Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[danielsgram]

This was posted on Envoy’s speak your mind by a man named Julio Bailon and I want to pass it on. It is good.

The difference between “knowing” and “believing”.

I just want to make this distinction so that some people are not confused about their meaning in relation with the theory of evolution. The Webster’s College Dictionary defines “to know” as: 1. To have a clear perception or understanding of; be sure of or well informed about/ to know the facts. The same dictionary defines “to believe” as: To take as true, real, etc. 2. To have confidence in a statement or promise of (another person). In another words: to know is to have a first hand knowledge, or scientific verification that something is true. To believe is to have confidence in a statement of another person, which could be true or untrue. That is to have faith. There is no first hand knowledge or scientific verification of something.

A person knows that two plus two are four by first hand experience and by scientific demonstration. A person believes that he has made a good investment because his stock is going up. But that may change overnight.

It is said that some Rabbis tell their students that it is not enough to believe that God exists. They need to know that God exists.

In religion we have the same proposition. A person can believe in God because He has given him the gift of faith, which, by the way, is available to every person, unless he rejects it. But the same person can know that God exists, because he has studied Metaphysics and has become convinced of the existence of an uncaused being, which is the cause of all existing beings, and has all the attributes of a
Divine Being. That is Natural Theology and it has nothing to do with any particular religion.

A person is free to believe whatever he wants, because that is a personal choice of his will. But the fact that he believes in something doesn’t mean that what he believes in is true.

So far, the evolution theory is only a hypothesis ( which has lasted for many years without any conclusive scientific demonstration) and many people believe in it but do not know for sure that it is true. But the number of people that believe in it does not prove that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It will remain a hypothesis, and not only a hypothesis but a kind a godless religion as long as some people want to continue to believe in it as the only explanation of the universe and of life.

I didn’t want to add more wood to the fire, or discuss the Church position, but I just wanted to make that clarification.

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]
So far, the evolution theory is only a hypothesis ( which has lasted for many years without any conclusive scientific demonstration) and many people believe in it but do not know for sure that it is true. But the number of people that believe in it does not prove that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It will remain a hypothesis, and not only a hypothesis but a kind a godless religion as long as some people want to continue to believe in it as the only explanation of the universe and of life.

I didn’t want to add more wood to the fire, or discuss the Church position, but I just wanted to make that clarification.

A few excerpts from my (Wildleafblower) message 166 (2): **Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE **(1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003. His article THE FACTS OF LIFE begins on page 71 of this pfd:

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…lues/part2.pdf

Here are two excerpts from his article :

Pg. 75: In recent years, opposition to the notion of a natural origin of life has been voiced by a very small but vocal minority of scientifically trained persons who, while subscribing to the notion of a LUCA appearing de novo on Earth and evolving into present-day living organisms, claim that these phenomena could not possibly have taken place by purely natural processes, but required the intervention of some nonmaterial guiding entity that forced the raw materials of life to interact so as to produce the first living cells and also, as will be mentioned later, directed the further course of evolution (Behe, 1996; Dembski, 1998; Denton, 1998). Known under the name of ‘intelligent design’, this theory, which is close to vitalism, has been magnified much beyond its merits because of its alleged philosophical and theological implications . I shall come back to it when discussing evolution. Let me simply state now that serious flaws have been detected in the scientific arguments brought forward in its support.

Pg. 76: 5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms. ]###

1. vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ts/deduve.html

2)forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488&page=4
Alec (Hecd2) message 180 states, “The Theory of Evolution is the proposed mechanism for the fact of evolution. It is a theory.”

 

[wildleafblower]

Berthault was never a program director at CSU. In fact, my contact at CSU indicated that Berthault doesn’t hold a Ph.D. He did sponsor some research there back in the 1990’s.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim

Thank you for this valuable contribution! If you read page 4 of this topic of discussion one begins to wonder about Guy Berthault. Take a look at this letter he wrote to Kevin Henke where he states, “I directed the program of experiments at Colorado University performed by Pierre Julien resident teacher of hydraulics and sedimentology.”

home.austarnet.com.au/stear/guy_response_henke.htm
Honestly, I can’t make head nor tails out of him being placed on websites as a PhD (Dr.) :

rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-evolution_questioned_by_european.htm++Dr+Berthault

 

[wildleafblower]

Not necessarily stupid or evil. Blind and deceived would be a better choice of words…

DustinsDad

DustinsDad, your comment was directed at Dr. Alec MacAndrew’s remarks on page 4, message 198, “I am fed up by instances where those who do not have the slightest knowledge of science (indeed less than no knowledge, because their misconeption of what the science says is laughably wrong) and who cannot be bothered to do the work needed to educate themselves in the subject, go on for paragraph after didactic paragraph about how they can see some obvious and fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, or consensus cosmology, or general relativity or whatever it happens to be, a fundamental flaw that the scientists who have studied and researched the subject all their working lives are too stupid or too evil to see. In the circumstances, I think my rebuke was quite mild. Alec evolutionpages.com”

DustinsDad, your remark to Alec MacAndrew who has a PhD in Physics was most unkind. He provides you knowledge that supports evolution is a fact, An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution.
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

 

[PoG]

Posted by wildleafblowerPg. 76: 5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church.

It may possibly have shown a personal acceptance of the claims of the theory of evolution by His Holiness John Paul II, on the advice of the PAS which is a secular body and has no Magisterial Authority whatsoever. But it is not a Magisterial pronouncement; it does not deal with Faith or morals, and therefore does not show acceptance by the Church. The letter states that “the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.” That only serves to state the obvious about the relationship between an hypothesis and a theory.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the letter erroneously claims that in Humani Generis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII “treated the doctrine of evolutionism as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis.”

Now, what is interesting here is that evolutionism - in contrast to the empirical study of biological evolution - is a philosophical notion that denies the existence of anything immutable and is connected to pantheism, gnosticism, materialism, historicism and so on. The notion of evolutionism was, in fact, condemned in Humani Generis. This adds weight to the opinion that the letter was not even written by His Holiness - who, don’t forget, had been suffering from the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s Disease for several years - but by someone from the PAS.

Not to mention the obvious contradiction of the use of the word “hypothesis” between the two sections of the letter quoted above.

Where are the Magisterial Pronouncements that back your case, wildleafblower? We are on page 5 of this discussion and neither you nor your colleagues have so far produced even one to argue your case. Every Magisterial Pronouncement, or action, that we have seen thus far add up to condemn the philosophical speculation of macroevolution.

 

[wildleafblower]

PoG gave us in message #1 this website:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective kolbecenter.org/ Throughout the 4 previous pages members of their Advisory Council have been rebuked along with their other pronouncements.

PoG asks, “Every Magisterial Pronouncement, or action, that we have seen thus far add up to condemn the philosophical speculation of macroevolution.” Not so PoG. Why? Well…errr…read this article PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION On the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, **Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes ** by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dean of the College of Cardinals:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

PoG, if you go to the Vatican website and do a search on “macroevolution”, nothing shows up. The word doesn’t exist there. Therefore, the Magisterial hasn’t condemned the philosophical speculation of macroevolution because if they had it would be in the Vatican search engine!!!

 

[PoG]

Posted by wildleafblower
PoG asks, “Every Magisterial Pronouncement, or action, that we have seen thus far add up to condemn the philosophical speculation of macroevolution.” Not so PoG. Why? Well…errr…read this article PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION On the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dean of the College of Cardinals:

This “reflection” as it is called on the Vatican website just proves my point that you have not been able to back up your ideas with any Magisterial pronouncements. The PBC hasn’t been an arm of the Magisterium for several decades now and the personal “reflection” of His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger, that you link to, is very noticeably not found in the CDF Doctrinal Documents section. It is found in the same section as, and thus ranked alongside, sermons at funeral masses and birthday greetings to the Pope.

