The conflict exists only in the minds of those who have a poor understanding of Science and Christian theology. I suggest you develop a better understanding of the two.Let me be very clear: the current conflict is between faith and what is called science.
You are implying that science is in conflict with the truth surrounding Jesus Christ. This is false. I am aware of no real empirical evidence that conflicts either in actuality or in principle with Jesus Christs resurrection.What did Paul say? If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Let me repeat that another way: If Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then you have nothing to believe in. If it didn’t actually happen, you’ve got nothing.
No but. Either there is or there isn’t.Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything about God.
But…
People are so confident that something is true, that they post here: “You’re holy book is wrong, here, here and here, because science says so.”
It could be, that like you, they have a poor understanding of Christian tradition and scripture. Also, its most likely the case that what they have really disproved is your false interpretation of the bible. And since you’re adamant on claiming that its the only possible interpretation, its not surprising then that an unreflective mind who takes such issues for granted would think that they have therefore defeated the bible, and proven Christianity to be false. The irony is, much of what is thought to be an “ad hoc” attempt to unite Science and Christianity through a reinterpretation of scripture in modern times, such as theistic evolution, were in fact scriptural principles that were expressed by saints such as Augustine, long before the theory of evolution was a scientific theory.
The earlier church fathers seem to have a more flexible and liberal understanding of how one interprets the bible then some people today, even though some of them disagreed with each other. I think its important to note however that it was easy to mistake the bible for containing what we understand to be scientific truth given that these people lived in a time before the existence of todays science. But we have no such excuse. Our denial of scientific facts, and the attempts to make intelligent design a scientific theory, reflects only ignorance and desperation on the part of the Christian. It seems to me that intelligent design is just another God of the gaps theory.
You say that they are so confidence, but perhaps its your errors and your confusion about your own beliefs that is really at the heart of the issue.
Here are some quotes and links that i suggest you should read, before making further comments on the subject…
*Aquinas, following the lead of Augustine, thinks that the natural sciences serve as a kind of veto in biblical interpretation. Augustine observed that when discussing passages of the Bible that refer, or seem to refer, to natural phenomena one should defer to the authority of the sciences, when available, to show what the text cannot mean. In examining, for example whether the light spoken of in the opening of Genesis (before the creation of the Sun and the Moon) is physical light, Augustine says that if physicists show us that there cannot be physical light without a luminous source then we know that this particular passage does not refer to physical light. (26) The Bible cannot authentically be understood as affirming as true what the natural sciences teach us is false.
Creation and Evolution in the Contemporary World
If we look at the way in which the relationship between creation and evolution is presented today we often see creation identified with the view that the great diversity of living things is the result of specific divine interventions; that God, for example, produced in a direct way, without intermediaries, the different kinds of minerals, plants, and animals that exist. If this were true, then the record of the past, regardless of its age, would reveal fundamental discontinuities: discontinuities which could only be accounted for by an appeal to direct divine action in the world. Arguments in support of this view are advanced on the basis of evidence adduced from both Scripture and science. (27)
To insist that creation must mean that God has periodically produced new and distinct forms of life is to confuse the fact of creation with what Aquinas would call the manner or mode of formation of beings in the world. Such an insistence has its source in a literalistic reading of Genesis, which Aquinas would reject.*
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html
This one is good too if you are really interested.
guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html
Ed nor I are independently interpreting Scripture. I for one have posted the Church’s constant teaching and understanding of Scripture.The conflict exists only in the minds of those who have a poor understanding of Science and Christian theology. I suggest you develop a better understanding of the two.
You are implying that science is in conflict with the truth surrounding Jesus Christ. This is false. I am aware of no real empirical evidence that conflicts either in actuality or in principle with Jesus Christs resurrection.
No but. Either there is or there isn’t.
It could be, that like you, they have a poor understanding of Christian tradition and scripture. Also, its most likely the case that what they have really disproved is your false interpretation of the bible. And since you’re adamant on claiming that its the only possible interpretation, its not surprising then that an unreflective mind who takes such issues for granted would think that they have therefore defeated the bible, and proven Christianity to be false. The irony is, much of what is thought to be an “ad hoc” attempt to unite Science and Christianity through a reinterpretation of scripture in modern times, such as theistic evolution, were in fact scriptural principles that were expressed by saints such as Augustine, long before the theory of evolution was a scientific theory.
The earlier church fathers seem to have a more flexible and liberal understanding of how one interprets the bible then some people today, even though some of them disagreed with each other. I think its important to note however that it was easy to mistake the bible for containing what we understand to be scientific truth given that these people lived in a time before the existence of todays science. But we have no such excuse. Our denial of scientific facts, and the attempts to make intelligent design a scientific theory, reflects only ignorance and desperation on the part of the Christian. It seems to me that intelligent design is just another God of the gaps theory.
You say that they are so confidence, but perhaps its your errors and your confusion about your own beliefs that is really at the heart of the issue.
Here are some quotes and links that i suggest you should read, before making further comments on the subject…
*Aquinas, following the lead of Augustine, thinks that the natural sciences serve as a kind of veto in biblical interpretation. Augustine observed that when discussing passages of the Bible that refer, or seem to refer, to natural phenomena one should defer to the authority of the sciences, when available, to show what the text cannot mean. In examining, for example whether the light spoken of in the opening of Genesis (before the creation of the Sun and the Moon) is physical light, Augustine says that if physicists show us that there cannot be physical light without a luminous source then we know that this particular passage does not refer to physical light. (26) The Bible cannot authentically be understood as affirming as true what the natural sciences teach us is false.
