I
itinerant1
Guest
The Vatican and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences do not think so. What is it that you know that they don’t? Would you mind sharing?
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
The Vatican accepts the theology and the AAAS and NAS accept the science.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
The theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum physics don’t agree with each other. Yet folks have no qualms holding that both are true. Just because we don’t yet have a “theory of everything” doesn’t mean that it isn’t okay to hold seemingly conflicting ideas as valid, whenever they have both been proven true in our common experience. This is how I view the concepts of a creator God and evolution. What we may call “theistic evolution” is not as much a theory in and of itself, as it is a description of the practice of holding the ideas of a creator God and evolution in tension.
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you ever make claims that can’t be supported with facts, then you just might be a redneck.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s a good description: “holding the ideas in tension”.
As I see it, evolutionary theory is competing with belief in God our Creator. Thus, there is a tension, like a tug-of-war. One side versus the other. The fact that there is this tension at all diminishes God’s true role and dishonors Him.
Evolutionary theory has always been competing with God – Darwin desgined it that way. Theistic evolution seeks a truce, hoping to recover some (undefined) territory for God’s creation - even if it’s only the that God could be permitted to be considered the law-maker (including the “law” of random mutations??).
Evolutionists on the other hand claim total victory. They will tolerate theistic evolution because it is no threat and they do not have to surrender any territory. Atheistic-materialistic philosophy is unchallenged and dominates all of the scientific world, and thus has huge advantages in human society, education, politics and all forms of culture itself.
So, the evolutionist will often claim that theistic evolution is a reasonable option – compatible with “real evolutionary theory”. But fortunately, Jerry Coyne pointed out recently that evolutionists are lying when they make that claim. They’re trying to win support from theistic believers and pretend that evolution is not a threat to religion. They will not have equally nice words for ID, however, because they know that ID directly confronts evolutionary claims and there can be no pretense of a truce between the two.
Here’s Jerry Coyne’s admission that evolutionsts are lying:
This disharmony [between science and religion] is **a dirty little secret **in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. **After all, we want our grants funded **by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence—the existence of religious scientists—is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
Seeing and Believing
The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail.
Jerry A. Coyne
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Not at all what I meant by holding the ideas in tension, but that’s another way to look at it. I was speaking more of the idea that there is more than one way to skin a cat. We are a both/and type of religion, not an either/or. If God is the creator of nature, then to say that something came about via natural processes is not to deny God at all. There is no separation. We are made in the image of God, and I take that to mean that natural processes are of God. I don’t see a conflict. When I say holding ideas in tension, I mean holding them at the same time and not allowing them to bump each other out of the way. You don’t have to subscribe to a God of the gaps theory. Evolution can be considered another way of explaining the exact same thing as the Genesis story.
To illustrate what I mean, take any decent adult story and try to make it into a kid’s story. Both versions can be true; they’re just adapted to suit the audience and the point you’re trying to make. Same with Genesis and evolutionary science. Different things sought to be proven, and different points to make, different applications.
To illustrate what I mean, take any decent adult story and try to make it into a kid’s story. Both versions can be true; they’re just adapted to suit the audience and the point you’re trying to make. Same with Genesis and evolutionary science. Different things sought to be proven, and different points to make, different applications.
I
itinerant1
Guest
As I suspected, you have no intimate familiarity with theistic evolution, either its scientific or its philosophical aspects. What is also evident is your inability to distinguish between evolution science and Darwinism.
To invoke an argument from authority, you must know Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made public statements that clearly contradict your assessment of evolutionary theory.
Furthermore, the ID-ology that you like so much, will never find a home in the Catholic Church because it is bad science, or it is not science at all, and it is bad philosophy.
M
Matthias123
Guest
Thank you! A person who thinks the same way! I have often said that too.
R
reggieM
Guest
If a person was to say that human beings came about entirely through natural processes, then that would deny God and the Catholic Faith – it would be a heresy against a *de fide *teaching. But this is what evolutionary theory claims - that human beings are the products of blind, unintelligent, natural processes acting on matter. That is the false teaching of evolution and I’ve seen a “Catholic” theistic evolutionist here on CAF struggle to even accept that humans have an immortal soul (he wouldn’t openly admit it). We’ve cited two prominent Catholic theistic evolutionists who deny that God had knowledge about what evolution would produce – including that God knew that man would emerge from evolution. In other words, they believe in an ignorant god — and are thus guilty of idolatry. This is what acceptance of evolutionary theory has caused for them – a denial of the Faith.
R
reggieM
Guest
p.s. My congratulations in advance on your study and entrance into the Catholic Faith. It’s good to see you thinking through these issues in an open-minded manner.
L
liquidpele
Guest
The problem is that science doesn’t try to bend to fit to your pre-conceived notions. It’s shown that things appeared to evolve over time into what they are now, and the methods regarding that appear to be based on random mutation, environmental factors, and competition. This is very well supported with evidence.
Now, you can choose to ignore that evidence, or you can take a step back and decide what that could teach you about the world you believe God created. Do you think he’s trying to trick you? To test your faith? Will you call it an atheist conspiracy and ignore the evidence? Or will you adjust your beliefs to fit to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to fit to your beliefs?