PoG, if you go to the Vatican website and do a search on “macroevolution”, nothing shows up. The word doesn’t exist there. Therefore, the Magisterial hasn’t condemned the philosophical speculation of macroevolution because if they had it would be in the Vatican search engine!!!

Completely irrelevant, and also not what I wrote! Please explain how your speculative belief can get around the consistent and perennial Magisterial Teaching that has been quoted concerning the biological and spiritual creation of man ex nihilo.

PoG gave us in message #1 this website:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective kolbecenter.org/ Throughout the 4 previous pages members of their Advisory Council have been rebuked along with their other pronouncements.

No, I gave you the first part of an interesting article full of Magisterial quotations. But you can not deal with answering what the Magisterium has to state in this regard so you risk your souls further by making personal attacks on scientists who advise the Kolbe Center. I have not seen any rebuking. If you want to do that then you need to start experimental programmes yourself and get your opposing data published in the scientific literature. All I have seen is sins against the Eighth Commandment being thrown about.

 

[hecd2]

Yes, I know it can be frustrating seeing the same “problems” with evolution mentioned over and over and over and … again.

So I’m sorry I got snippy with you about being snippy.

But, for me at least, educating and winning hearts and minds is very important.

Well actually it is for me too. I have spent an inordinate quantity of time explaining the most basic biology and the kindergarden version of the modern synthesis. I have also spent a lot of time writing explanatory articles about basic and new science here and here. I have spent time on lists dedicated to high school students teaching them science patiently. But I have been around too long, and my patience has been stretched too far to take with equanimity the kind of strutting ignorance that is displayed on this thread.

And I don’t think that you can educate or win over by being aggressive or negative. Especially in the case of a poster like DustinsDad; he was new and didn’t have a history of repeat postings of the same tired old stuff. If he had been present on one of the many…many etc:banghead: other threads on the subject and was still posting such nonsense I might have had a different approach.

Well, it seems to me that Dustins Dad has not the slightest desire to learn any science as that might interfere with his beating on the strawman of what he imagines evolution to be.

I don’t know if it is a world wide phenomenon or just a problem in he US but the state of science education makes me weep.:crying:

Poor science education is pretty universal, but science MISeducation in the name of religion is, if not exclusively, largely, within the West, an American phenomenon.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

As far as when God created man no particular date is inferred but it was the unanimous belief of the Fathers that it occured within six natural days of Creation… Creation within six natural days has always been the belief of the Church.

Well so you say, but in saying so you are wrong and you fail to address the fact that those Fathers whom I quoted earlier in this thread do not support your erroneous contention. For convenience, I’ll repeat the quotations:

‘For as Adam was told in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived moreover that the expression “The day of the Lord is as a thousand years” is connected with this subject’ - Justin Martyr - Dialogue 82

‘That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: “This is the book of the generation; also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth”. For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production."’ - Clement of Alexandria - Miscellanies v1.16

‘The text said that “there was evening and there was morning”, it did not say “the first day”, but said “one day”. It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. but time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and he third and fourth and all the rest being to designate time’ - Origen - Homily 1

'What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider a reasonable statement that the first and second and third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God after the manner of a farmer, “planted trees in a paradise eastward in Eden”… And… when God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening…I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history…’ Origen – First Principles Bk 4, Ch 3.

‘God created all things simultaneously at the beginning of the ages, creating some in their substance and others in pre-existing causes’ – Augustine - The Literal Meaniong of Genesis, vii; 42 (and if that’s not compatible with theistic evolution, I don’t know what is.)

‘Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies. This special meaning of “day” must not be maintained just for the first three days, with the understanding that after the third day we take the word “day” in its ordinary sense. But we must keep the same meaning even to the sixth and seventh days.’ Augustine Ibid iv, 26

‘The day in the account of creation, or those days that are numbers according to its recurrence, are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earth-bound men. And if we are able to make any effort towards understanding of those days, we ought not to rush forward with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be offered.’ Augustine ibid iv, 44

In other words, the Church Fathers do not ‘unanimously’ believe that Creation occured in six natural days. So you are wrong about early beliefs, and you’re utterly, absurdly wrong about scientifically determined truth.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

This adds weight to the opinion that the letter was not even written by His Holiness - who, don’t forget, had been suffering from the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s Disease for several years - but by someone from the PAS.

