Motives of anti-Creationists

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since Pius XII appointed Georges Lemaitre as his science advisor and liked the Big Bang theory, that means that Pius XII is a alleged Catholic and a false prophet too?
 
DylanO said:
Being a traditionalist I consider John XXII - Benedict XVI heretical anti-popes. They are false prophets and have usurped the chair of St. Peter. In other words, I’m a sedevacantist. That is what I mean by ‘alleged’ Catholics.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that does answer that. You don’t agree with or understand something, you reject it and assert yourself as the authority.

Peace

Tim
 
If the Church is incompatible with evolution, then Catholicism is a false religion.

I’m sorry it rolls that way, but you can’t deny something with so much evidence behind it. The earth is not 6,000 years old.

Thankfully, we have reasonable bishops that know that being against science is to be against the language of God. The Bible is certainly open to interpretation, traditionalist Catholics need to cool it.
 
Here we come to the heart of the matter: “If you reject evolution, we will reject your Church.”

Traditional Catholics need to know and understand what the Catholic Church teaches:
  1. Pope John Paull II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” (“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution” 1996). In continuity with twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." Human Persons Created in the Image of God, available online.
God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Here we come to the heart of the matter: “If you reject evolution, we will reject your Church.”

Traditional Catholics need to know and understand what the Catholic Church teaches:
  1. Pope John Paull II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” (“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution” 1996). In continuity with twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." Human Persons Created in the Image of God, available online.
God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed all he is saying is that its so obvious that evolution is a proper theory of how live evolved on this planet that it is simply illogical and counterproductive to argue otherwise. It is and has been for a very long time the best model for explaning the evidence. If we cannot find reconciliation on this issue, Christians will surely be laughed out of town. No one wants that.

You have admitted as much yourself, finally conceding that some form of evolution, god-driven of course, may be true. You know beyond any doubt that this is what both JPII and Benedict are saying. You know in your heart that creationism is untenable as a scientific explanation of our universe and how it grew.

Nobody here is arguing for any particular kind of evolution.Most of us aren’t versed in science to even begin to choose if indeed there are different models. We go over the same thing again and again, you quote the same parsed documents again and again, we show you again and again the same additions. Benedict said it is obvious that evolution is the explanation. He states there is no incompatability between evolution and faith. What more do you need?

Cannot we stop this endless bickering that makes us all look like we don’t have any common sense? We are not non-denonminational fundamentalists here. We are Catholics, heir to a wealth of knowledge and interpretation. Time and time again, Catholics have led in the science of cosmology, and biological sciences. That is something to be proud of. Since God created these laws that allow for this universe, we should be proud indeed to have uncovered in part God’s rules for universe making.

I have only one question…you referred to “traditional” Catholics…I assume you consider yourself one. Please define that for me. i was told that traditional Catholics consider Vatican II to be heretical. Am I wrong in that? I was told traditional Catholics are in grave sin. Am I wrong in that as well? I am in no way meaning to be pejorative. I sincerely don’t know what is correct.
 
Strangely, you think I speak for others. I speak for myself. You do not know what is in my heart. I have not changed my position on anything. I believe Pope Benedict is sincere. The fact is, I follow his words and the Teaching Authority of the Church, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What I believe is simple: Creation was an Intelligent Project as Pope Benedict stated. Without God, nothing we can sense would exist. Evolution does not make sense. If organisms changed, it was because the ability to do so was designed into them. Mutation over millions of years, genetic drift and environmental pressures are insufficient to explain what may have happened. Intelligent Design, as defined by built-in, pre-assembled information storage and retrieval systems like DNA and RNA makes far more sense.

Evolution, as defined as a series of merely fortuitous events, is an insufficient explanation. Since it is not intelligent, it explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role. This is the type of evolution most commonly taught.

Again, you seem to think I speak for someone other than myself. I do not.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Strangely, you think I speak for others. I speak for myself. You do not know what is in my heart. I have not changed my position on anything. I believe Pope Benedict is sincere. The fact is, I follow his words and the Teaching Authority of the Church, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**I do not know what is in your heart, but I know what you hve been told and what you have said, and at least twice you have said some sort of evolution may have been at work, but it was God driven. Not one of us disagrees with that. You say you believe Benedict then the matter is settled. Benedict believes that evolution is a correct model of how life evolved. He has said that directly and has said it is not incompatible with Church teaching. **

What I believe is simple: Creation was an Intelligent Project as Pope Benedict stated. Without God, nothing we can sense would exist. Evolution does not make sense.
**Benedict has not said that evolution makes no sense. He has said the opposite. You apparently disagree. **

If organisms changed, it was because the ability to do so was designed into them. Mutation over millions of years, genetic drift and environmental pressures are insufficient to explain what may have happened. Intelligent Design, as defined by built-in, pre-assembled information storage and retrieval systems like DNA and RNA makes far more sense.

All of this has been explained to you over and over, and you know it. I guess you are calling benedict a heretic in favor of your personal ideology. Where did you get this new definition of ID? Where is your scientific proof?

Evolution, as defined as a series of merely fortuitous events, is an insufficient explanation. Since it is not intelligent, it explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role. This is the type of evolution most commonly taught.

TThat is patently untrue and you know it. Schools do not teach a divineless evolution. They teach evolution, and let the respective churches define where God fits it. God you know better…

Again, you seem to think I speak for someone other than myself. I do not.

I claim you speak for non one. You speak as like fundamentalists. You did not answer the questions I posed about ’
“traditionalism” Why?
Click to expand...
 
