R
- Status
A
Arandur
Guest
In the broad sense, yes. You have to be careful with that phrasing, though, since many people have preconceived notions about all terms related to evolution and may think “theistic evolution” refers to some specific thing they’ve heard and taken issue with, when it’s actually primarily used as a broad term to indicate the idea that science and faith are not at odds, and that scientific explanations of biological evolution are not at odds with faith. “Theistic evolution” doesn’t describe some specific formula. Wikipedia has a fairly good description of mainstream usage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Roman_Catholic_Church
theisticevolution.org/ is another source of a variety of discussions within the broad category.
Note in both cases several references to opinions of the Saints and other Catholic and Russian Orthodox sources.
I agree, but I don’t see how this answers my questions.
I told you that the purpose of these questions I keep repeating is to try to get you all to describe what you believe about these things, because you all seem to keep dodging them. Why did you dodge again? Can’t you just answer the question and give me your opinion? You’re a smart guy and seem fairly well appraised of the science. It shouldn’t be too difficult. Qualify your statements however you feel appropriate, but give me something.
It is difficult to get anywhere in a discussion with you without knowing where you stand. So I would appreciate that YOU give me a response first. I will respond afterwards, though I thought I made myself clear earlier in this thread. I am tired of presenting positions for you all to get upset about and try to pick apart, with no reciprocation. A discussion is supposed to be a give and take. So give a little.
M
Michaelo
Guest
It’s important to recognize the distinction between theology and science.Neither you nor I consider the metaphysical wall to be “unreal”. But when you erect an impenetrable wall between science and theology, students will often interpret this divide to mean that religion must be fantasy. I say that the laws of probability, e.g., have as crucial a place in the discussion of origins as any evolutionary theory du jour. One would think that if the probability of a first cell being formed, or that cell burgeoning into more complex life was NOT infinitesimal, it could be repeated in the lab. Students have the right to know that science has not a clue about how to create any new living functional organ or organism. Yet, biology texts prattle on as if it’s possible, or certain, that life and its systems could have been formed, literally out of nothingness. What balderdash! Rob
CCC 283-284
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…The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.
4
4elise
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, understood. Thanks.
R
RACJ
Guest
Please allow me to ask you “theistic evolutionists” two questions: Where do you think all the atheistic naturalists such as Sagan, Hitchens and Dawkins go wrong? And, does it bother you that their godless version of creation is the only one taught in our high schools and colleges? Thanks, Rob 
M
Michaelo
Guest
They reject any divine influence.
Let’s be clear, it doesn’t bother me that purely scientific evolution is taught in high school and college science classes. The philosophical aspect should be reserved for other classes.And, does it bother you that their godless version of creation is the only one taught in our high schools and colleges? Thanks, Rob
B
buffalo
Guest
I agree, but students do not take these courses. That kind of cooks the books so to speak.
M
M0nkey
Guest
That is exactly what we are trying to refute, there isn’t such a thing. Darwin’s evolutionary theory excludes God from the natural process. It is nature building upon nature. To think this is god-guided is not evolution at all but creationism. Note: It is still unclear how old the earth is, carbon dating has significant flaws in it and it’s accuracy is within millions of years which would add inflation to your time tables. So the 6,000 year young earth theory could still very well be true.
Well, what of Genesis how do you read it? One of the beautiful things about being Catholic is not having to reiterate the sources from which there is Truth. If you want to know what I think, study the teachings of the faith.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is accurate. Evolution, described in the biology text as a self-starting and self-sustaining engine, works by itself. God must be excluded since God is excluded from science as it is studied today.
Science is not a reliable way to make claims or confirm claims about the actual work of God. Adam and Eve – two individuals. Jesus Christ, both man and God, lived, died and rose again. Sometimes people do not understand that faith is truth. As Christ’s disciples told the people: if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. So, again, if it, the resurrection, did not actually happen, our faith is in vain.
Peace,
Ed
Science is not a reliable way to make claims or confirm claims about the actual work of God. Adam and Eve – two individuals. Jesus Christ, both man and God, lived, died and rose again. Sometimes people do not understand that faith is truth. As Christ’s disciples told the people: if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. So, again, if it, the resurrection, did not actually happen, our faith is in vain.
Peace,
Ed
A
Arandur
Guest
And we have shown you time and again that when you refer to “Darwin’s evolutionary theory” you’re actually referring to a PHILOSOPHY. WE are referring to a theory of empirical, biological science that makes no claims on matters of God. We have further shown how this is totally compatible with the belief that God created everything according to His purposes.