I am interested in this, not as you understand as a believer, but as an outsider interested in the anthropology of fanatical belief. So PoG, in order to support his contention (a contention, by the way that has received practically no explicit support on this list from anyone, a matter that should be of some comfort to all people of reason and good will, but a contention nevertheless to which he has nailed his colours), is willing to condemn JPII’s statement as not having been written by him; PoG holds JPII’s judgement to be questionable as a consequence of his Parkinsonism going back ‘several years’.

Now JPII’s address to the PAS was made in 1996, so going back several years, and being quite conservative, PoG is suggesting JPII was impaired since about 1992. So PoG would have us believe that any statement or publication or teaching from JPII between 1992 and April 2nd 2005 is questionable or discountable because he was disabled by Parkinsonism. (By the way, ‘Theology of the Body’ was published in 1997, ‘Memory and Identity’ in 2005, ‘Rise, Let Us be on our Way’ in 2004, ‘Roman Triptych’ in 2003, ‘In My Own Words’ in 2002, ‘Gift and Mystery’ in 1999, ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope’ in 1995).

I need to declare my own opinion with regard to JPII - I respect JPII for many things - I respect his intellect and his consummate skill in liberating Poland from communism, I respect his humanity and the deep sincerity of his life. There are, however, many things with which I disagree with him, and I think he has been a baleful influence in some areas.

However, I would not dream of suggesting that Parkinson’s Disease invalidates everything he taught and every opinion he expressed from 1992 on. It takes a fanatical person, whose fanatical views are contradicted by the express opinions of the Pontiff, to claim that he was so demented in 1996 that he allowed a secular organisation to put words into his mouth in such a way as to make him their dupe. To do so is to claim that JPII was intellectually incapable and a puppet of enemies of the Church’s magisterial teaching from 1992 onwards. There are few mainstream Catholics whom I know who would entertain such an explanation. Indeed there are none amongst my many Catholic friends. That is not the competent John Paul the Great that is widely known.

Add to all of this the fact that Parkinsonism is a disease of the motor system and does not affect the intellect, except in the imaginations of those who are prejudiced against the sick in body, then the idea that his Parkinsonism invalidates his address to the PAS can be clearly seen as a desperate and unreasonable attempt to poison the well. I am fascinated by the extent to which PoG will go to deny the express opinions of the Pope in order to validate his own idiosyncratic and personal theology. He goes so far as to claim that JPII was a demented dupe of a secular organisation in 1996. How much further will he go?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

From a booklet published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society:

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record 2001 PDF, pages 1, 10, 13)

From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:

“Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination.” (Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

“To assert, on the contrary, that the earth and life on it are a paltry ten or hundred thousand years old and that the complex forms living today arose in an instant from unorganized matter is in contradiction not simply with the corpus of biological knowledge but with all scientific knowledge of the physical world. To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Richard Lewontin, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983] )

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

“…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God…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. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator…” (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 159, 283)

“…[on] the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don’t believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin’s particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes…It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” (Richard Dawkins, review of Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution, from the New York Times, April 9, 1989)

Amen. With most people falling under Ignorant, not Stupid, Insane, or Wicked.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

But you can not deal with answering what the Magisterium has to state in this regard so you risk your souls further by making personal attacks on scientists who advise the Kolbe Center.