Creation and Evolution in the Contemporary World
If we look at the way in which the relationship between creation and evolution is presented today we often see creation identified with the view that the great diversity of living things is the result of specific divine interventions; that God, for example, produced in a direct way, without intermediaries, the different kinds of minerals, plants, and animals that exist. If this were true, then the record of the past, regardless of its age, would reveal fundamental discontinuities: discontinuities which could only be accounted for by an appeal to direct divine action in the world. Arguments in support of this view are advanced on the basis of evidence adduced from both Scripture and science. (27)
To insist that creation must mean that God has periodically produced new and distinct forms of life is to confuse the fact of creation with what Aquinas would call the manner or mode of formation of beings in the world. Such an insistence has its source in a literalistic reading of Genesis, which Aquinas would reject.*
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html
This one is good too if you are really interested.
guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html
Not according to Augustine. It really is about interpretation and context. There are in fact core teachings that must be adhered to in order for Christianity, Catholicism specifically, to make sense; i agree. I simply disagree that any modern Scientific theory is at odds with the Church as far as i understand them, and thus i do not see the relevance of challenging Evolution as if to say that it threatens a core teaching of the Catholic faith. Present the evidence that it does. Otherwise one is creating a false sense of opposition, that needn’t be so. I think we can both agree that this is not good for the Catholic faith.In the areas where science intersects with Revealed truth you have to claim that the church had got it wrong for so many centuries and the Holy Spirit was off sleeping somewhere.
None of the book that you presented to me explains why the standard theory of evolution is wrong or why it should be rejected on theological grounds. It challenges the naturalistic trends that threatens to derail a correct understanding of the “Theory”; as in, there is already one Theory evolution, with different philosophical interpretations. But the promotion of naturalism really has nothing to do with the theory itself. Neither does this book demand that scientists acknowledge Gods providence on “scientific grounds”, but rather the book calls for a philosophical synthesis that respects each magisteria of truth.Please note the line that refers to theories that “explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” “development of life”
Ed
You haven’t read Humani Generis? Specifically, polygenism is rejected on theological grounds. Meanwhile, many post here regarding a fictional connection between what they call science and what they describe as a bottleneck in the “evolving” human population. Catholics are required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam’s side.None of the book that you presented to me explains why the standard theory of evolution is wrong or why it should be rejected on theological grounds. It challenges the naturalistic trends that threatens to derail a correct understanding of the “Theory”; as in, there is already one Theory evolution, with different philosophical interpretations. But the promotion of naturalism really has nothing to do with the theory itself. Neither does this book demand that scientists acknowledge Gods providence on “scientific grounds”, but rather the book calls for a philosophical synthesis that respects each magisteria of truth.
As for Gods providence, logically speaking, Gods providence must include chance and random events, otherwise God cannot ensure the freedom of human beings. Its as simple as that. The Catholic Church does not encourage blind faith.
Notice the word indirectly."Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.”
Notice here that the author uses the words purely natural. This means that the author is not denying natural events but is saying that the event is accompanied by a supernatural act. As in, the event cannot be understood in merely physical terms. Also notice that the same author speaks of God acting in away that does not interfere with natural processes, by saying “The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world”. I agree with this. I don’t see this having any implication on the theory of evolution. What i would say is that science alone cannot measure supernatural events, and in so far as science is concerned i would agree with their principled agnosticism as far as the empirical method is concerned. But what i don’t agree with is the idea that philosophy does not reveal certain and inferential knowledge of the magisterial act of an intelligent first cause that creates all potential natures. In so far as philosophy is concerned, those who are scientist or lay persons in general, ought to recognize that there is more to the physical universe then science can understand or explain; and that these events can only be understood in light of a supernatural intelligent being.“70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”
Does the theory of evolution necessitate that the first human beings were not Adam and Eve? Or do they speak in “general”. You know; for instance in general there was a population of species that exhibited the level of intelligence and cultural aspects of human beings in a particular place in time? Does that sound similar to what you described as the “bottleneck?” Can you please provide me with a source that exposes the “scientific theory of evolution” as being proof of polygenism? Are are these just hypothesis constructed around a larger theory? Or are you just expressing your fears and misunderstanding?You haven’t read Humani Generis? Specifically, polygenism is rejected on theological grounds. Meanwhile, many post here regarding a fictional connection between what they call science and what they describe as a bottleneck in the “evolving” human population. Catholics are required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam’s side.
Now you play the fear and misunderstanding card? Oh well.Does the theory of evolution necessitate that the first human beings were not Adam and Eve? Or do they speak in “general”. You know; for instance in general there was a population of species that exhibited the level of intelligence and cultural aspects of human beings in a particular place in time? Does that sound similar to what you described as the “bottleneck?” Can you please provide me with a source that exposes the “scientific theory of evolution” as being proof of polygenism? Are are these just hypothesis constructed around a larger theory? Or are you just expressing your fears and misunderstanding?
Core teachings:Not according to Augustine. It really is about interpretation and context. There are in fact core teachings that must be adhered to in order for Christianity, Catholicism specifically, to make sense; i agree. I simply disagree that any modern Scientific theory is at odds with the Church as far as i understand them, and thus i do not see the relevance of challenging Evolution as if to say that it threatens a core teaching of the Catholic faith. Present the evidence that it does. Otherwise one is creating a false sense of opposition, that needn’t be so. I think we can both agree that this is not good for the Catholic faith.
Why does the Theory of Evolution rule these out? Be careful now, i didn’t ask why does “metaphysical naturalism” rule it out. I am asking why do you think that the theory of evolution necessarily contradicts theses claims?Core teachings:
Adam and Eve first parents (polygenism ruled out)
Eve from Adam
Preternatural Gifts
Bodily immortality
freedom from irregular desire
infused knowledge
freedom from sickness, etc…
original sin