E
edwest2
Guest
That is my only complaint about science today: It is ideology, little else.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
I don’t have a problem with abiogenesis in which chance plays a limited role, but I am wondering about your laboratory examples.
Who are the researchers involved in the synthesis of DNA and proteins that you have in mind? And who are the researchers for the bacteria synthesis?
D
donsnow
Guest
Well, I guess I’m a good opportunity for you to exercise your existing ‘not to be snobbish’ skillsYou really are making in difficult form me not be intellectually snobbish.
.Well, we both tried to communicate, gotta give it that. Maybe next time…
D
donsnow
Guest
Ouch!
That was tacky.
I’m properly educated for me, about evolution
I forgive you. I like the opportunity to express my opinion on a topic forced by government onto our public school system. Seems to me, a good theory shouldn’t need government help, to disseminate it. Just one of those uninformed opinions, of mine
.
I
itinerant1
Guest
We should, myself included, work on being more polite and charitable in this thread. Anyone disagree?
C
Cruciform
Guest
Do you, then, disagree with my statement that “one who doesn’t have time to properly educate himself regarding evolutionary science really has no place expressing his admittedly uninformed opinions about evolution on a public forum”? If so, with which part(s) do you disagree, and why?Ouch!
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
The OP topic is a question about Christians, not just evolution. One need not be a scientist or a theoretician to surmise from the CCC that zero text is committed to the instruction of the faithful on evolution while dozens of pages detail the explanation of special creation.
I don’t need to be an expert on rodentia to know that I don’t want rats under my children’s beds.
I
itinerant1
Guest
**Question about Apes, Humans and classification: How should we classify this picture?
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4748
**
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4748
**
I
itinerant1
Guest
On the other hand, several popes and cardinals have made it clear that the subject of evolution concerns the Church because it involves who man is.
M
MonFrere
Guest
MonFrere
C
Cruciform
Guest
Of course not, since evolution is a scientific conclusion rather than a theological conviction, and therefore lies beyond the purview of the Church’s teaching authority.
…a theological conviction rather than a scientific conclusion.
Of course, I said nothing whatsoever about being an “expert” on anything, but rather of being “properly educated” regarding issues that one presumes to hold forth about on a public forum.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I
itinerant1
Guest
Sic et non. Evolution is a scientific theory yet it has philosophical and theological dimensions. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences explores primarily the scientific theory(s), while Catholic theologians and philosophers are concerned with the philosophical and theological implications of evolution theory.
Evolution theory needs a proper philosophical foundation, one other than Darwin and the materialist neoDarwinians gave it.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I didn’t expect anyone to go totally apocalyptic about these cute little orangs. LOL
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Well, I’m not going to repeat what I have stated many times previously on this thread, but evolutionism is promulgated as a cosmogeny and is the foundational philosophical underpinning for the heresy of Modernism (per St. Pius X, I hope you accept his educational credentials). As asserted by pro-evolutionists here and in other forums, evolutionism arrogates claims that invade the domains of religion, philosophy, and theology. Therefore, a theological, philosophical and religious response is required. To date, there have been many Papal Encyclicals promulgated that have hammered evolutionism and none that have frontally, positively required adherence to evolution by the faith of Christians. Moreover, many of the published works of evolutionism’s greatest Catholic proponent, Pierre Teilhard are under the Papal monitum.
Evolutionism is a religious belief. It lacks the evidentiary requirements to be hard science and even as a theory or hypothesis cannot be reconciled with the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. Please read Pascendi Dominici Gregis by St. Pius X.
cj
I
itinerant1
Guest
You have radically mis-characterized the situation. There have only been critical comments from the papacy regarding materialist versions of evolution. Pope John Paul II brought attention to the fact that we should speak rather of theories (plural) of evolution.
The Church has made it clear that evolution is more than just an hypothesis (John Paul II) and that there can be no conflict with the faith if room is allowed for God’s direct creation of the soul in the evolutionary process, and primal first parents of the human race.
Pope Benedict does not even question evolution theory in its general sense. You should read Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Schonborn, and Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo
Teilhard fell into some errors, no doubt, but Pope Benedict still publicly quotes favorably from his Teilhard’s works on certain aspects of nature and evolution. You are pretty far out of the loop regarding the mind of the Church on evolution theory.
