E
edwest211
Guest
What is natural about evolution? Nothing. It has no practical scientific use. It is an incomplete and distorted story.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
A
anon65111186
Guest
On thr metaphysical level, I am not saying it is unguided and random, and neither is the theory saying that.
B
buffalo
Guest
It has ruled out natural macroevolution. God rested the 7th day. That means nothing new was created.
Pope Pius IX:
“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.”
Pius IX also approved the following teaching of the first Vatican Council :
“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.”
“from the beginning” (St. Matthew’s gospel), or “from the beginning of creation” (St. Mark’s gospel), God “made man, male and female He created them.”
Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, “Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae” [12], in which the pope said:
“We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time.”
1909 Stated in a positive form, the decree teaches that Catholics cannot bring into question the literal and historical meaning of Genesis 1-3, where those chapters touch upon the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, including (inter alia):
(a) the creation of all things wrought by God at the beginning of time;
(b) the special creation of man;
© the formation of the first woman from man;
(d) the unity or oneness of the human race; (and)
(e) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality.
Pope Pius IX:
“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.”
Pius IX also approved the following teaching of the first Vatican Council :
“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.”
“from the beginning” (St. Matthew’s gospel), or “from the beginning of creation” (St. Mark’s gospel), God “made man, male and female He created them.”
Pope Leo XIII, issued an encyclical letter on marriage entitled, “Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae” [12], in which the pope said:
“We record what is known, and cannot be doubted in any way, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness through all futurity of time.”
1909 Stated in a positive form, the decree teaches that Catholics cannot bring into question the literal and historical meaning of Genesis 1-3, where those chapters touch upon the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, including (inter alia):
(a) the creation of all things wrought by God at the beginning of time;
(b) the special creation of man;
© the formation of the first woman from man;
(d) the unity or oneness of the human race; (and)
(e) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality.
B
buffalo
Guest
Karl Popper recognized the non-scientific nature of untestable hypotheses (which are also unfalsifiable). He therefore had to admit that Darwinism was not a scientific theory. Iin his autobiography, “Unended Quest” he stated, “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme”.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Scientists prefer the word “supportable” to “provable.” And evolution is supportable by additional evidence. One can make predictions of what we will find, and then find it (or not).
I don’t think that is true. The formation of the earth and the moon is a one-time event. Yet science has a lot to say about that one-time event, and rightly so.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Good, we are getting somewhere.
Dr. Michael Denton who is an unbeliever, “Neither the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macrevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to the primeval cell, and the belief that all adaptive design of life resulted from a blind process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”
“One might have expected a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more no less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”
Dr. Michael Denton who is an unbeliever, “Neither the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macrevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to the primeval cell, and the belief that all adaptive design of life resulted from a blind process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”
“One might have expected a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more no less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”
B
buffalo
Guest
A huge problem evolution has with the cell is that certain proteins depend upon DNA for their existence but at the same time the function of DNA has a similar dependence upon those proteins. The same goes for ATP and the ATP synthase motor. The motor produces energy and energy is essential for the cell.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this otherwise vicious circle is that they must have been created by God at the same time.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this otherwise vicious circle is that they must have been created by God at the same time.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Your average thirteen year-old reader would assume the CCC is infallible Catholic teaching. So would many naïve Catholics who are much older.
B
buffalo
Guest
“We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomena world, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin - Evo Biologist
B
buffalo
Guest
Pope JPII in the intro said “it is the sure norm for teaching”
G
Glark
Guest
The Church has never said a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is necessary.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church has been against evolution for a very long long time.
In 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, “Vas Electionis”, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man”
Pretty clear and direct.
In 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, “Vas Electionis”, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man”
Pretty clear and direct.
E
edwest211
Guest
God created everything from nothing. But here is a ‘modern’ story:
Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make a living thing from it.
God to scientist: Get your own dirt.
Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make a living thing from it.
God to scientist: Get your own dirt.
G
Glark
Guest
What are you talking about? When did I ever say the Magisterium is wrong to permit a figurative interpretation?!
B
buffalo
Guest
The literal meaning must be taken first.
G
Glark
Guest
This statement is wrong and very misleading. It states that the Genesis account IS symbolic. It leaves no room for a literal interpretation, which the Church allows.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
"Real History
"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
"The Catechism explains that “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” (CCC 337), but “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 is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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).
"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
"The Catechism explains that “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” (CCC 337), but “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 is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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).
"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
- Catholic Answers
G
Glark
Guest
The late William Provine stated that he couldn’t think of even one evolutionary biologist who wasn’t an atheist.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Appeal to authority didn’t work when they were believers. Why would you think appealing to the authority of an unbeliever would be any better?
- Status