Is it okay to not believe in certain non-doctrine teachings of the church? (evolution, abortion)

[rossum]

As I said before…Although I did enjoy my statistical studies I did not receive a degree in such. maybe one day I will ask a mathematical genius to calculate it. I probably could with time…if I remember correctly when you r trying to calculate the probability of one event in an infinite state of possibilities then your probability will reduce to zero. Understanding the statistical probability of 1 out of infinity doesn’t take a PhD in statistics

The universe is not large enough or old enough to contain infinite possibilities, Dr. Dembski was correct about that.:blush:It does not take a genius to calculate a reasonably simple approximation to real life, as I did in my Boojumase example I linked to earlier.

And Natural Selection is not evolution.

We agree. Evolution is random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, founder effect and other processes which give rise to change in the overall genome of an interbreeding population.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

That called circular reasoning.

For general information, since I am sure you understand basic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The basic doctrine regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 is not circular.

 

[Brendan]

No, as that is biologically false. The embryo is alive, any biologist would confirm that. It is not something that is dead becoming alive when brain waves are first detected. How could brain waves be emitted from a dead brain, or how could a brain even grow from something that is dead.

So that one is certainly a big NO. Not just the Church, but Science says otherwise.

 

[tifischer]

The universe is not large enough or old enough to contain infinite possibilities, Dr. Dembski was correct about that.:blush:It does not take a genius to calculate a reasonably simple approximation to real life, as I did in my Boojumase example I linked to earlier.

We agree. Evolution is random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, founder effect and other processes which give rise to change in the overall genome of an interbreeding population.

rossum

The universe is infinite. That is large enough for infinite possibilities. The only measure that we have of the universe is the time that it has been in this current direction. lol. And time is only relative + laws of matter…the Universe and space being “Old enough” is just a funny thing for a scientist to say.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? As Christians we can feel the Holy Spirit and we know the countless miracles that God has done…like tumors vanishing, lights appearing, moving things, virgin Blessed Mother Mary, resurrection… Those are things that evolution based on random spontaneous mutations cannot do. We believe that God is the one who created all life and easily intercedes in His creation as He desires.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For general information, since I am sure you understand basic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The basic doctrine regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 is not circular.

Rau did not say Genesis was circular. Or that all arguments proving what “in His image” means are circular. Only the one argument of “look at Jesus to see what it means” is circular.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I don’t believe in evolution, apes to humans stuff.

I do believe abortion is extremely evil.

I agree… abortion an evil act. (unless the child is certian to die and the mother too or very injured. example ectopic pregnancy.

Evolution as most see it I do not believe in…

However I do believe evolution exists to an extent, which would be adaptation…

I believe abortion being wrong is a must belief in Catholism, but not evolution.
I am not even Catholic and I belive abortion is wrong…
However I share many beliefs with Catholism…
reason why I am here to learn about Catholism and testing it.

 

[Rau]

For general information, since I am sure you understand basic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The basic doctrine regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 is not circular.

Great. But reasoning by tifischer is.

 

[grannymh]

Rau did not say Genesis was circular. Or that all arguments proving what “in His image” means are circular. Only the one argument of “look at Jesus to see what it means” is circular.

Perhaps I was not clear enough… too early in the morning. Thank you for the correction.

I notice your comment “Or that all arguments proving what ‘in His image’ means are circular.” I would like to know those arguments, please. My instinct tells me that there may be a bit of clashing with the science of human evolution

 

[TheSeeker2014]

this may help with your abortion belief issue

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=95532

 

[namax91]

It is doctrine that abortion is always wrong. In Humanae Vitae, Blessed Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the fact that he used the word “declare” in this case means that this statement is tnfallible. I know for sure that getting or procuring an abortion carries the penalty of excommunication.

 

[tifischer]

Our measurements of the depth of space are only as good as our measurements…the Universe is so vast that our technology cannot even measure it. So now lets think on a smaller level. Consider my child’s room. What is the probability of all the lego’s when scattered across the floor spontaneously coming together to form a sophisticated architectural building on their own? Because that is a pretty small space compared to the universe. Now consider that matter came together to form intelligent life forms in the vast Universe. The staggering low probability is humbling really.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? As Christians we can feel the Holy Spirit and we know the countless miracles that God has done…like tumors vanishing, lights appearing, moving things, virgin Blessed Mother Mary, resurrection… Those are things that evolution based on random spontaneous mutations cannot do. We believe that God is the one who created all life and easily intercedes in His creation as He desires.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

It is doctrine that abortion is always wrong. In Humanae Vitae, Blessed Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the fact that he used the word “declare” in this case means that this statement is tnfallible. I know for sure that getting or procuring an abortion carries the penalty of excommunication.

I believe so, however the remedy they allow for esctopic pregancies I see the same as abortion itself, according to the link I had shared.
The damaged tube (whether ruptured or not) is allowed to be taken out with the baby in it as it is acting on the mother and not the baby… and since we do not have the technology to transfer the fetus to the uterus, it is indirect death of the baby.

However in my opinion, knowing that removing a tube will kill the baby, it is still killing a baby. Not saying we should not do it by any means! just in my eyes it is the same. Becaue if the tube was not removed and the baby only was, that tube is still functional (except in the case of emergency surgery because of a bleed out) the the ultimate reason why the tube could be removed is to remove the baby with it. wonders if a patch up is possible?

And someone said that removing organs to prevent pregancies is a type of abortion…? (not on this forum but other catholics)

What if they are already damaged ahead of time but still functional like the tube in the example above where it is permitted?

