Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what is the Church position on evolution?:

The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism…

Evidently the Church teaches that evolution is A-OK as a theory and, according to this article, actually call theistic evolution a doctrine.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
 
Darwin’s gift to theology? :hmmm::rotfl:
I believe it is a reference to the book God After Darwin by John Haught. Here are some reviews (which you can find on Amazon):

In God After Darwin, John Haught argues that the ongoing debate between Darwinian evolutionists and Christian apologists is fundamentally misdirected: both sides persist in focusing upon an explanation of underlying design and order in the universe. Haught suggests that what is lacking in both of these competing ideologies is the notion of novelty, a necessary component of evolution and the essence of the unfolding of divine Mystery. He argues that Darwin’s disturbing picture of life, instead of being hostile to religion - as scientific skeptics and many believers have thought it to be - actually provides a most fertile setting for mature reflection on the idea of God.*

*which would be a gift to theology…

"Haught’s remarkable study faces without flinching the challenge that the evolutionary character of reality presents to a robust and intelligent [or credible] belief in God. In a most readable and perceptive manner the author dissects the character of that challenge, points out the limitations on its understanding imposed by its prejudices, and explores an excitingly open view of God’s creative involvement in the processes of reality and its ecological significance.

“This is a book full of illuminating insights that will stimulate and inform all those who are seriously interested in the science and religion debate today.” -David A. Pailin, University of Manchester.

"The relationship of science and religion has once again assumed centrality among cultural and intellectual concerns. John Haught has encouraged this development and continues to give leadership to the reflection involved. This book provides an original, insightful, and exhilarating look at how a quite radical version of neo-Darwinian theory, usually understood as excluding and belief in God, can in fact aid Christians in developing a more Biblical faith by replacing the God of static design and controlling power with the God of vulnerable, self-giving love." -John B. Cobb, Jr., School of Theology at Claremont.

"A lucid, learned, and liberating book with a new insight on almost every page. A pleasure to read, God After Darwin subtly rearranges the religious furniture in your head. Haught’s thought-provoking proposals, especially his view of God as the dynamic, loving power of the future with a vision rather than a plan for this evolving universe, deserves wide readership and discussion." -Elizabeth A. Johnson, Fordham University.

"Haught argues that evolutionary biology can enrich theological conviction, and vice versa. He does so with vigor and insight, reforming and deepening classical ideas of God, often regaining overlooked Biblical wisdom. Against fears of irreconcilable conflict, Haught’s challenge is that theology after Darwin not only survives, but is even more of an adapted fit in the world. His analysis is seminal, fertile enough to breed a next generation of theologians." -Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University; author of Genes, Genesis and God.

"On the highly embattled issue of God and evolution, the most well-known positions tell us that God exists but evolution doesn’t, that evolution exists but God doesn’t, or that science and religion are completely different things. Jack Haught’s God After Darwin, which regards evolution as “a gift to theology,” presents an alternative vision - of a universe still unfinished and a Creator who, far from the omnipotent designer undermined by evolution, is the cosmic source of possibility, value, novelty, information, and beauty." -David Ray Griffin, Claremont School of Theology; author of Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts.

“God is dead. At least the god of intelligent design is dead, gone the way of the god of the gaps. Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins need to re-tool their tedious and narrow theology. In God After Darwin: A Theology of Creation, theologian John F. Haught makes the exciting and compelling case that far from undermining the existence of God, Darwinian evolution points the way to a fresh understanding of God and the natural world. Creation is not finished and the future, so green with the promise of novelty, is not determined. God in an evolutionary cosmos is not a God of static being but of dynamic becoming. A finished creation must be a perfect creation, which is contradicted by the fact of suffering. If creation were perfect, what need have we of a Savior? Because creation cannot receive God’s infinite love in a finite instant, the world necessarily has to transform and expand, in a word, to evolve. An unfinished world is necessarily an imperfect world. Drawing on the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Alfred North Whitehead and Karl Rahner among others, Haught has articulated an understanding of God that respects Christian orthodoxy but also resonates with the world of Darwin, Einstein and Hawking. Can it be that theology owns its own “dangerous idea,” namely that metaphysical materialism is incompetent to make full sense of the actual discoveries of evolutionary science? Haught argues that the theological metaphysics of Teilhard allows all of the data of evolution, especially the emergence of novelty, to stand out. In short, he argues for a metaphysics of the future. As an evolutionary biologist, I have read Haught’s book with excitement, admiration and pleasure-though it will take me a long time to ponder all of the stimulating ideas.” -Peter Dodson, University of Pennsylvania; President, Philadelphia Center for Religion .

