Some unfinished business with “Catholic Johnny” from the thread, “Should Christians embrace evolution?”
Catholic Faith however, is dependent on the cosmogeny revealed in Genesis,…(Catholic Johnny)
“Cosmogeny” is generally defined as “The branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe.” Are we to believe that not only does the bible teach science but that Genesis teaches astrophysics? Accordingly, that makes Moses was the founding father of the science of astrophysics and the primitive Hebrews were scientifically literate.
To the contrary, Genesis 1 teaches a theology of Creation which has as its background setting the pre-scientific cosmology of the primitive Hebrews whose belief is in a flat earth resting on pillars and covered by an inverted dome.
Genesis does not teach science or represent the world in a scientific manner.
As for my accusation that theistic evolutionism ruins faith, all one must do to see this up close and personal is to survey the empty churches of Europe. Since theistic evolution (more properly speaking, Modernism) infiltrated the Church, vocations have plummeted, Catholics attend Mass in fewer and fewer numbers, and belief in the True Presence in the Eucharist have sharply declined. The supposed ‘help’ theistic evolution provides Christians is a bald fiction. Because you are willing to sacrifice the Divine Word revealed in Genesis for unproven contemporary theories, do not assume all Christians do. (Catholic Johnny)
There is no evidence that theistic evolution ruins faith. Your accusation is completely groundless, and it is made by one who says he does not know or need to know anything about evolution.
You have given no real reason for anyone to believe that a theistic theory of evolution, one that is consistent with the fundamental doctrines of the faith, is a threat to the faith. All you have indicated is that it contradicts your fundamentalist approach to Scripture and highly selective reading of Church documents.
C.J. promotes unsound interpretations of Genesis in order to justify his literalistic-fundamentalism, the kind of exegetical mindset that originated with and has a home among Protestant fundamentalists, but has never found a home in the Catholic Church.
Of course I am familiar with Bultmann’s demonically inspired blasphemies. The promiscuous liberties arrogated by the Modernists (falsely espousing the title ‘Catholic’) upon the publishing of DAS in 1943 have brought endless ruin to theology and especially religion in the West.(Catholic Johnny)
Your answer evades the question regarding what works by Bultmann have you read? What are the works that you are familiar with and we could discuss?
Granted that Bultmann’s scholarship is ideologically tainted and unacceptable by how do you know that it is demonic? How do you know Bultmann had help from Satan to commit the errors he commited?
Among the manifest errors made by Bultmann, do you know what the important questions are that he first raised and are recognized as significant questions by the Church, questions that require proper answers?
Evolution is 180 degrees the opposite of what the God of nature reveals. Far from revealing natural selection or survival of the fittest, nature reveals intelligence, symmetry, design, irreducible complexity, and defies any final definitive cosmological conclusion apart from revelation. (Catholic Johnny)
Natural selection and survival of the fittest do not necessarily contradict “intelligence, symmetry, design.” The hypothesis of IC is accepted by some and not others.
Furthermore, evolution theory is not dependent on natural selection or survival of the fittest. The proof of this is that after Darwin a majority of scientists accepted common descent but not NS. Darwin proposed 5 theories of evolution. Not every theory was accepted by all scientists, and various degrees of significance were given to each of his theories by notable scientists.
Hence, I must reject everything you said above as groundless opinion.
In light of St. Paul’s words, we must conclude that if nature teaches us evolution and natural selection, then we must needs ascribe to eugenics. We have a duty to honor God by weeding out the weak and imperfect among us. Catholic Johnny)
There is no necessary connection between evolution theory and eugenics, especially active eugenics. Historically eugenics movements found support in Darwinian materialism, Francis Darwin, Galton, Spencer’s social Darwinism, Haeckel’s ideological proselytizing in Germany, and so on. Nonetheless, because of your lack of history, science and logic you cannot understand that there is more than just one theory of evolution. How does theistic evolution, in your mind, entail eugenics? What are the “facts” as you see them?
itinerant1 attempts to blur the distinction between private conjecture (the oft-quoted JP II comment referred to above) of Pontiffs and Papal Encyclicals. There are basically 4 tiers of Papal communication to be considered here.Catholic Johnny)
You have not demonstrated that you are a reliable interpreter of what the Church teaches on any level, any more than you have shown that you can reliably interpret the Bible.
)
. Still, NowAgnostic is probably right:
