasia]

Creationism is a better explanation than science? False.
rossum

rossum are you confusing the “creationism” that is the ancient Christian doctrine of creation, with the “creationism” that is the young-earth science-rejecting philosophy of fundamentalists?

 

[rossum]

rossum are you confusing the “creationism” that is the ancient Christian doctrine of creation, with the “creationism” that is the young-earth science-rejecting philosophy of fundamentalists?

Thank you for the correction. The variants of “direct intervention” creationism like YEC or OEC where God creates one or more individual ‘kinds’ directly have provided no explanation at all and are currently worse than scienceI-creationism is a better explanation than science? False.

Indirect creationism does not have this problem since all the results obtained by science also apply to indirect creationism.

rossum

 

[Zundrah]

Absolutely it is. Your a priori science worldview is sadly deficient. When will you see that materialistic science has painted you into a corner?

Buffalo, do you believe what Genesis says about creation? The seven days, Adam and Eve, etc?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, do you believe what Genesis says about creation? The seven days, Adam and Eve, etc?

I believe the constant teaching and understanding the Church has had of Genesis.

 

[Zundrah]

I believe the constant teaching and understanding the Church has had of Genesis.

This thread has made me feel like I’m the only one to blindly believe in every word of the bible… Am I wrong to do so?

 

[tjm190]

This is Catholic Answers, not Science Answers Only. Creationism is a witness to the power of God and what God and God alone can do.

Peace,
Ed

And rejection of evidence that points to God doing it in a way you dislike?

 

[buffalo]

This thread has made me feel like I’m the only one to blindly believe in every word of the bible… Am I wrong to do so?

Catholics understand the bible literally not literalistically.

An example of this would be:

It is raining cats and dogs.

Literal - it is raining very hard

Literalistic - cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

We are not capable of self interpreting the Bible because we were not there when it was written and do not know the language, culture and idioms of the time. But the Magisterium does and has preserved it. Further it is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Having said all that the Bible is constantly under attack by non-believers and believers alike. Modernists and the like fall into the trap known as scientism… You can see it every other post here.

Bottom line - When you read a passage ask this question - what does the Church teach it means?

 

[Zundrah]

Catholics understand the bible literally not literalistically.

An example of this would be:

It is raining cats and dogs.

Literal - it is raining very hard

Literalistic - cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

We are not capable of self interpreting the Bible because we were not there when it was written and do not know the language, culture and idioms of the time. But the Magisterium does and has preserved it. Further it is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Having said all that the Bible is constantly under attack by non-believers and believers alike. Modernists and the like fall into the trap known as scientism… You can see it every other post here.

Bottom line - When you read a passage ask this question - what does the Church teach it means?

But if our church is the one church that WAS is NOW and shall be then why do we “not understand” what “some” of it says if apparently we have been “the” church ever since the beginning of the firirst church!? I will never give in to science, not if it tries to tell us that the inspired scriptures are fanatical lies.

 

[edwest2]

And rejection of evidence that points to God doing it in a way you dislike?

The evidence as you call it, has nothing to do with God. Nothing. Unless you can point to a peer reviewed, published scientific paper that mentions God, the supernatural or any part of the Bible.

Yet science which is entirely silent about God and the supernatural, at least so I’m told, here at least, has zero to connect with the Bible or Creation. Any Comment Made Here connecting science to divine action is purely conjecture and not a fact based on any science.

For example, if a team of scientists, in the proper dress and with the appropriate language skills, appeared with the five thousand that were fed with a few loaves and fish, what could they learn empirically? Nothing.

“Report of Time Travel Team Y-33870: After witnessing the feeding of 5,000 people circa 31 A.D., I conclude there is no explanation for the appearance of additional fish and additional loaves of bread. Some type of materialization of additional loaves and additional fish occurred but careful observation could not disclose a physical cause. The disciples of the man called Jesus Christ seemed oblivious to the additional bread and fish as if they expected them to be there (see Appendix A for detailed analysis of fish type and bread). They just kept reaching into the basket and handing them out.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

But if our church is the one church that WAS is NOW and shall be then why do we “not understand” what “some” of it says if apparently we have been “the” church ever since the beginning of the firirst church!? I will never give in to science, not if it tries to tell us that the inspired scriptures are fanatical lies.

The understanding of Scripture grows organically, like a bush. It gets fuller, but it does not get its branches cutoff. Truth does not change and the Church does not reverse Dogma. It cannot.

Scientism is a modern scourge. It presupposes that humans have a better understanding of the universe than God does. Revelation should illuminate our science. However there are many that say limited science should illuminate Revelation.

 

[Zundrah]

The understanding of Scripture grows organically, like a bush. It gets fuller, but it does not get its branches cutoff. Truth does not change and the Church does not reverse Dogma. It cannot.

Scientism is a modern scourge. It presupposes that humans have a better understanding of the universe than God does. Revelation should illuminate our science. However there are many that say limited science should illuminate Revelation.

How can the understanding of scripture grow if the church supposedly knew what it meant in the first place? That just sounds odd to me. That’s just like a woman who has had children in the past saying that she cannot remember where the baby comes out from! How can the church just forget what its own scriptures originally meant if it has been teaching them since they were written?

 

[cassini]

This thread has made me feel like I’m the only one to blindly believe in every word of the bible… Am I wrong to do so?