And you laughed at the ideas of someone who is attempting to reconcile scientific evolutionary theory with theology. 😦

Big surprise…😦

Big big sad surprise…😦
 
To granny -

While you continue to look through the Catechism, I’d like you to pause and consider what Pope Benedict is saying here:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

He refers to the comment Pope John Paul II made but adds additional insight.

God bless,
Ed
I cannot access your link or the link in LittleSoldier’s post. Thank you for the suggestion.

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were involved with the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regarding Catholic teachings, I prefer the Catechism.
 
And you laughed at the ideas of someone who is attempting to reconcile scientific evolutionary theory with theology. 😦

Big surprise…😦
Yeah - that was Darwin’s intention…:rolleyes:

You guys don’t get it - why waste the time - the modern synthesis is not standing the test of time.
 
Yeah - that was Darwin’s intention…:rolleyes:

You guys don’t get it - why waste the time - the modern synthesis is not standing the test of time.
What was Darwin’s intention and why the sarcastic emoticon?

We “guys” get it. If you had read my last couple of posts you would see that even the Church has accepted evolution as a doctrine.

What in the world could be wrong with trying to understand God’s gifts to us? Isn’t that what He gave us intelligence for? When I was growing up I was always interested in animals. I had a kind of calling to biology and psychology. I believe my interests were given to me by a loving God - the same God who created me.

What you have heard from people like Ed is that scientists are trying to take God out of the picture and that is not true. If it were true why would I be a Catholic? I’m sure some scientists do try to take God out of the picture, just like some historians do. Lots of people do.

But what Ed does not realize is that there are many Catholic scientists who do believe that God created everything, including us, and have absolutely no intention of trying to do away with Him. Why would we? We couldn’t even if we wanted to and we don’t want to! I love God! God is the most important thing in my life right now. Without Him I would be dead. He is all that is keeping me alive.

What about all the Catholic physicians? There’s even a group on CAF for them. They are scientists. Are they evil? Science is not evil. It has no way to represent itself as a god, as Ed claims. It is just a way of looking at the world; of looking at God’s creations and trying to understand them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I believe God gave us intelligence so that we would use it. I’m personally insulted by so many things that Ed has said. He has mischaracterized us and it isn’t fair. Not one of us believes a bag of slime ever grew a brain. For Pete’s sake, that’s like a B sci-fi movie.

We are human beings, many of us Catholic or non-Catholic Christians who love God and try to follow His teachings the best we can.

And as scientists, we will continue to hypothesize and research and hone our methods and research and research again. That is what we do (well, at least the lucky ones - I can’t because I’m disabled). Every little bit of information is important. If a theory doesn’t pan out, it is discarded and a new theory replaces it. That has been going on for centuries.

Shouldn’t we try to understand God’s creations? To me, that is a way of glorifying Him.
 
I believe it is a reference to the book God After Darwin by John Haught. Here are some reviews (which you can find on Amazon):

…" A finished creation must be a perfect creation, which is contradicted by the fact of suffering. If creation were perfect, what need have we of a Savior? Because creation cannot receive God’s infinite love in a finite instant, the world necessarily has to transform and expand, in a word, to evolve. An unfinished world is necessarily an imperfect world…"
On the seventh day God had finished His work and it was GOOD. No animals tearing apart other animals and humans for food since they all ate plants, no need for “evolution” since each created kind brought forth its kind. There was nothing “imperfect” about it until SIN entered the world and suffering followed.

Man was sovereign over the creation but rebelled against his Creator so the creation rebels against man. Since SIN entered the world all of creation is in “travail” and requires a Saviour. It has nothing to do with an imperfectly created creation as the above musing would have us believe.

