Myths and fairy tales ?

[John_oxios]

Cradle Catholic. Theology professor (historical theology). And while no scientific theory (gravity, plate tectonics, cell theory, heliocentrism) is “church teaching,” evolution is accepted by most Roman Catholics and by the last two popes. …Later,
StAnastasia

Hello,
Do you mean the Church doesn’t believe in gravity? But accepts Biological Evolution?
CCC# 283 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, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me”

#159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, 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 humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

I would say Gravity is covered here!!! It doesn’t conflict with faith, nor morality, it is a thing of the nature of the World we live in.

Do you also endorse Higher Criticism? We had a lady in my parish who was in charge of the Catechism dept. She would often blurt out Moses didn’t writ e the bible, and we were off… At the end of one of her Old Testament Scripture Studies, I gave her a tweny five type written pages of arguments against Julius Wellhausen, which our Parish priest who teaches in St. John’s University, was happy to accept and use in his class.

Sorry you haven’t given me any references to any Pope accepting biological evolution. Some theologian, No references to back up statements?

The Church is firm on this: CCC Paragraph 6. Man

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good

396 **God created man in his image **and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.(Gen 2:17) The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:7) symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.​

#417 **Adam and Eve **transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

#360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth

We do not biologically evolve:
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - **it is not “produced” by the parents **- and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

#1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question. The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

Yes there is a garden, yes Adam and Eve were created by the Will of God to live in it, yes Eve was beguiled, by a fallen angel. represented as a snake.

God bless,
john

 

[StAnastasia]

What is historical theology?

Theology considered in the context of its historical development.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi,
Costectomy?

Operation to remove a rib.

 

[grannymh]

Theology considered in the context of its historical development.

Pardon me, but I am still curious about what you studied and what you teach. Would you have studied pantheism? Arianism? Cartesian dualism? Buddhism? Medieval theology? If you studied Christian theology, did you study it before and after the Reformation? Before and after the division between east and west?

Or did you take a survey approach to the world theologies?

Or did you take one of the variety of modern theologies and studied it from its beginning, regardless of where it occurred in the history of the world?

 

[juliamajor]

Julia, most of my fellow theologians – especially the non-literalist ones – would contend that there is significant room for interpretation here. For example 3, 5, 7, and 8 would be interpreted contextually. It would be the rare theologian who would argue for a literal snake in the literal garden, and for a literal Adamic costecotomy.

StAnastasia

I agree with you.My point was the evolution is not important to the stories of Genesis.And only foolish people make it an issue(usually to prove maybe to themselves or others how"loyal" they are to the church, and how “superior” in belief they are)when the church itself doesn’t!

 

[juliamajor]

The Jewish interpretation of the snake was and is that the snake-was a snake and not the devil.Devil and demons especially become way more prominent after the Babylonian exile where they picked up on the very strong belief in Babylon of demons.Note the higher rate of demonic type stories in the NT as opposed to the OT.In Job “the Satan” the adversary is seen more as a tester of humanity, and at God’s beck and call.

 

[Robintrinket]

So you admit you don’t have a proof for the theory of gravity? Then how can you ask for a proof for the theory of evolution?

Does any one have any serious problems with the theory of gravity, objections to why it might not really be true? Most people do not really even care about the theory of gravity, but they do about the theory of evolution because it has serious religious implications (including doctrine of original sin, and difference between humans and animals).

There *are *serious problems with evolution. Here is one: Can you tell me how a heart “evolves” another chamber? How is a “halfway” heart even functional to an animal, much less desirable so that natural selection would choose these animals?

Sure, all species have the ability to adapt to help them survive, but there is no way you can prove that all species that exist now were formed by evolution. There are way too many “missing links”, so many that creationists could claim that the alleged missing links are simply extinct species.

Sure, most scientists accept evolution, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should accept it without question. As I said before, what is wise in the eyes of the world isn’t always really wise. I also think that part of the reason so many scientists accept it without question is if any one says anything against evolution, they are immediately criticized and labeled “stupid” and “ignorant”. I think that is also why so many religious people want to jump on the evolution band wagon, because they don’t want to be thought of as “stupid”. Sort of like the “Emperor’s New Clothes” story.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sure, most scientists accept evolution, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should accept it without question.