No you are not Zundrah, so do I. By ‘blindly believe’ you of course, like I, do so based on faith having been told by the Church that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. I believe in the simplicity of Genesis and totally ignore those within the Church who assert it is not ‘scientifically’ correct and go on to try to make their scientific interpretation of it reconcile once again with the ‘simple’ meaning. I also leave all other interpretations to Mother Church Who is the only one with the authority by God to interpret it correctly. I accept all the traditional interpretations many of which can be found in their hundreds in a daily missal used at the Tridentine Mass. I look at the world, flowers, animals, birds, insects and see them as instruments that give glory to God for His infinite designs. I consider Copernicanism, uniformitarianism and evolutionism as heresies, designed by the Devil to undermine the Scriptures, give credence to a world without God, and the cause of a loss of faith beyond comprehension.

 

[buffalo]

How can the understanding of scripture grow if the church supposedly knew what it meant in the first place? That just sounds odd to me. That’s just like a woman who has had children in the past saying that she cannot remember where the baby comes out from! How can the church just forget what its own scriptures originally meant if it has been teaching them since they were written?

Understanding can grow in a number of ways without undermining the base truth of it.
**
The senses of Scripture**
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[Zundrah]

No you are not Zundrah, so do I. By ‘blindly believe’ you of course, like I, do so based on faith having been told by the Church that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. I believe in the simplicity of Genesis and totally ignore those within the Church who assert it is not ‘scientifically’ correct and go on to try to make their scientific interpretation of it reconcile once again with the ‘simple’ meaning. I also leave all other interpretations to Mother Church Who is the only one with the authority by God to interpret it correctly. I accept all the traditional interpretations many of which can be found in their hundreds in a daily missal used at the Tridentine Mass. I look at the world, flowers, animals, birds, insects and see them as instruments that give glory to God for His infinite designs. I consider Copernicanism, uniformitarianism and evolutionism as heresies, designed by the Devil to undermine the Scriptures, give credence to a world without God, and the cause of a loss of faith beyond comprehension.

Thank the Lord… I also believe in every word of God in our priceless bibles to be undoubtly true and accurate. He is Lord of all. People have tried to answer their own questions because the bible doesn’t suit their imagination I guess. I remember when I was an athiest I use to have to believe science and sadly that made me feel like I was just absolutely nothing with no meaning purpose or aim. Thankfully the world is God and God is the world. In the beginning there was the word and the word was with God. Thankfully now the word is with us too!

According to science we are a mistake.

 

[Zundrah]

Understanding can grow in a number of ways without undermining the base truth of it.
**
The senses of Scripture**
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

This is St. Augustine is it not? But with all that said now, what are we to think? Were Christs miracles lies? Were they just expressions rather than actions?

 

[buffalo]

This is St. Augustine is it not? But with all that said now, what are we to think? Were Christs miracles lies? Were they just expressions rather than actions?

Christ’s miracles were real events.

 

[Zundrah]

Christ’s miracles were real events.

So we can believe that Christs miracles were real but just not those back in the OT? Is that how it is? We cannot question Christ but we can play with the OT?

 

[buffalo]

So we can believe that Christs miracles were real but just not those back in the OT? Is that how it is? We cannot question Christ but we can play with the OT?

How did you get that? Miracles in the OT were real events.

What are we arguing about?

 

[tjm190]

The evidence as you call it, has nothing to do with God. Nothing. Unless you can point to a peer reviewed, published scientific paper that mentions God, the supernatural or any part of the Bible.

Yet science which is entirely silent about God and the supernatural, at least so I’m told, here at least, has zero to connect with the Bible or Creation. Any Comment Made Here connecting science to divine action is purely conjecture and not a fact based on any science.

For example, if a team of scientists, in the proper dress and with the appropriate language skills, appeared with the five thousand that were fed with a few loaves and fish, what could they learn empirically? Nothing.

“Report of Time Travel Team Y-33870: After witnessing the feeding of 5,000 people circa 31 A.D., I conclude there is no explanation for the appearance of additional fish and additional loaves of bread. Some type of materialization of additional loaves and additional fish occurred but careful observation could not disclose a physical cause. The disciples of the man called Jesus Christ seemed oblivious to the additional bread and fish as if they expected them to be there (see Appendix A for detailed analysis of fish type and bread). They just kept reaching into the basket and handing them out.”

Peace,
Ed

You missed the point of my post- You stated science and faith complement each other. However, your ‘breed’ faith is contradicted by science.

 

[donsnow]

Back to the topic. I don’t believe in Intelligent Design (ID), I believe in Divine Design.

The trouble with ID (I was once quite a scifi fan), is that it leaves the door open to any intelligence having designed people, in an evolved universe. There’s a writer name Zacariah Sitchins who claims to have translated Sumerian texts which state that a race called Annunaki designed people from apes. Most other scholars say his translations are in error. I say even if interpreted correctly, the Annunaki can be the first ever science fiction story.
So, there’s the example of the fault in the theory of ID. I believe God created the creation we live in. I think when this occured is not germain.
What’s germain is that we love God and each other.

Back in the '70’s, it took me eight months to read the Holy Bible straight through. It has continuity from beginning to end. And, imho, it’s the greatest love story of the Creator for His creation and the creatures in it.

In closing, other Creationists should stop hiding behind ID and other machinations, but rather they should just straightly preach the Gospel. And, evolutionists have tons of circumstantial evidence. I repeat, their evidence is circumstantial.

God is love,
Don