.
 
For many years Darwins “Theory of Evolution” created a stir in the Catholic faith. Yet recently it has been realized through science this may “not” be true and it is merely a Theory. “Now” the thinking of our Faith glows ever clearer.

Their are many, many very intelligent individuals who’s study is Physics and other similiar fields, such as Michio Kaku. And who have no-faith. For what-ever reason their thinking often creates dis-harmony among the Faithfull.

Here’s a fact, the most intelligent person of the last century is commonly thought to have been Albert Einstien. On his dying bed he asked his nurse if she believed in God? She replied; “yes Prof”. And then as she walked away, she stopped and asked Albert; " Prof do you believe in God"? Albert Einstien replied, " I believe we live in his Garden, and I have been trying to catch him in the Garden my entire life"!

Be secure, your Faith is just as are the Trinity and the Blessed Mother and St Michael etc. The more we come to understand as humans. The more we realize the teaching of the Bible is true. That has been the scientific fact. Nothing in contrast has ever been proven.
 
On the seventh day God had finished His work and it was GOOD. No animals tearing apart other animals and humans for food since they all ate plants, no need for “evolution” since each created kind brought forth its kind. There was nothing “imperfect” about it until SIN entered the world and suffering followed…
Animals have been eating each other at least since the Cambrian Era (540 million to 490 million years ago). Many dinosaurs were carnivores, not herbivores. There has been suffering as long as there have been central nervous systems to experience the rending of flesh.
 
I wouldn’t refer to Timesonline as a reliable source for Catholic doctrine. Theistic evolution is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Theistic evolution is an allowable interpretation of Genesis, in the Catholic Church.
I didn’t introduce the link. The link was provided by an anti-evolution poster and yet it shows that the Church accepts the possibility of a theory of evolution.

I’m merely pointing out what was written in the article. I agree with you. I don’t think theistic evolution is an actual doctrine. But it is an allowable interpretation of Genesis.

The poster was hoisted by his own petard.
 
For many years Darwins “Theory of Evolution” created a stir in the Catholic faith. Yet recently it has been realized through science this may “not” be true and it is merely a Theory. “Now” the thinking of our Faith glows ever clearer.
I don’t think you quite understand the technical meaning of the word ‘theory.’ Strictly speaking gravity is a theory as is the idea that germs cause disease. Isaac Asimov put it best when he said ‘creationists make it sound as though a “theory” is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night’ (Remarks made to the National Coalition Against Censorship, 1960). Being a theory does nothing to undermine evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth is the notion that it is ‘merely’ a theory is, frankly, ludicrous. So too is the idea that ’ recently it has been realized through science this may “not” be true,’ as is often posted on wikipedia, [citation needed]].
Here’s a fact, the most intelligent person of the last century is commonly thought to have been Albert Einstien. On his dying bed he asked his nurse if she believed in God? She replied; “yes Prof”. And then as she walked away, she stopped and asked Albert; " Prof do you believe in God"? Albert Einstien replied, " I believe we live in his Garden, and I have been trying to catch him in the Garden my entire life"!
Here are actual facts, with citations which are unavailable for yours since it most likely never happened. Einstein said ‘I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one’ (Albert Einstein in a letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., 28 September 1949). And ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind’ (Telegram to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, 24 April 1929). Finally, he said ‘the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this’ (Gutkind Letter, 3 January 1954),

Einstein’s god is not your god and is in a sense synonymous with the fundamental constants of the universe.
Be secure, your Faith is just as are the Trinity and the Blessed Mother and St Michael etc. The more we come to understand as humans. The more we realize the teaching of the Bible is true. That has been the scientific fact. Nothing in contrast has ever been proven.
This is manifestly and demonstrably false and is not scientific fact in any sense.
 
Here are some highlights from the article:

Benedict reflected on comments of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that theories of evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis."

He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.

His remarks were consistent with one of his most repeated themes, that faith and reason are interdependent and that science, however vital, should not rule out God.

“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason… and thus brought us new insights,” he said. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

“Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it.”

Since taking office, the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution. In November 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, told a press conference that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible was read correctly.

