Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

Religious doctrines? You clearly believe that science is over there and the Church is over here.

The Pope says that anyone who tries to use science to determine God, is not doing science.

Wrong answer.

You’ll have to discuss that with the Pope.

You clearly believe that when the Church is talking about science, it is not talking about science!?

No. What gave you that idea? How odd.

You clearly refuse to accept the authority of the Church.

The difference between you and me, Ed, is that I accept all of it. You’ve chosen what you will accept and what you won’t.

If the Church combines science with Church teaching and teaches Catholics, “embryonic stem cell research is wrong” then it is not combining science with God given truth!?

That’s not science any more than “thou shalt not kill” is about ballistics.

Your constant “virtually certain” mantra is all you care about.

Not my words. Pope Benedict XVI’s.

Neither atheistic nor theistic evolution are scientific."?

Right. Those are religious doctrines, not science.

Your love, no, worship, of science is all you care about.

You’re the one, Ed, who won’t accept the teaching of the Church. But getting angry and making foolish and false accusations won’t make it better. It just makes it worse for you.

When the Church tells me I can’t believe in atheistic evolution, it is a scientific statement

It is a religious statement.

and the only statement I will accept.

This is why you have become a cafeteria Catholic. You accept only the parts that you want to accept.

Or do you believe that the god of science is greater than the Catholic Church?

The God who made nature is indeed greater than the Church. It is His creation.

You can repeat yourself as often as you want, the Church has the final say about science. The final say. Science is a tool used by men, only the Church is competent to interpret science as it concerns this issue, correctly. Only the Church.

Wouldn’t it be wise then, for you to accept all that the Church teaches about it?

Science is not a tangible object.

Neither is love, nor faith, or happiness.

Nor wisdom. Seek and you will find.

 

[Memaw]

Common marmosets display what researchers in Zurich call “unsolicited prosociality”—that is, they will slide a tray of food to a marmoset in a nearby cage even if there’s no chance of getting something in return, and even if the other animal is unrelated. So far, they’re the only animals other than human beings known to be so altruistic. Whether they say “Please” and “Thank you” is unknown."B]Science & Nature

Wild Things Life as We Know It By Amanda Bensen, Jess Blumberg, T.A. Frail, Megan Gambino and Laura Helmuth Smithsonian magazine, February 2008
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/55048781.JPG

Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically **
Judith M. Burkart, Ernst Fehr, Charles Efferson, and Carel P. van Schaik -*Anthropological Institute, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland; Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Blumlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland; Collegium Helveticum, Schmelzbergstrasse 25, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Communicated by Sarah B. Hrdy, University of California at Davis, Winters, CA, October 30, 2007 (received for review October 7, 2007)
Human cooperation is unparalleled in the animal world and rests on an altruistic concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated strangers. The evolutionary roots of human altruism, however, remain poorly understood. Recent evidence suggests a discontinuity between humans and other primates because individual chimpanzees do not spontaneously provide food to other group members, indicating a lack of concern for their welfare. Here, we demonstrate that common marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus) do spontaneously provide food to nonreciprocating and genetically unrelated individuals, indicating that other-regarding preferences are not unique to humans and that their evolution did not require advanced cognitive abilities such as theory of mind. Because humans and marmosets are cooperative breeders and the only two primate taxa in which such unsolicited prosociality has been found, we conclude that these prosocial predispositions may emanate from cooperative breeding. (PNAS | December 11, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 50 | 19762-19766 )
pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/19762

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19762.abstract

Response:

He’s cute, but he doesn’t look like anyone I know!

 

[Memaw]

Religious doctrines? You clearly believe that science is over there and the Church is over here. Wrong answer. You clearly believe that when the Church is talking about science, it is not talking about science!? Give me a break!

You clearly refuse to accept the authority of the Church. If the Church combines science with Church teaching and teaches Catholics, “embryonic stem cell research is wrong” then it is not combining science with God given truth!?

Your constant “virtually certain” mantra is all you care about.

“Neither atheistic nor theistic evolution are scientific.”? Your love, no, worship, of science is all you care about. When the Church tells me I can’t believe in atheistic evolution, it is a scientific statement and the only statement I will accept. Pope Benedict clearly believes in theistic evolution. To be blunt, it does not matter that you think this is not scientific.

Or do you believe that the god of science is greater than the Catholic Church?

You can repeat yourself as often as you want, the Church has the final say about science. The final say. Science is a tool used by men, only the Church is competent to interpret science as it concerns this issue, correctly. Only the Church.

Science is not a tangible object.

God bless,
Ed

I agree with Ed, Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. Follow ME. not the scientists, even tho I think much of science is good, there is a lot of shady stuff in there too. If it isn’t in sink with the TRUTH, who is Jesus, then somethings seriously wrong. Memaw

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian, so let’s review things:

I posted the following excerpt from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - Page 60 (2007), and asked you to agree to it:

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

And I pointed out the following to you, based on the Catechism:

But there is conflict between the church and those evolutionary theories which reject God.

snip…

You seem to have trouble just saying “Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian.” without qualification, and without redirection, and without if’s, and’s , but’s and except’s?

If you were to make such a statement, it might help tone things down a bit on these evolution threads.

You refuse to agree even to this simple part of item 1. Why?

Barbarian observes:
No. I have criticized them for denying the magisterium, which says that there is no conflict between evolution and the Church.

And even now you continue to insist that there is no conflict between evolution and the Church. Despite the clear meaning of item 2 above.

And then you start the insults…

As several people hear have pointed out to the creationists, “theories which reject God” are not theories at all.

snip…

I think, many times, creationists are so full of the “us vs. them” mentality, they often ignore what scientists are saying.

And you continue:

Or is there some formula you’re thinking of that makes my earlier point that the Church allows Catholics to accept or reject evolution (or indeed any science) invalid for your purposes?

What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

If this is unacceptable to you, perhaps you should check with the Management.

In your item 2, you say that Catholics cannot say that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church. But see item 2 from the top of the post:

1. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).

Guess we better get back to the subject at hand.

And apparently the subject at hand is innuendo:
[from M-W.com: innuendo -
1 a**: an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation.]

When I was in college, the Krishna guys would always try to get you to say their sacred chant. Apparently, they thought it would do something mystical. Deja vu.

The only mentions of Krishna I’ve seen in 30 years are in your post referenced above, and in other posts made by Barbarian attempting to slander other Catholics who disagree with him on evolution.

This sort of thing makes you look silly, Barbarian.

It seems that your Pride will not let you agree to even the most simple Catholic belief, so long as it is being proposed by someone who disagrees with you on certain aspects of evolution.

Let’s try this again. It’s a new “formulation”, so I assure you that it’s not some sort of Krisha trick. Unless you believe that the Krishnas are in league with the Catholic Church.

*** With reference to the excerpt from the Catechism at the top of this post, I, Ricmat agree with the following statements, without if’s, and’s, but’s, or except’s:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.***

Barbarian, can you agree with these items? If not, then why not?

 

[Memaw]

Barbarian chuckles:
I’m still curious as to why it has to be that specific formulation, with only part of the Church’s teaching, or why including more of it ruins everything. Particularly when I’ve already told you all of it.

Very odd, and you have yet to explain it. Guess we better get back to the subject at hand.

No. You, for example, have done so. I’m curious as to why you aren’t satisfied with me telling you that Catholics are free to reject evolution or any other science.

When I was in college, the Krishna guys would always try to get you to say their sacred chant. Apparently, they thought it would do something mystical. Deja vu.

So you think people here would be confused if someone said that Catholics could reject any science they wanted, but were not free to say that evolution (or any other science) was contrary to the teaching of the church? I think most people here are sharper than you think.

It seems to be an obsession for you. Frankly, I’m intrigued enough to let it run to see how far you will go to get me to say it just the way you said it, instead of the way it was said (for example) in imago dei.

Barbarian,

I am beginning to think you should have been a politician instead of a science expert, You have a way with words, double meanings, side stepping, etc and all those expert tricks. Either way its very untrustworthy.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

All you do is engage in word twisting. All you do is highlight the parts that you like. You are clearly an evangelist from the most holy and infallible church of science that is here to spread the gospel of evolution.

