Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[buffalo]

Series means A, then B then C. So we would assume that even if evolution is true, God meant for there to be dinosaurs, and birds, and people.

A, B and C are all different and not dependent on each other.

 

[buffalo]

Look up “quantum eraser” and then ask if this is not science opening the door wide open for God. Not only is there an observer effect, it propagates back through time, which indicates that the Universe has some kind of omniscience and is time-omnipotent in a sense.

Material is not normally considered omniscient, but God is. Now keep in mind I’m not Catholic or even really Christian, but.

but you are going to join us? I hope so!

 

[buffalo]

I’m not against ID. I’m against looking at fossils which are related, and minimizing that relationship to “Goddidit.” Let’s take that for granted, and ask HOW God did it. ID doesn’t really provide a mechanism for it, but evolution does. So in my view, evolution is a more robust theory than ID, and is rightfully the current favored position.

The problem with the fossil record - imagine you have a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and no picture on the box. You have only 10 pieces.

The pagan version of Goddditt is Natural selection didditt.

ID certainly does have an explanation. God designed it in at the beginning. The thoughts He had (the word, the logos) are expressed in His immediate creation. God also gave humans a gift of being part of the creation until the end.

When challenged for the distinct successive steps evo proponents have no answer. They just throw blind unguided chance at it.

 

[benjamin1973]

haha sorry.

I meant: “but. . . even I can recognize that there’s plenty of room for God, even in the world of hard science.”

I might one day call myself Christian again, but I’m never going to agree with the majority about what it means to BE Christian, or what the Bible is really saying about the world.

 

[Richca]

Current Catholic theology, insofar as there is such a thing. Say the compendium of thinking reflected in the Catechism and Encyclicals, except that where they contradict, the Catechism beats the Encyclicals, and more recent Encyclicals beat old ones.

Prior to Pope Francis’ pontificate, there is only one encyclical to the best of my knowledge that touches upon the idea of evolution and its possibility and that in connection with the human body, namely, Humani Generis from Pope Pius XII, 1950. Pope Francis mentions mentions ‘biological evolution’ and the ‘evolution of other open systems’ in the encyclical Laudato si’. Whether or not evolution is mentioned in his other encyclicals, I’m don’t know. Pope Francis may be a theistic evolutionist believer and he is entitled to his opinion but that is an opinion I do not share.

Concerning the CCC, the very word ‘evolution’ is no where to be found in it to the best of my knowledge. The catechism’s catechesis on creation is founded and based on God’s word, i.e., Holy Scripture, naturally as the catholic faith is founded on God’s revelation and his word. More specifically, the catechism’s catechesis on creation is based on Genesis 1-3 as it says in #289:

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. the inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

In connection with the variety of creatures God created and their stability, #339 states: “By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws” ( this is a quote from Gaudium et spes from Vatican II).

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The CCC also quotes the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in #327:
The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”

This can be interpreted it seems as a condensed summary as it were of Genesis 1-2:1-3 especially if we consider its historical context and the creation theology and the interpretation of Genesis 1 of the Church’s theologians of the time following the teaching of the fathers of the Church. God himself is the cause and the creator, not secondary causes, of the variety and the distinction between the various ‘earthly’ or corporeal creatures. The CCC appears to say the same in #339: ‘God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order.’ This would exclude at least macroevolution in all its forms. At the same time, the Church presently has not stated explicitly at least that some theory of theistic macroevolution within limits is against the catholic faith. Contrary to Genesis 2:1-3 in which it is said that God finished all the work he had done in creating the heavens and the earth and all the furniture or host of them and rested on the seventh day, in theistic evolutionary theory creation is still going on and will never cease it appears until the end of the world and possibly afterwards into eternity

In conclusion, I think the CCC catechesis on creation reflects the Church’s traditional and literal understanding of Genesis 1-3 as I mentioned in a previous post. Evolution is not even mentioned and to surmise that there is present in the CCC catechesis on creation a theory of theistic evolution is, I believe, reading into the text an assumption that is not there.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

“If you think ID posits spontaneous intervention, then you do not know that ID is about.”
“Creation posits the instantaneous creation (or expression of the mind of God) different basic kinds with superb adaptive capabilities.”

I wish you’d make up your mind. The instantaneous creation of the various different kinds of organisms in a world which would not otherwise have produced them is surely spontaneous intervention. No? If not, please clarify for me.

 

[buffalo]

haha sorry.

I meant: “but. . . even I can recognize that there’s plenty of room for God, even in the world of hard science.”

I might one day call myself Christian again, but I’m never going to agree with the majority about what it means to BE Christian, or what the Bible is really saying about the world.

One day we will have to unpack this. What do you think?

 

[buffalo]

I wish you’d make up your mind. The instantaneous creation of the various different kinds of organisms in a world which would not otherwise have produced them is surely spontaneous intervention. No? If not, please clarify for me.

Creation is the initial act, and God saw it was good. Intervention is correcting mistakes made during the initial act, afterwards, and keep having to do it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I think I see. You think that the creation of the different ‘kinds’ of organisms all happened together as part of the initial act? I had thought that ID allowed for them all to be spontaneously created in line with their first appearance in the fossil record. I stand corrected.

 

[buffalo]

I think I see. You think that the creation of the different ‘kinds’ of organisms all happened together as part of the initial act? I had thought that ID allowed for them all to be spontaneously created in line with their first appearance in the fossil record. I stand corrected.

Here is St Augustine on prime matter:

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

 

[buffalo]

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Good try, Richca, and definitely pause for thought. However, the CCC is rather more circumspect than you give it credit for.

I was intrigued that you jumped to #289 in an attempt to defend the idea that “The catechism’s catechesis on creation is founded and based on God’s word” exclusively. In ignoring the earlier sections you miss some important material. I’m afraid the next few extracts are selected, for brevity, but I do not think they misrepresent the Catechism. Please tell me if you think I have been as unfair as I think you have been.

#283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

#286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error.

#289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation.

To me, these opening statements significantly modify any total reliance on the the first three chapters of Genesis as literal truth. But, moving open to some of the sections introduced by the reference to the Fourth Lateran Council…

#337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

#338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. the world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.

I understand your interpretation, but do not agree that it is the correct one. I do agree that the Catechism does not explicitly mention evolution, but it does specifically mention the ‘scientific studies which have enriched our knowledge’. My understanding of evolution does not contradict any of this.

 

[edwest211]

God guided all of creation.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t think quoting St Augustine has clarified your position at all. Can’t I just get an answer to the following:

I think the very first elephants lived millions of years after the very first lizards, and that the very first lizards lived millions of years after the very first fish. Do you agree with that or not?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi edwest. I note you have not replied to my last request. Can I ask why not?

 

[edwest211]

Exactly right. “maybe” “must have” “perhaps” are not explanations of anything. It’s just promoting the atheistic smoke screen.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think quoting St Augustine has clarified your position at all. Can’t I just get an answer to the following:

I think the very first elephants lived millions of years after the very first lizards, and that the very first lizards lived millions of years after the very first fish. Do you agree with that or not?

We have to go further back to the animals presented to Adam. He named them and they were the first created. The primary form (some call kinds) were sufficient to generate everything that has lived and is living today.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You were quoting the International Theological Commission in support of your views. Do you think it does?

 

[edwest211]

The Catechism does not use the word evolution.

"295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.“143”