The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/com…cle1645453.ece

I agree with Pope Benedict. One hundred percent. He is the Vicar of Christ and he has a couple of cats. I find that very impressive.
 
On the seventh day God had finished His work and it was GOOD. No animals tearing apart other animals and humans for food since they all ate plants, no need for “evolution” since each created kind brought forth its kind. There was nothing “imperfect” about it until SIN entered the world and suffering followed.

Man was sovereign over the creation but rebelled against his Creator so the creation rebels against man. Since SIN entered the world all of creation is in “travail” and requires a Saviour. It has nothing to do with an imperfectly created creation as the above musing would have us believe.

.
How could SIN enter a perfect world? Is there SIN in heaven? God is omniscient. He knew what would happen. He knows everything.

In a perfect world would man rebel against His creator?

What God created was GOOD. Heaven is PERFECT. Satan could not have gone into heaven, disguised as a snake or a serpent or whatever. You can’t have sin in a perfect place. Yet Adam sinned.

So how do you reconcile this?
 
How could SIN enter a perfect world? Is there SIN in heaven? God is omniscient. He knew what would happen. He knows everything.

In a perfect world would man rebel against His creator?

What God created was GOOD. Heaven is PERFECT. Satan could not have gone into heaven, disguised as a snake or a serpent or whatever. You can’t have sin in a perfect place. Yet Adam sinned.

So how do you reconcile this?
The world was good, not perfect.
 
LittleSoldier;6645917:
How could SIN enter a perfect world? Is there SIN in heaven? God is omniscient. He knew what would happen. He knows everything.

In a perfect world would man rebel against His creator?

What God created was GOOD. Heaven is PERFECT. Satan could not have gone into heaven, disguised as a snake or a serpent or whatever. You can’t have sin in a perfect place. Yet Adam sinned.

So how do you reconcile this?
The world was good, not perfect.
Doesn’t the problem of Satan’s fall remain? If Heaven is/was/will be (we’re talking about a place outside of time here) perfect then how did he rebel?
 
The Pope keeps cats?
Along with an enormous entourage and a message of peace, the Pope brought with him to the United States a lifelong love of cats.

Benedict’s kindness toward the strays of Rome is already the stuff of Vatican legend. His house in Germany, its garden guarded by a cat statue, was filled with cats when Benedict lived there full time before he was posted to the Vatican in 1982.

And Benedict is, without a doubt, the first pope to have had an authorized biography of him written by a cat – Chico, a ginger tabby who lives across the road from Benedict’s old house in Germany.

huffingtonpost.com/tag/pope-benedict-cats

Benedict XVI’s Story, From Birth to Pontiff:

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – Chico, Pope Benedict XVI’s nine- year-old ginger Siamese cat, has published a tell-all book for children about the life of Joseph Ratzinger, from his childhood in Nazi Germany to his election as supreme pontiff in 2005.

``The story of my friend starts on April 16, 1927 on a very cold night,’’ begins the tongue-in-cheek biography of Chico’s master, told from the point of view of his favorite pet by German author Jeanne Perego.

``Joseph and Chico’’ (Edizione Messaggero Padova) has papal authorization and includes a foreword by Georg Gaenswein, Benedict’s personal secretary since 2003.

``Here, dear children, you will find a biography very different to the others because telling the story is a cat – and it’s not every day that a cat can call the Holy Father his friend and write his story.’’

Chico, who confesses to having scratched Benedict’s face one Christmas, tells his readers how he knew the pope was feline-friendly after spotting a sculpture of a cat in the garden. If it had been one of a dog ``I would have thought twice before setting a paw’’ there, he says.

bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=agBp1kzGy2HI&refer=europe
 
Doesn’t the problem of Satan’s fall remain? If Heaven is/was/will be (we’re talking about a place outside of time here) perfect then how did he rebel?
I honestly don’t know, but that deserves its own thread, don’t you think? This thread is about theories of evolution.

I don’t think it could be discussed the way it should be here. Personally I would like to know the answer. All I know is that Lucifer rebelled against God and was thrown out of heaven by St. Michael and that most of us go through Purgatory in order to be purged of our sins so that we can enter heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top