I
itinerant1
Guest
The poor logic of your statement merely clouds the issue of theistic evolution. To use examples of two or three individuals who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and whose personal philosophical and theological beliefs are flawed, and then draw a hasty and general conclusion from that about theistic evolution is logically unwarranted by your examples.
One can easily respond that despite the flawed theological and philosophical beliefs of these few individuals, there still remains sound theories of theistic evolution. Your argument is dead in the water.
Also, I stated that there are theories (plural) of theistic evolution. That is, there are a variety of theories of theistic evolution, theories of which you are apparently unfamiliar with. Nonetheless, you would discount them all, even though you have no familiarity with them, because they happen not to be ID.
What you fail to see is that ID asserts false ideas about God’s creative actions. Believing these false ideas about God’s creative activity is what ID has done to everyone who holds to a specific form of ID. I realize there are variations in ID theories, or to state it more accurately, ID’s unproven hypotheses. These false notion about God’s creative acts are integral to ID, while false notions about God’s knowledge is not integral to a number of theories of theistic evolution.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Thanks, I appreciate it. I’m not new to the faith though. I just happen to have never been confirmed despite going to mass on and off my entire life, with bouts of protestantism and atheism in between. So it’s more like welcome back home.
It feels really good.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
I think that depends on how you define “entirely” when you say “entirely through natural processes”. If you mean, “without God” then yes, I would say that would deny God and the Catholic Faith. But, and I’ve said this many times before, the Catholic faith is incarnational; it truly believes God works through the natural world and through people. We do not believe God works through intellectual assent or purely spiritual, ethereal means. Jesus was really a person with skin. He used spit and mud to heal blind people. We’re big on “matter.” Matter matters precisely because it can’t be separated from the supernatural, when it is the literal handiwork of God. I can’t separate the natural from the spiritual, because I’m not God. Spirituality is natural, and science has proven it. We can see how spiritual thoughts affect our brainwaves. That doesn’t disprove the fact that they are spiritual thoughts, it just says that they are natural, too. It should come as no surprise then, that Catholics believe in a natural law. It permeates the universe, regardless of one’s own spirituality or relationship with God. When we say it is natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman, we mean that is God’s way. When we say sin is disordered or goes against nature, we mean it goes against God’s nature.
P
pzona
Guest
What have you been reading? It is widely accepted that one of the two must be either false or significantly incomplete because they so directly disagree. This information sounds like something that would be published by a theist group who doesn’t understand either general relativity or quantum field theory, besides the fact that they disagree.
P
pzona
Guest
Evolutionary theory does not claim that humans are the blind, unintelligent, natural processes acting on matter. Read something by Dawkins, that should clarify your misunderstanding of natural selection.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Dawkins can explain natural selection theory alright, but his militant atheism doesn’t make him a good source to recommend in this particular thread. So, my suggestion is for you to recommend another author, one who sticks more to the science.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word true, but widely used theories because they work. I understand more than you think I do. Please don’t purposely attempt to miss the forest for the trees. I think you understand what I was saying more than you let on about holding seemingly conflicting ideas in tension. And please don’t forget that all analogies break down at some level; that’s why they’re analogies.
Oh, and lest you accuse me of not answering the question, I am currently working on several books: Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, Labyrinth by Kate Moss, The Fathers by Pope Benedict XVI, The Inner Game of Tennis by W. Timothy Gallwey, and Is God a Mathematician? by Keith Newman. The latter-most is the only one that deals with relativity and such, and then only at a superficial level to prove a point or two in discussion about the fundamental nature of mathematics.
P
pzona
Guest
Well I’m definitely glad to see you’re at least reading up on the subjects you’re talking about; that is more than can be said with most people I deal with. However, I might suggest some less biased literature, like Einstein’s original papers, or even just a good physics textbook. Not that the books you mentioned aren’t credible, but the facts are presented in certain ways as to imply certain arguments. Most any author would purposely leave out any counterexamples to the point he is trying to make. For example, if you know GR, you may (actually you will) reach some unexpected conclusions about the nature of gravity. But if you only read a book on it, written by a Christian author, you will only understand the areas which back up the author’s claim. Just a suggestion, and I’ll say it again, I’m glad there are still people out there who don’t argue something without first studying it.
I
itinerant1
Guest
There is a condensed version of the books you are reading that you might be interested in. It’s titled, The Fathers Play the Inner Game of Tennis in a Labyrinth Supported by the Pillars of the Earth While God, a Mathematician, Keeps Score.
Don’t feel annoyed about the Relativity remark. How many people truly understand Relativity Theory? I know a bit about it but I get lost on the math. People who claim to understand it look skeptically at me when I say its the most absolutist theory ever proposed in the history of physics. If they disagree, I know they are missing something essential about the theory.
As for the quantum theory of indeterminacy. That theory is just flat out wrong. I can put up a fair argument on that one. Anyway, I just dropped in to chatter. Bye.
- Status