Scientists! Do you include metal processing engineers like Tassot who is free with his egregious opinions on the biological theory of evolution and clowns like Sungenis whose opinions on cosmology are so grotesque that, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, they are not even wrong. What do you make of an organisation whose ‘scientific adviser’ claims to have a radically different cosmology to that developed by the best physicists alive, yet who clearly has not even enough basic physics to have developed an understanding of the meaning of a local inertial frame. To put this in context, an understanding of the meaning of a local inertial frame is pretty much Gravitation 101 - Sungenis, has publicly and obviously, on this list and elsewhere, shown that he simply fails to understand it. In defending his fanatical belief of geocentrism, a fanatical belief different in substance but equal in stature to yours, he has made a complete fool of himself and brought the Kolbe Center and every other organisation to which he is affiliated into terminal ridicule.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/blog/evolution_blog.html

 

[PhilVaz]

OK to keep this thread alive, hard to wade through once you get to 5 pages but…

I didn’t mean to say that what Leo XIII said doesn’t matter. What doesn’t matter is where I think the statements in that encyclical (Arcanum, On Christian Marriage) fall within the “hierarchy of truths.” I’m not competent enough to give my opinion on that, contrary to Fr. Brian Harrison who thinks he is.

What I have quoted are the clear teachings and discussions of Ludwig Ott on creation and he concludes what is De Fide is “God created man” not HOW or WHEN. He also concludes on theistic evolution (which I’ve quoted at least 50 times in various threads) :

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation…While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible.” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 93-94, 95)

And from the traditionalist magazine Living Tradition, Fr. John F. McCarthy says (although he doesn’t like theistic evolution, nevertheless admits) :

“The idea of theistic evolution is not contrary in itself to the notion of creation by God and was held tentatively in certain aspects by St. Augustine of Hippo…The fact that several Fathers of the Church read these words [e.g. Genesis 1:24; 2:19] as depicting a kind of bursting forth of animals from the active power of the elements would seem to indicate that the Scriptures do not per se exclude a graduated process…The idea of theistic evolution, taken to mean an upward development of biological species as planned by God, and allowing for creative divine interventions during the process, has been left open by the Magisterium of the Church for the serious study of competent persons. Many Catholic exegetes and other theologians favor the idea of theistic evolution on the ground that it does not seem to be excluded by the teaching of Sacred Scripture or of the Fathers of the Church…” (John F. McCarthy, "Evolution and the Truth About Man")

And finally, “Intelligent Design” advocate and Catholic biochemist Michael Behe:

“…a very wide range of views about the mechanism of evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching, from the natural selection [or sometimes called “Darwinism”] defended by [biologist Kenneth R.] Miller [of Brown Univ], to the intelligent design I have proposed, to the animated, information-suffused universe that [theologian-philosopher] John Haught [of Georgetown Univ] sees. Those mechanisms are all proposed by persons who attach the same bottom-line philosophy to their ideas that Pope John Paul described: that ‘it is the God of Israel who acts’ and that ‘it is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint.” (Michael Behe, from “A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing edited by William Dembski [2004], page 143-144).

More references are found here.

HOW or WHEN God created man is a matter for science, is not De Fide, and the Church cannot rule on the science, only matters touching faith, doctrine, morals, theology and philosophy. And Jimmy Akin agrees with me here. Again, we are repeating ourselves in creation-evolution thread #136901237691023761902361 and counting.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

Phil,

The Church can rule on science when it is contrary to Divine Revelation.

 

[PoG]

Posted by hecd2

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoG
As far as when God created man no particular date is inferred but it was the unanimous belief of the Fathers that it occured within six natural days of Creation… Creation within six natural days has always been the belief of the Church.

Well so you say, but in saying so you are wrong and you fail to address the fact that those Fathers whom I quoted earlier in this thread do not support your erroneous contention. For convenience, I’ll repeat the quotations:

Your point completely fails because you appear not to be able to comprehend the written word. The article did not claim, and it is not my contention, that the Fathers were in unanimous agreement that Creation took place **in **six, natural days.

The article stated, and it is my argument, that the Fathers were in unanimous agreement that Creation took place within six, natural days. The Fathers believed unanimously that the act of Creation did not take any longer than six, natural days. It has already been stated several times that a minority believed in instantaneous Creation, whilst the majority believed in the designation of six, natural days.