You accept certain things both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said in support of what you are promoting and leave out the rest.

You are here to deceive people. As to Pope John Paul II’s statement that “evolution is more than a hypothesis,” you leave out Pope Benedict’s statement that refers to those words: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” You do, however, quote Pope Benedict when it fits your propaganda needs.

You obviously do not accept anything the Catholic Church says unless it fits with what you are pushing.

Pope John Paul II clearly defined the relationship between religion and science: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

All the evidence in all of your posts indicate you show no distinction between what you call religious statements and scientific statements as long as either help you promote atheistic evolution.

The Catholic Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Catholic Church has a bioethics committee. You are promoting the falsehood that the Catholic Church does not deal with the whole truth or the whole man, both physical and spiritual. Stop it. Stop trying to convince Catholics that what you are excited about is God or the truth, you are just waiting with the greatest anticipation for the day when the words you worship (virtually certain) turn into absolutely certain. By their fruit you shall know them. The fruit you are planting is deceptive and false. Stop it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The only mentions of Krishna I’ve seen in 30 years are in your post referenced above, and in other posts made by Barbarian attempting to slander other Catholics who disagree with him on evolution.

I wondered why he was so reluctant to tell us about his source, so I took a look. Turns out it was an apologist for the Krishna Consciousness movement. But that doesn’t explain why you want me to tell you your particular formulation of the Church’s stand on evolution, with part of it left out. It’s interesting the lengths to which you have gone to get me to say it your way, particularly when I’ve already told you that and more.

This sort of thing makes you look silly, Barbarian.

I’m just sorta fascinated with your determination to get me to say your version, and I’m wondering how long and hard you’ll work to get me to do it.

It seems that your Pride will not let you agree to even the most simple Catholic belief,

I told you about it first. I just told you all of it. For some reason, you want me to just agree to part of it.

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.

1. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).

1. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

Well, that’s better. Except that methodological materialism is not forbidden. Only ontologically materialistic ideas are forbidden. Things (like plumbing and science) that can’t address supernatural things, but do not deny that they exist, are not contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Barbarian, can you agree with these items?

I think this last formulation of yours is much better, with that single correction. If you accept that part of the magisterium also, then we can agree.

 

[The_Barbarian]

All you do is engage in word twisting.

Words mean things, Ed. If you don’t use them in the accepted manner, then it’s all blurred and meaningless. I’m not trying to be pedantic; we all need you to be as precise and careful with your words as you can be.

All you do is highlight the parts that you like.

Nonsense. I’m the one who reminded you that Imago Dei was favorable to evolution, but not to science that intruded on the magesterium.

You are clearly an evangelist from the most holy and infallible church of science that is here to spread the gospel of evolution.

Odd then, that I had to show you what the Church teaches about science. Making false and foolish accusations won’t help, Ed. You need to get a cogent argument together, if you want to persuade people.

You accept certain things both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said in support of what you are promoting and leave out the rest.

C’mon, Ed. Everyone saw that I accepted all of it, but you chose which parts you wanted to believe.

You are here to deceive people.

I never say anything here, that I don’t believe to be true. Shame on you, Ed.

As to Pope John Paul II’s statement that “evolution is more than a hypothesis,” you leave out Pope Benedict’s statement that refers to those words: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Remember when I told you that no theory is ever “proven” in science? And all theories have many things yet to be proven. Chemistry, physics, metallurgy, and biology all have hundreds of journals dedicated to answering questions remaining in these sciences. When a science has no more problems to solve, it is dead. However, there is no argument about common descent in biology. As in physics, ever finer details are being determined.

You obviously do not accept anything the Catholic Church says unless it fits with what you are pushing.

You have it backwards. My views happen to conform to the teaching of the Church, because I accept what it says. And because I accept all of it, I don’t have to worry where science will take me. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Venting at me, because you find some of the Church’s teaching unacceptable isn’t very useful for you. Let God be God, Ed.

 

[edwest2]

“Truth cannot contradict truth.”