So your criteria is just that it must be God-guided? Then I guess we are creationists by your account, though I find your use of the label very muddled. We believe God created everything, including the natural processes of evolution.
See my above quotes from Peter Kreeft and his co-authors–which you all seem to have ignored.
M0nkey, I have provided you many quotes from the Church saying that a literal interpretation of Genesis is NOT what the Church teaches. The Church also accepts the age and size of the universe that science has shown us, as illustrated by that Catechism quote I listed earlier.
So it seems that it is YOU who have not studied the teachings of the faith, since you deny and contradict them so often, or act as if they don’t exist.
Do you really think you can answer my question just by pointing to Genesis? I was pretty specific about my questions, because there is scientific evidence that you MUST address if you want to be honest in a pursuit of Truth. Why do you keep dodging?
A
Arandur
Guest
Have you read my posts and sources yet on the definition of science, the philosophy of science, the nature of empiricism, the Catechism on the relationship of science to faith, the popes on the proper place of science, and Kreeft and his co-authors on science and evolution?
Everyone else (including the popes!) seems comfortable with the limitations of science and believes that science is only proper when it keeps within its limitations. And yet you disagree. Why?
Oh? Was it you or one of your allies that was arguing that God can be KNOWN by reason, and His material works understood by science? That’s what the Catechism says, by the way. Why do you disagree with the Church?
Not a soul has questioned Christ. I still wonder what bogeymen you think are after you on this. What relevance does it have on evolution? Evolution says nothing about Christ whatsoever, nor can it or any science say anything definitively about Him. Neither can any science p(name removed by moderator)oint and say anything definitive about our original ancestors. It can only even speculate about whether Adam and Eve could have been individuals or a population, and it is even within the realm of science that two individuals could have been our progenitors, based on the bottlenecks discovered in DNA evidence.
A
Arandur
Guest
When they go beyond the limits of science to make statements about things for which science has no evidence. When they ignore experiential evidence of non-material things such as the mere existence of thought. When they ignore logic and rationality in positing a causeless, mindless universe. When they make false FAITH-BASED claims that nothing exists that is not material.
Again, in all my experience at various schools in the sciences (having a B.S. in biology), I’ve never heard a “godless version of creation” taught. I haven’t even heard it from friends in other schools. No claim is made that God doesn’t exist or didn’t create. I think you exaggerate greatly, perhaps without even having anecdotal experience of it on your own, but out of a terrified gut reaction to something you don’t understand and believing anecdotal or exaggerated secondhand claims from other alarmists.And, does it bother you that their godless version of creation is the only one taught in our high schools and colleges? Thanks, Rob
Now, I’ve answered your questions. You STILL haven’t answered any of mine.
And you guys think “evolutionists are slippery?” It’s freaking ridiculous just trying to get you guys to be honest enough and courageous enough to answer a question!
The silence is deafening. I can draw certain conclusions from it that I don’t think would be out of line. They’re not flattering to you or your positions at all.
E
edwest2
Guest
Men have placed self-imposed restrictions on modern science. Modern science cannot allow supernatural explanations.
However, the average person, obviously when not doing science, can, by natural reason alone, detect God in nature.
The terrible and totally false science that denies design in nature is blind and not suitable by itself. It is only when men, free of politics and free of the voices of mechanical materialism, look, for themselves, can they see that the apparent design in nature is actual design as recognized by Pope John Paul II and reaffirmed by Cardinal Schoenborn. The bitter ideologues insist this is not true. It is true.
Peace,
Ed
However, the average person, obviously when not doing science, can, by natural reason alone, detect God in nature.
The terrible and totally false science that denies design in nature is blind and not suitable by itself. It is only when men, free of politics and free of the voices of mechanical materialism, look, for themselves, can they see that the apparent design in nature is actual design as recognized by Pope John Paul II and reaffirmed by Cardinal Schoenborn. The bitter ideologues insist this is not true. It is true.
Peace,
Ed
M
M0nkey
Guest
And I have discussed how this theory can be refuted, the “evidence” is a bunch of wishful thinking by people who have self-devised their own form of religion. Finally, we have already discussed the fact that you just can’t strip philosophy from science, these two build upon each other. To deny philosophy in science is to deny science. If you disagree, please show me how this is not the case. We can start with the history of science, as an example.
Not exactly, one of the criteria is that it must be self-sufficient, how does this show to be compatible with an Incarnate Creator.