Robintrinket, you’re right – no one should accept evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, or any other scientific theory without question. That’s why science is a self-correcting enterprise, constantly questioning, verifying, revising, and cross-checking. Evolution is one of the must studied, criticized, cross-checked, and corrected theories in the history of science. It has been subjected to testing ever since Darwin first proposed his theory by natural selection in 1859, and key elements have been added to it, including Mendelian genetics, DNA, and endosymbiosis.

It is by virtue of this testing, criticism, and cross-checking that evolution has become ever stronger, more comprehensive, and more cogent. That is why it is accepted by over 100,000 working biologists, and hundreds of thousands of other scientists, theologians, bishops, priests, nuns, popes, historian, philosophers, and other thinkers.

Don’t mistake this as an argument from authority. Evolution does not become correct because it is accepted by millions of people; rather, millions of people accept the theory of evolution because it works, it has predictive value, and it accurately describes the world in which we live.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Does any one have any serious problems with the theory of gravity, objections to why it might not really be true?

Yes, there are serious questions about the theory of gravitation. For one thing, the general theory of relativity – the current theory of gravitation – is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Evolution is not inconsistent with quantum mechanics. This doesn’t mean that our theory of gravitation is completely wrong, but that it must be revised to be consistent with other things we know in physics.

Similarly, biologists seek consistency between evolution – as the overarching theoretical framework in biology – and other things we know about biology. For example, we know a lot about the evolution of the heart and its chambers: pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html

See also livescience.com/animals/090902-heart-evolution.html

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Pardon me, but I am still curious about what you studied and what you teach. Would you have studied pantheism? Arianism? Cartesian dualism? Buddhism? Medieval theology? If you studied Christian theology, did you study it before and after the Reformation? Before and after the division between east and west? Or did you take a survey approach to the world theologies? Or did you take one of the variety of modern theologies and studied it from its beginning, regardless of where it occurred in the history of the world?

Yes to all of the above, during eleven years of postgraduate study. And being a generalist in undergraduate teaching (as one often is in small Catholic institutions), I’ve taught a lot of these subjects at teh undergraduate level. But my favorite area of graduate teaching is historical theology, particularly the intersection of theology and the sciences since 1600.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I agree with you.My point was the evolution is not important to the stories of Genesis.And only foolish people make it an issue(usually to prove maybe to themselves or others how"loyal" they are to the church, and how “superior” in belief they are)when the church itself doesn’t!

Sadly you’re right, Juliamajor. I suspect that most Catholics who argue against evolution – like the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose it – are not well educated in science.

Gallup poll analysis says:

The belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest “among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and … Catholics,” and weakest among “those with the least education, older Americans …, frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans.”

gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

 

[edwest2]

Sadly you’re right, Juliamajor. I suspect that most Catholics who argue against evolution – like the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose it – are not well educated in science.

Gallup poll analysis says:

The belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest “among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and … Catholics,” and weakest among “those with the least education, older Americans …, frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans.”

gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

I think that is incorrect. Here’s why:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hey Mack,
How about This,
What causes the apple to fall, we call gravity. If you don’t like the word gravity, you can call it whatever you’d like, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Evolution in light of Scripture? I’ll take Scripture, ‘Creationism’

God bless,
John

Gravity is the term applied to the phenomenon of falling apples. What gravity is we really don’t have any idea. Is it a force? Action at a distance? The curvature of space? Exchange of particles?

The point is, saying that gravity causes apples to fall doesn’t explain anything. That’s why I facetiously quoted that circular argument. It is meant as humor, but also as a way of pointing out that the theory of gravity isn’t explanatory–what it does instead is describe what happens. It’s descriptive. Also it accurately makes predictions, such as the orbits of the planets and trajectories of spacecraft.

(Actually, my own opinion is that gravity is the Holy Spirit.)