(Edited)

For your part, you are saying that the Church must tolerate science but science cannot tolerate the Church. You’ve got that wrong. All wrong. It is not a one-way street. Only the Catholic Church has the whole truth. Atheistic science is not acceptable. As written in Human Persons Created in the Image of God, getting life from random mutation and natural selection without God is not possible (part 69). Read it, Understand it. Not possible. That is the Church’s final word on that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Ed:
“Truth cannot contradict truth.”

(Edited)

Well, since Jesus praised a heretic (Samaritan) and told people to emulate him, we can at least tolerate those who don’t believe as we do. My feeling is that their beliefs or lack of them are a matter between them and God. If some return your regard by being intolerant of us, I do not think it is acceptable to take their standards as ours.

For your part, you are saying that the Church must tolerate science but science cannot tolerate the Church.

No, I never said that. You’re upset again, and making up things. It might feel good to vent like that, but there are always consequences.

Atheistic science is not acceptable.

Yep. But as several scientists have told you here, science cannot be atheistic. If anyone tries to use science to deny (or prove) God, he has (as the Pope said) left the proper place of science.

As written in Human Persons Created in the Image of God, getting life from random mutation and natural selection without God is not possible

Actually, nothing at all is possible without God. Fortunately, science does not make any claims about God. He is entirely consistent with all scientific theories, including evolution. This is the part of science (and the teaching of the Church) that you will not accept.

Let God be God, Ed.

 

[reggieM]

Now, why can’t you say “Church magisterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian.” without qualification, and without redirection, and without if’s, and’s , but’s and except’s?

The record shows that Barbarian has not been able to sign on to the simple factual statement without qualifiers and additions.

Ricmat has struggled massively to get a clear affirmation from Barbarian and we have witnessed the squirming and dodging over many posts. Barbarian actually tried to close down this path of questioning (post 767) as if it was completed now.

Ricmat’s follow up question is left hanging also – why all the resistance to a simple statement about Magisterial teaching? Is it true that Barbarian does not believe the statement himself but is trying to wiggle out of it?

 

[ricmat]

I wondered why he was so reluctant to tell us about his source, so I took a look. Turns out it was an apologist for the Krishna Consciousness movement.

So you were using “Krishna” slander on another Catholic, and now you repeat it here?

Krishna Consciousness has what to do with me? The answer is “nothing.” I’m the one you additionally slandered by innuendo in your post #771 above. And you rant onwards trying to justify it.

And you accuse others of “making things up.”

You realize, of course, that when you do this it is a sin.

Here’s what is happening folks. A previous Barbarian post.

What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Barbarian insists on rewriting things to include “(or any other science)” in item 1. For what reason - I have no clue. Those writing the Catechism didn’t think it was necessary.

And Barbarian says above that “Catholics cannot say evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.” His item 2. Which is in direct contradiction to the second part of the Catechism quote below. Obviously, there ARE forms of evolution which the Church forbids, or they would not have put in that part of the sentence.

Here it is again:

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults:

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

Barbarian, items 1,2,3 say nothing about plumbing or science as it appears you wish them to. That’s because those words don’t appear in the catechism.

Tell us the truth, why can’t you agree with the above?

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you were using “Krishna” slander on another Catholic,

No. As you know, he was reluctant to tell us about the ideas in the book he was touting on this board. And later, it was discovered that the author was promoting “Krishna Consciousness.” His argument that there were human fossils of immense age was support for Vedic religions.

and now you repeat it here?

Still surprises me that he did it.

Krishna Consciousness has what to do with me?

At the university, they used to try to get me to recite a phrase. That’s what you are doing. Just an observation.

And you accuse others of “making things up.”

It’s a fact. For example, I never said things Ed claimed I did. And he won’t ever support his claim, because he’ll never find any post where I said it.

You realize, of course, that when you do this it is a sin.

Isn’t false accusation a sin? And since I didn’t say it, and Ed claims that I did…

Here’s what is happening folks. A previous Barbarian post.

Barbarian earlier:
What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Barbarian insists on rewriting things to include “(or any other science)” in item 1.

So let’s see your evidence that the Church teaches that we must accept some other science. That would be a surprise for me. Tell us about it.