I believe I am not “labeling” you that. Heck, by your own words you seem to think everything just sort of came together for no particular reason. I don’t want to judge the state of your soul, but evolution time and time again has proven to be the poison that has infected many minds. It is no surprise Darwin is considered one of the seven heads and fathers of the culture of death.
Not literal, contextual. Tell me, honestly, why do you think the sacred writer spent the effort to put those words there if it was meant to be taken as a fable? The early Church fathers and the teaching seem to point out that it is the Truth. It is evident that a contextual six day creation does include the notion that a “day” in God’s creative act could be interpreted to mean stages (“yom” in the Hebrew) but the fact still remains that it fits within the context of the text. Evolution on the other hand (the idea of a self-sufficient nature) does not.
The reason I bring up Genesis is to inquire about how you fit that account into your evolutionist worldview. I am interested, because these two are not mutually compatible.
M
Michaelo
Guest
So what’s your superior evidence for ID?
It is the literal interpreters of Genesis who engage in retroactive reasoning–beginning with the conclusion that Genesis involves a literal creation story and working backwards, conforming the evidence to their preconceived notions. Arandur and myself, aware that truth cannot contradict truth, adjust our interpretation of Genesis accordingly.
E
edwest2
Guest
The truth begins with the Bible and the infallible truths held in the deposit of faith. The political ideologues want scientific interpretations to operate in their favor. To give their ideology support. The Bible is first in importance. Science can only comment on externalities. The Word of God is truth.
Intelligent Design is first and foremost about politics, not science. Pope John Paul II recognized actual design in nature. This is denied to support an ideology.
Peace,
Ed
Intelligent Design is first and foremost about politics, not science. Pope John Paul II recognized actual design in nature. This is denied to support an ideology.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes he re-cognized it. That means it was already cognized.
A
Arandur
Guest
Wishful thinking? Please tell me how observations of genetics, optics, radioactivity, and population dynamics are “wishful thinking.” If these evidences are not just made up, as you suggest, then what do they indicate in your view?
I did. You apparently never read it. What’s the point in trying to have a discussion with you if you wholly ignore things that I say time and time again? I posted sources on the mainstream ideas of limitations of science and its relationship with philosophy. I also posted Catholic sources about it.
You are wrong because you don’t seem to know what science is. Materialistic philosophies look for self-sufficiency. The biological, empirical scientific theory of evolution has no evidence about how existence came to be and so makes no claims on it.
As Peter Kreeft and his co-authors said, evolution is merely a process like any other natural process that God created, the method God used to govern the diversity of species.
Where have I EVER said anything even a tiny bit like this?
I have been consistent in that God created the whole physical universe and all its laws and processes. He had a design and purpose for these things–the purpose we come to know through philosophy and theology; the particulars of how His creation physically works we come to know through science.
Every age has its errant philosophies and people who hide behind some false idea or another. There’s nothing special about Darwin in that respect.
As I said in post #762 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336453&postcount=762), I believe what the CHURCH teaches about these things. I will post that again:
"CCC 337:
“Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337)
"*Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. **For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. *What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).
CCC 110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."7
I suggest reading all around CCC110, as that chapter describes how Scripture is to be interpreted, and why a modern literal interpretation of 6 day Creation or Instantaneous, Special Creation, or even some details about Adam and Eve (aside from essential truths of individual and the Fall) are not necessarily or even likely to be what Scripture is actually telling us."
A
Arandur
Guest
And in post #765 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336777&postcount=765):
“Consider also this, from the same reference:
“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom?** Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities.** The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.** But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.**””
It is astounding to me that you think you are in line with the Church despite such an authoritative preponderence of evidence against you. It seems that your own false conceptions and pride have made you reject even what the Church and many of its most esteemed members say on the subject.
“Consider also this, from the same reference:
“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom?** Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities.** The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.** But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.**””
If all you’re disagreeing with is the idea of “self-sufficiency,” then, once again, you’re disagreeing with materialist philosophies. The science does not claim that evolution or any of the physical universe is without Divine origin or design.
Yes, they are. I have quoted you several popes, the Catechism, a couple articles from Catholic Answers, and several different sources from Peter Kreeft and coauthors disagreeing with this false assertion of yours. Further, I have showed how mainstream science limits itself as I have described and creates no conflict with religion, and how the popes and the Catechism affirm these limitations of science.
It is astounding to me that you think you are in line with the Church despite such an authoritative preponderence of evidence against you. It seems that your own false conceptions and pride have made you reject even what the Church and many of its most esteemed members say on the subject.
- Status