 

[StAnastasia]

lso it accurately makes predictions, such as the orbits of the planets and trajectories of spacecraft.
(Actually, my own opinion is that gravity is the Holy Spirit.)

Evolution makes predictions to.

Your Holy Spirit hypothesis is interesting…

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution makes predictions to.
Your Holy Spirit hypothesis is interesting…

Correction: Evolution too makes predictions.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Evolution makes predictions to.

Your Holy Spirit hypothesis is interesting…

Yes, I base it on Genesis when it says that the Spirit of God moved across the face of the deep, or as otherwise translated, a mighty wind blew across the waters.

Wind is caused by gravity–cool, heavy air displaces lighter warmer air and causes air currents. Air currents are the wind, and the wind blows, powering our sailing ships, our windmills, and also blowing the barn down. Wind becomes a metaphor for all the actions of the universe. For gravity, entropy, the arrow of time, and so on. Wind is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit.

Why does water run downhill? Why does heat go from hot to cold? Why does current go from plus to minus? These sound like scientific questions, but are really more philosophical or even theological questions than scientific. Science describes and may answer how, but not so much the why.

For me, the answer to these questions is the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve711]

Sadly you’re right, Juliamajor. I suspect that most Catholics who argue against evolution – like the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose it – are not well educated in science.

Gallup poll analysis says:

The belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest “among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and … Catholics,” and weakest among “those with the least education, older Americans …, frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans.”

gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

As a scientist/engineer I always find those Gallop poles to be so slanted in their liberal views in how the questions are asked. I am a very conservative person, yet highly educated and do find that working in the real world verses academia does give you a different perspective. I personally believe the OT was written in parables in order to teach the Hebrews of the time what God wanted them to know. You must remember few men of that time could even read, and almost none of the women.

As far as taking the OT literally, I do not, and I am a cradle catholic who was educated in catholic schools through the twelfth grade. This whole taking of the OT literally has been creeping into the catholic religion for the past 20-30 years from the various Christian religions who have no magisterial (interpreting authority) and very short histories when compared to the catholic religions, therefore, they rely completely on the bible as their faith, and many take biblical verses out of context to answer any type of question

I as an educated person (a conservative) I do believe in evolution and do not believe that Genesis is literal, however, I will continue to follow the churches teachings in all matters.

Go with Gods Grace!

 

[grannymh]

Sadly you’re right, Juliamajor. I suspect that most Catholics who argue against evolution – like the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose it – are not well educated in science.

My last word on this topic is that being well educated in science is not one of the 10 suggestions.

 

[Moscati]

Try reading him, before you commit to that statement, in no way was he ignorant of Science…
From the man Himself,
“it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance” Charles Darwin,"

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it. (Also Charles Darwin)

GK Chsterton, "Ignorance use to mean, “Not to pay attention to the truth.”

The truth is there is no proof of the evolution of species, A cow was always some form of a cow, and birds were birds, all created by God, there are no mixing of the kinds.

Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance as it accumulates in the form of inert facts. (Henry Adams)

God Bless,
John
John

Oh my goodness! J Vernon McGee used to come on the radio when I was a kid. We used to make fun of him, actually Even my mom, who is a staunch evangelical literal six-day creationist couldn’t take him seriously.

I think . . . I’ll take the Catholic Catechism over a dead fundamentalist Presbyterian. I love the Chesterton quote though!

 

[Robintrinket]

Evolution does not become correct because it is accepted by millions of people; rather, millions of people accept the theory of evolution because it works, it has predictive value, and it accurately describes the world in which we live.

StAnastasia

A big reason so many accept it (besides that fact you are thought of as "stupid’ if you don’t accept it) is because they think it *must *work–because there is this mindset that religion must be separate from everything else, so the world must have been made in a way in which it could have made itself. I know this doesn’t even work with the evolution theory, because without God no one can really explain why *anything *exists, but I think that is basically what it boils down to. Then you have the real world, “science”, and if you want to believe in religion, that’s a fantasy world inside your head that you can keep to yourself.

There is no reason why you couldn’t say that if the different species were created, it wouldn’t work, have predictive value, and accurately describe the world in which we live.