It is a pointless point on your part to say the Church does not require adherence to evolution theory, because evolution theory is primarily a scientific theory, when it stays within its proper bounds. The Church does not require adherence to any scientific theory, whether its the theory of Relativity, Olber’s Paradox, Godel’s incompleteness theorem, cosmic red-shift, Big Bang theory (which Pius the XII was excited about and promoted), Newtons optical theory, plate tectonics, and so on. Perhaps you should check out the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the Vatican web site for a little education in the Church and science.
You don’t have to accept evolution theory, but you have no right to grossly mis-represent what the Vatican thinks about evolution theories. That’s just not Catholic.
A
Abu
Guest
**REVIEWING CARDINAL SCHÖNBORN’S STAND ON EVOLUTION BY CHANCE OR BY PURPOSE **
Catholics who want to understand what the Church teaches about evolutionism can visit:
rtforum.org/lt/lt135.html
For an opening to a whole new world of faith, reason and sanity see:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html
Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible. [LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine]](LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine])
Catholics who want to understand what the Church teaches about evolutionism can visit:
rtforum.org/lt/lt135.html
For an opening to a whole new world of faith, reason and sanity see:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html
Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible. [LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine]](LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine])
A
Abu
Guest
You have said nothing – you may now care to say from what doctrine you think Msgr McCarthy dissents.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I addressed problems with Msgr. McCarthy in a recent post. I don’t recall where it’s at right now.
In any case, Msgr McCarthy shows a poor understanding of modern evolutionary theory, which is not very becoming for one who is critical of evolution. The least that should be reasonably expected is that he correctly understand something before he rejects it outright…
Also, he discounts modern science itself because he believes it is based on the Kantian notion of science. This is not a correct historical interpretation by him of the division that arose between science and the faith, which Kant failed to address accurately. Cardinal Ratzinger provides an accurate historical interpretation and evaluation in Christianity and the Crisis of Culture. Msgr. McCarthy would do better to adhere more closely to Ratzinger’s thinking.
Next, Msgr McCarthy rejects the advances in Catholic biblical scholarship approved by the Biblical Commission. Specifically, Msgr McCarthy rejects the historic-critical method applied to Biblical exegesis, which was specifically approved by Ratzinger.
McCarthy merely rejects modern exegetical methods because he wants to adhere to ancient methods of Biblical interpretation because they allow him to advance his personal biblical interpretations even though they conflict with what modern science knows to be the case about many things. St. Augustine warned about that kind of exegesis, so Msgr. McCarthy is not even consistent in his attempt to return to ancient exegetical methods exclusively. In sum here, Msgr. McCarthy has involved himself in all manner of contradictions.
Next, Msgr McCarthy wants to redefine natural science so it includes a totality of knowledge, more in keeping with the sciences or philosophy generally long before the natural sciences advanced and distinguished themselves from philosophical explanations of nature. This is retrogressive and reveals that Msgr McCarthy has an axe to grind.
Next, I find certain of his interpretations of classical philosophy to be be shallow and erring due to his biases.
Need I continue, or is this enough for now.
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
To all CAF participants:
Please follow this clearly, as this type of slight-of-hand sophistry is commonly perpetrated upon the faithful. My rebuttal below may provide some apologetical support to orthodox Catholics defending the Faith.
- 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:
b. Papal Encyclicals - these are Magisterial documents and Official Teaching organs of the Roman Catholic Church.
c. Theological treatises or scholarly writings by Popes before they assumed office - these are valuable but are not binding on any Christians.
d. Private reflections, opinions, or ruminations - these are neither official nor binding on any Christian.
Pope JP II’s comment’s on evolution to PAS in 1986 fall into category d. The Papal Encyclicals which I referred to (Humani Generis, Providentissimus Deus, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Lamentabili Sane and others) are in category b and are binding on all Christians everywhere.
- itinerant1 also tries to slide this one in:
This is 100% false. JP II never spoke “for the church” on this issue. There are no Papal Encyclicals that support evolutionism. His private speculations offered to PAS are just that, private speculations, and have no weight in official Catholic Teaching anywhere.
- itinerant1 also avers
which is like saying Tiger Woods fell into temptation. His works are under the Papal monitum and were referred to by John XXIII as “dangerous.” The monitum refers to “grave doctrinal errors” which “offend Catholic teaching.”
- He then condescends with this:
Perhaps you should avail yourself of the Catechism and the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. You will find that your narrow, contemporary interpretations are not the voice of the Church which is found in the Magisterium. It is a grave offense to promulgate idolatrous novelties in the name of Holy Mother Church. As for the laughable paraphrase of Pius XII below:
here is a real quote in a Papal Encyclical from Pius XII:
cj
- Status