AgnosTheist said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So its illegal for a governmental institution to promote any religion.
Click to expand...
no. it is not illegal for a governmental body such as the state govenment to promote or even establish a religion per say but for congress to establish a religion, this refers to federal only and is about establishing not promoting. So much history lost, the U.S. supreme court has moses and the ten commandments, on the frontal facade of the building, again over the supreme court bench which delared it unconstitution for a school in one of our states to display 10 commandments.

Our very constitution was establihed using daily prayer at the consitutional convention, every state constitution references God in there state constitutions.

**Benjamin Franklin’s Call for Prayer recorded in James Madison
Notes on the Debates concerning the Constitution
**
“How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us sir who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of divine providence in our favor… And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do We imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men - and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ …I firmly believe this.” I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed no better than the builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach down to the future of ages.

I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy be requested to officiate in that service.

Benjamin Franklin’s words were heeded and the Convention went on to complete its task. Madison, James Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
**What did the founding fathers have to say those who established the constitution
**BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - AS AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE “**Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.”
**
 
inthecloud said:
“Not good for Catholicism to promote “their” beliefs? Excuse me? Guilt by association? We are not talking about Catholics becoming Baptists or Muslims.”

Ed, outside the US you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic, not even a pious nun or monk (or the Pope btw) that belives in a literal 6 days creation. Believe me. Theistic Evolution is the position of most Catholics world wide.
Only american style fund protestants or muslims insist in Creationism in the classrooms. Is a fact.
No one else whats it.
Click to expand...
here is what the proevolutionist really need to prove their faith as a doctrine, though they will probably seek to deny, the reality check provided here.
dnaco.net/~vogelke/pictures/when-cloning-goes-wrong/

see it and weep all the evolutionist because you do not have a prayer here.
 
Michael_G said:
no. it is not illegal for a governmental body such as the state govenment to promote or even establish a religion per say but for congress to establish a religion, this refers to federal only and is about establishing not promoting. So much history lost, the U.S. supreme court has moses and the ten commandments, on the frontal facade of the building, again over the supreme court bench which delared it unconstitution for a school in one of our states to display 10 commandments.

Our very constitution was establihed using daily prayer at the consitutional convention, every state constitution references God in there state constitutions.

Benjamin Franklin’s Call for Prayer recorded in James Madison
Notes on the Debates concerning the Constitution

“How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us sir who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of divine providence in our favor… And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do We imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men - and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ …I firmly believe this.” I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed no better than the builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach down to the future of ages.

I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy be requested to officiate in that service.

Benjamin Franklin’s words were heeded and the Convention went on to complete its task. Madison, James Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
**What did the founding fathers have to say those who established the constitution
**BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - AS AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE “**Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.”
**
Click to expand...
I am unsure what you think this proves. I would agree that this country was established largely by people of faith. You forget of course that catholics were persecuted before its inception. It is also undeniable that our Founding Fathers were well versed in Greek thought. Socrates you may recall was executed for misleading the youth of Athens, by “blaspheming” the gods. The anti-establishment clause I think reflects this understanding that state religion was not a good thing. In any case it has little to do with this thread.
 
Michael_G said:
here is what the proevolutionist really need to prove their faith as a doctrine, though they will probably seek to deny, the reality check provided here.
dnaco.net/~vogelke/pictures/when-cloning-goes-wrong/

see it and weep all the evolutionist because you do not have a prayer here.
Click to expand...
ROFL…I actually thought your post was serious until I saw the pics…What a great site and what funny pics. Thanks so much for sharing…What you can do with a photo and a computer is simply mindboggling. Have a great day…and thanks again.!
 
it is not illegal for a governmental body such as the state govenment to promote or even establish a religion per say but for congress to establish a religion, this refers to federal only and is about establishing not promoting.
Click to expand...
Used to be so. But Amendment XIV requires states to abide by the Bill of Rights also. And that loophole closed.

Thank God.
 
Mirdath said:
Just because it ends in “-ology” doesn’t make it a science. Theology is a branch of metaphysical inquiry. It is not beholden to the scientific method, to the cycle of hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. It is not a science.

Creationism != ‘God made us’. What is being attacked is a literal interpretation of ancient myth that completely contradicts what we know about how the world works and has worked, not God. As the last couple of Popes have stated repeatedly, there is no reason to take the first chapter of Genesis on only a literal level.

People have every right to expect that science will be taught in science classes; literal creationism is not science in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious belief.
Click to expand...

Theology is a science in the sense that it is an epistemologically autonomous body of enquiry governed by principles & methods proper to its nature. Aquinas explains this more fully - the articles on science in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia synthesise the ideas behind the older & more recent senses of the “s-word”.​

Theology is a true scientia, a body of enquiry & knowledge in that sense - but not in the more familiar post-Renaissance sense of the word scientia. Theology’s proper object is God, Theos which is why it is a logia peri Theou, an enquiry about God; that of science, in the more modern sense of that word, is the empirical world which was created by God. Modern science has remembered the world, but not as an entity dependent on God - in the 17th century this was not so; but if science was (& is) to be fruitful & to obey the principles proper to its character, this development may have been unavoidable. Theology is equally specialised, & equally apt to forget.

In any case, creationism has no place in the sciences (in the modern sense) & is bad as theology - it is scientific (“scientic” might be a better word) in neither sense. It has no proper object & principles; it’s nothing but a hybrid monstrosity which tries to be scientific & theological but succeeds only in distorting both. That it can be useful for apologetics means only that a truth can be derived from false principles; in no way does this correct the falsity of the principles themselves. Neither theology nor science can flourish - let alone have a fruitful dialogue - if they are founded on on false principles. To be fruitful, they must be autonomous & faithful to their principles.

Semantically speaking, only God is (strictly speaking) “scienti-fic”, “knowledge-making” - but let’s not confuse things 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top