St. Justin Martyr

‘For as Adam was told in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived moreover that the expression “The day of the Lord is as a thousand years” is connected with this subject’ - Justin Martyr - Dialogue 82

Taking a common expression that indicates that God is not confined by time does not help you. As with many of the Fathers who believed in the designation of six, natural days, St. Justin Martyr believed that “We have been taught that God, in the beginning, in His goodness and for the sake of men, created all things out of formless matter.” (First Apology). God created all things out of formless matter in the beginning, not in a process that lasted thousands or even billions of years. In speaking of Creation (I Apol., xx, 4; lix), he says that Plato took his theory of formless matter from Moses.

Clement of Alexandria

‘That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: “This is the book of the generation; also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth”. For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production."’ - Clement of Alexandria - Miscellanies v1.16

Again, this quote only expresses the fact that time did not exist before Creation. That Clement took Scriptural dates and chronology extremely seriously as history can be seen by reading chapter 21 of Book 1 of the Stromata (Miscellanies),
where from within a long historical list he writes “From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years…”

 

[PoG]

Previous post continued

Origen

‘The text said that “there was evening and there was morning”, it did not say “the first day”, but said “one day”. It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. but time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and he third and fourth and all the rest being to designate time’ - Origen - Homily 1

'What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider a reasonable statement that the first and second and third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God after the manner of a farmer, “planted trees in a paradise eastward in Eden”… And… when God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening…I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history…’ Origen – First Principles Bk 4, Ch 3.

It is irrelevant what Origen wrote because he was deposed by Bishop Demetrius in 231 A.D., later excommunicated by Bishop Heraclas and then anathematised by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. St. Jerome, who defended using whatever was orthodox in Origens writing stated in his letter to Vigilantius that “Origen is a heretic.” As it happens, Origen, although a great allegorizer, believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old.

St. Augustine

‘God created all things simultaneously at the beginning of the ages, creating some in their substance and others in pre-existing causes’ – Augustine - The Literal Meaniong of Genesis, vii; 42 (and if that’s not compatible with theistic evolution, I don’t know what is.)

‘Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies. This special meaning of “day” must not be maintained just for the first three days, with the understanding that after the third day we take the word “day” in its ordinary sense. But we must keep the same meaning even to the sixth and seventh days.’ Augustine Ibid iv, 26

‘The day in the account of creation, or those days that are numbers according to its recurrence, are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earth-bound men. And if we are able to make any effort towards understanding of those days, we ought not to rush forward with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be offered.’ Augustine ibid iv, 44

It is well known that St. Augustine believed in instantaneous Creation but not six, literal days along with it, but was willing to defer to the majority opinion. You do not appear to understand his notion of seminal principles when you claim that “if that’s not compatible with theistic evolution, I don’t know what is.” If you read St. Augustine’s ‘The Soul and its Origin’, (bk1, ch. 17) you will find St. Augustine state:

“In the instance, too, which the apostle adduces, “God gives it a body as it has pleased Him,” let him deny, if he dares, that corn springs from corn, and grass from grass, from the seed, each after its kind”.

Finally, let me ask you a sincere question.

In other words, the Church Fathers do not ‘unanimously’ believe that Creation occured in six natural days. So you are wrong about early beliefs, and you’re utterly, absurdly wrong about scientifically determined truth.

No one has claimed that the Fathers unanimously believed that Creation occured in six, natural days. This is yet another of many examples of you misrepresenting what has been written. Do you have some sort of unfortunate problem in not being able to read correctly?

 

[steveandersen]

…So far, the evolution theory is only a hypothesis

No it is not
It is a theory (by your own admission) at least the parts that are not already facts
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis
they are worlds appart

( which has lasted for many years without any conclusive scientific demonstration)

Really?
Then why do we all get different flu vaccines each year?
Why do farmers have to spend millions on new insecticides?
Why are public health officials worried about antibiotic resistant diseases?
How did leprosy, small pox and AIDS cross from animal to human populations?