I think I better start another thread…

 

[Brendan]

I believe so, however the remedy they allow for esctopic pregancies I see the same as abortion itself, according to the link I had shared.
The damaged tube (whether ruptured or not) is allowed to be taken out with the baby in it as it is acting on the mother and not the baby… and since we do not have the technology to transfer the fetus to the uterus, it is indirect death of the baby.

The difference is in the intent. If the baby actually DID survive, would the the procedure having been considered to be successfully competed or a failure?

 

[TheSeeker2014]

The difference is in the intent. If the baby actually DID survive, would the the procedure having been considered to be successfully competed or a failure?

It can’t survive because the tube would be taken out with the baby in it.

If we had the technology, I could see how taking the tube out with the baby and transfering it to the womb would be ok. The baby would not be killed. The whole reason why the tube needs to be taken out is becuase of the baby being in it… otherwise the surgery would not be needed. The intent is there.
That the baby has to come out… we do not have an option of trying to save it so there is no intention of saving it since the option is not available.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Our measurements of the depth of space are only as good as our measurements…the Universe is so vast that our technology cannot even measure it. So now lets think on a smaller level. Consider my child’s room. What is the probability of all the lego’s when scattered across the floor spontaneously coming together to form a sophisticated architectural building on their own? Because that is a pretty small space compared to the universe. Now consider that matter came together to form intelligent life forms in the vast Universe. The staggering low probability is humbling really.
.

This is a very strange argument. You seem to be using and analogy of legos in a child’s room to show that the probability of life arising is very small. But the smallness of the child’s room and the number of legos is exactly what makes the probability of the legos coming together to form some design very small. The larger the universe, the larger those odds become. So your analogy does not apply the way you were hoping.

But we should recognize that the question of the origin of life itself is a separate question from the question of evolution. They may be related, but it is certainly possible for a person to hold one view of the origin of life and a somewhat different view of the theory of evolution. So you cannot use the problem of the origin of life to discredit Darwinian evolution.

And if I could make a comment about using the language of probability:… The term “probability” has a very definite technical meaning in science and mathematics. It does not just mean “that feels improbable or probable to me”. In particular, probability only makes mathematical sense when you have a probability space - that is, a collection of instances of the thing to which you wish to assign a probability. So if you wanted to calculate the probability of rainy day, you could look at all the days in the past, or some subset of them, and consider how many of them were rainy. But if you want to calculate the probability that the gravitational constant would be such and such, or that the size of the universe would be such and such, you cannot really use probability. That is because there is no probability space. We don’t have a myriad of universes to examine. We only have one. We can imagine other universes, but that’s not the same thing. Imaginary universes do not count. So until we find 10 or 12 other planets on which life has arisen, we cannot calculate any rigorous probability for life having arisen. It makes no sense to talk about this question as if you were calculating the odds of getting three of a kind in poker.

 

[someperson555]

One of the popes said it was okay to believe in evolution as long as you believed in two original parents

There is no way the human descended from two people. It is biologically impossible. We would have died from inbreeding. And I facepalm when creationists bring up mitochondrial eve and and mitochondrial adam. These two people did not live at the same time and they were not the only humans alive when they walked the earth.

You just have to use logic. I mean IN GENESIS it says that kain moved east and married. That clearly tells us that adam and eve were NOT our first parents.

I really wish people would stop misreading genesis. It hurts religion s credibility so much when they do that.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

There is no way the human descended from two people. It is biologically impossible. We would have died from inbreeding. And I facepalm when creationists bring up mitochondrial eve and and mitochobdrial adam. These two people did not live at the same time and they were not the only humans alive when they walked the earth.

You just have to use logic. I mean IN GENESIS it says that kain moved east and married. That clearlyi tells us that adam and eve were NOT our first parents.

They would be our first parents because Cain’s DNA came from Adam and Eve. Even if the wife was made separately… that Adam Eve DNA is passed on. Who says God could not have made a wife for Cain? Their Children would have still decended from Adam and Eve.

 

[someperson555]

They would be our first parents because Cain’s DNA came from Adam and Eve. Even if the wife was made separately… that Adam Eve DNA is passed on. Who says God could not have made a wife for Cain? Their Children would have still decended from Adam and Eve.

Thats just idle speculation. Which is a logical fallacy. I can just as easily say that God created a purple unicorn which in turn created kains wife. Its important to only consider the objective facts. First of all occhams razor tells us that the simplest explanation tends to be true. Second there is a ton of archeological evidence which suggests that hunans have beenaround for hundreds of thousands of years. Biological evidence tells us that a species cant descend just from one set of parents.
The problem here is that creationists are treating genisis as a science text book which was never how it was intended to be read.
The church fathers knew it wasnt literal either. They knew God doesnt rest and that night and day didnt exist before the earth and the sun. St Augustine thought that God created everything all at once rather than seven days.

 

[cena]

Thats just idle speculation. Which is a logical fallacy. I can just as easily say that God created a purple unicorn which in turn created kains wife. Its important to only consider the objective facts. First of all occhams razor tells us that the simplest explanation tends to be true. Second there is a ton of archeological evidence which suggests that hunans have beenaround for hundreds of thousands of years. Biological evidence tells us that a species cant descend just from one set of parents.
The problem here is that creationists are treating genisis as a science text book which was never how it was intended to be read.
The church fathers knew it wasnt literal either. They knew God doesnt rest and that night and day didnt exist before the earth and the sun. St Augustine thought that God created everything all at once rather than seven days.

What did the church fathers, the catechism, and popes say about the original parents

 

[TheSeeker2014]

What did the church fathers, the catechism, and popes say about the original parents