And Barbarian says above that “Catholics cannot say evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.” His item 2. Which is in direct contradiction to the second part of the Catechism quote below.

Nope. Remember, that the Catechism is speaking of theories of evolution, not evolution. And they are speaking of non-scientific theories, since science can’t make the claims that the Catechism is speaking of.

Obviously, there ARE forms of evolution which the Church forbids, or they would not have put in that part of the sentence.

You’ve confused the fact of evolution, with various ways people have explained it. However, the Church has no problem with evolution itself. It merely (and properly) denounces non-scientific ideas of evolution that deny God’s role.

Here, take a look at it again, and see:

Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him."
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

As the Pope said, a scientific theory cannot do this. But of course, “theory” means things outside of science.

Barbarian, items 1,2,3 say nothing about plumbing or science as it appears you wish them to.

It is, nevertheless true. By your reasoning, “atheistic plumbing” would be forbidden. Which is no crazier than “atheistic evolution.”

You continue to resist this fact, for reasons I can’t understand. Let’s go over it one more time:

1. The Church has no objection to evolution, only to those who theorize that God has no role in it.
2. Science cannot in any way infer anything about God, since it only makes inferences from evidence perceived by the senses. The Pope makes reference to this when he says:

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Scientists agree with him on this point. One cannot make such inferences by inductive reasoning based on evidence; such an idea is a religious or philosophical one, and beyond the reach of science.

Does that make it any clearer?

 

[wildleafblower]

Barbarian reminds Ed:
“Truth cannot contradict truth.” 1]
[SNIP]

But as several scientists have told you here, science cannot be atheistic. If anyone tries to use science to deny (or prove) God, he has (as the Pope said) left the proper place of science. 2]
[SNIP]

Actually, nothing at all is possible without God. Fortunately, science does not make any claims about God. He is entirely consistent with all scientific theories, including evolution. This is the part of science (and the teaching of the Church) that you will not accept. 3]

Hi Barbarian

First off, 1, 2, 3 as I’ve highlighted in red after each of your statements which are a poor represention of SCIENCE. (Strictly my observation) Hopefully, we can give to SCIENCE what rightfully belongs to it. A strong support of scientific evidence.

Secondly, I always encourage Catholics to read the COMPENDIUM, especially Part One, The Profession of Faith, Section One
“I believe” – “We believe”.

1. Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?

159 Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.

“I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)

And Barbarian, let’s look closer at your statement, “Actually, nothing at all is possible without God. Fortunately, science does not make any claims about God. He is entirely consistent with all scientific theories, including evolution. This is the part of science (and the teaching of the Church) that you will not accept.” Barbarian, Father George Coyne who has been for decades and still is a member of the Vatican:Holy See’s Scientific Advisory Committee was interviewed by Wired Magazine. Here is an excerpt from the article that I fully agree with:

"*Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.

Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?

Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.” *(page 2 of The Pope’s Astrophysicist from Wired Magazine)
wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

The Pope's Astrophysicist

MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) We have come to meet the Pope. It’s tourist season, and the Sistine Chapel is punishingly full. Visitors from around the world crowd together, ogling Michelangelo’s ceiling. At the back of...

www.wired.com

I’m pressed for time but do hope upon my return we can move onward into the realm of scientific discussions since this is what the topic is supposed to be about. It could provide our audience (members and non-members) with the latest scientific discoveries which will allow Catholic.com’s wide range of non-religious and religious members (male and female) the opportunity to participate in a scientific learning experience. SCIENCE is fun stuff and so very important in the advancement of humanity. Perhaps we could begin by discussing *‘modern issues and ideas that scientists are wrestling with today’ *in **The Theory of Evolution ** as Alec (hecd2) has outlined in his article.
Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

And let’s not forget that Nobel prize winner Christian de Duve, a member of the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee, says evolution is a FACT!

Thank you and all participants in advance for your consideration in this matter.

(p.s. Barbarian, my suggestion is to avoid the trolls that follow us scientific buffs around. Just a suggestion from a woman whose dealt with them here there and everywhere in the worldwide Net Give me some SCIENCE:thumbsup: I’m counting on you. )

 

[ricmat]

At the university, they used to try to get me to recite a phrase. That’s what you are doing. Just an observation.

No, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to get you to agree with magesterial teaching. Directly from the Catechism, without if’s, and’s and but’s. Just agreeing with it once would be good enough for me. You don’t need to recite it over and over.

You were attempting to associate me with Krishna Consciousness. Bad Barbarian.

Isn’t false accusation a sin? And since I didn’t say it, and XX claims that I did…

You are changing the subject. Yes, false accusation is a sin. My comment was with regard to your false accusation (via innuendo and insinuation) that I was somehow involved with Krishna. This has nothing to do with anybody else.

What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

So let’s see your evidence that the Church teaches that we must accept some other science. That would be a surprise for me. Tell us about it.

I never made the claim that th Church teaches that we must accept some other science.

You made that up.

So I ask you again Barbarian:

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults:

                "Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him."

                This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

Tell us the truth, why can’t you agree with the above?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
At the university, they used to try to get me to recite a phrase. That’s what you are doing. Just an observation.

No, that’s not what I’m doing.

Yep. That’s what you were doing.

I’m trying to get you to agree with magesterial teaching.

I’d like to believe that. But a couple of things…

1. I told you all of that, before.
2. When I mentioned more of the teaching than you gave me, you objected.

Just agreeing with it once would be good enough for me.

Already told you I agreed with all of it. Not just the part you asked me about.

You were attempting to associate me with Krishna Consciousness.

Last time someone tried to get me to say a formula. It did make me think.

And you accuse others of “making things up.”

Barbarian responds:
Isn’t false accusation a sin? And since I didn’t say it, and Ed claims that I did…

You are changing the subject.

Um, no. You did. See above.

Yes, false accusation is a sin.

It’s possible that he was simply confused. We should give him that.

My comment was with regard to your false accusation (via innuendo and insinuation) that I was somehow involved with Krishna.

You mean your inference. The fact that you and they both prepared a statement and wanted me to sign off on it, that’s the same thing.

Barbarian observes:
What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

(Ricmat objects to “or any other science”)

Barbarian insists on rewriting things to include “(or any other science)” in item 1.

Barbarian suggests:
So let’s see your evidence that the Church teaches that we must accept some other science. That would be a surprise for me. Tell us about it.

I never made the claim that th Church teaches that we must accept some other science.

So why did you object when I pointed this out?

You made that up.

Nonsense. Inference from evidence. I made a statement, and you objected to it. I asked for some substantiation.

So I ask you again Barbarian:

No need. I already told you that I agree with that part of the Church’s teaching (in fact, I told you about it, before you brought it up) just as I agree with the rest of it. I’m still wondering why you don’t like me mentioning the rest of it.

What is so important about signing on for part of it only?

 

[ricmat]

So I ask you again Barbarian:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

What is so important about signing on for part of it only?

OK Barbarian, you said that you agreed with all of this before. I guess I missed that. So let’s both agree to it here and now.

Ricmat agrees with the above 3 statements as written, with no if’s, and’s and but’s. Signed, Ricmat.

Your turn.

 

[Sideline]

OK Barbarian, you said that you agreed with all of this before. I guess I missed that. So let’s both agree to it here and now.

Ricmat agrees with the above 3 statements as written, with no if’s, and’s and but’s. Signed, Ricmat.

Your turn.

He quite clearly did. What’s your point?

Why do you have a problem with him including “or any other science?” Do you know of some scientific discovery that Catholics must believe?

 

[ricmat]

The US Catholic Catechism for Adults is a document created by the Church specifically for the purpose of instruction of Catholics.

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

Despite repeated opportunities to publicly accept the above teaching, The Barbarian has refused to accept the contents of the quotation above without modification.

Let the record show that The Barbarian refuses to accept the above teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[ricmat]

He quite clearly did. What’s your point?

Why do you have a problem with him including “or any other science?” Do you know of some scientific discovery that Catholics must believe?

No, my only objection is that The Barbarian refuses to accept Church teaching without rewriting it to make it more palatable for him.