And what about the many other observed instances of speciation ?
(and that list is 11 years old think of all the observations since then)

and many people believe in it but do not know for sure that it is true. But the number of people that believe in it does not prove that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It will remain a hypothesis

it’s a theory

, and not only a hypothesis But a kind a godless religion as long as some people want to continue to believe in it as the only explanation of the universe and of life.

I didn’t want to add more wood to the fire, or discuss the Church position, but I just wanted to make that clarification.

Why do you see it as a “godless religion”? Why would people have to see it as the “only” explanation?

I heard a great interview on the radio last weekend of the guy who mapped the human genome. His explanation of how evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive was very nice. I’ll try to find a link.

There is not a single scientific theory that explicitly mentions God. Does that mean that they are somehow all wrong?
Why don’t we hear complaints about Godless thermodynamics, or Godless chemistry?

 

[PoG]

Posted by hecd2

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoG
This adds weight to the opinion that the letter was not even written by His Holiness - who, don’t forget, had been suffering from the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s Disease for several years - but by someone from the PAS.

I am interested in this, not as you understand as a believer, but as an outsider interested in the anthropology of fanatical belief. So PoG, in order to support his contention (a contention, by the way that has received practically no explicit support on this list from anyone, a matter that should be of some comfort to all people of reason and good will, but a contention nevertheless to which he has nailed his colours), is willing to condemn JPII’s statement as not having been written by him; PoG holds JPII’s judgement to be questionable as a consequence of his Parkinsonism going back ‘several years’.

It is well known that Popes don’t personally write every communication they make, especially for less important matters like greeting the PAS. That is why they have secretaries and advisors. If you don’t want to consider the possibility that H.H. John Paul II didn’t write the PAS letter in question then you are forced to explain the following error contained in that letter:

Why was it wrongly inferred that H.H. Pope Pius XII held an erroneous philosophical notion - evolutionism - in equal measure to Catholic Truth? Do you really think that a trained philosopher such as H.H. John Paul II would mix up a condemned set of philosophical ideas with the study of biological evolution? Why would he call “evolutionism”, which is philosophical, a “hypothesis”, a word that has a connotation to the natural sciences? It is clear that what was meant was the sudy of biological evolution, not evolutionism.

Do you really think that a Pope, a trained philosopher, would have made such a serious and elementary blunder? I await your reply with interest, hecd2.

 

[PoG]

Posted by steveandersen
Really?
Then why do we all get different flu vaccines each year?
Why do farmers have to spend millions on new insecticides?
Why are public health officials worried about antibiotic resistant diseases?
How did leprosy, small pox and AIDS cross from animal to human populations?

And what about the many other observed instances of speciation ?
(and that list is 11 years old think of all the observations since then)

You are confusing microevolution - which everyone recognises - with macroevolution - a highly contentious speculation. From the current issue of Nature:

Nature 444, 265 (16 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/444265d; Published online 15 November 2006

Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved
Maciej Giertych1

Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 62-035 Kórnik, Poland

Sir:
In your News story “Polish scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, 890–891; 2006 doi:10.1038/443890c), you incorrectly state that I have called for the “inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula”. As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately.

I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Such evidence includes race formation (microevolution), which is not a small step in macroevolution because it is a step towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase. It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated — adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.

We keep on searching for natural explanations of everything in nature. If we have no explanations we should say so, and not claim that an unproven theory is a fact.

 

[steveandersen]

You are confusing microevolution - which everyone recognises - with macroevolution - a highly contentious speculation. From the current issue of Nature:

I don’t confuse that easily

As I’ve said before the micro/macro distinction is semantic fiction and has no meaning in scientific times

Unless you propose a mechanism for stopping the micros from adding up, once you admit the process happens, then you’re stuck with it.

You can’t just be a little bit evolved.

PS Giertych is as much a scientific gadfly as Berthault is