B
buffalo
Guest
answer post 53
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sideline
Guest
Uhm… okay. Evolutionary theory is an conspiracy to subvert the Catholic Church. You caught us. Boy is there egg on my face.Observable facts? It’s “just” science? No, it’s just propaganda designed to allow science a greater say in religious matters.
Oh well, at least we managed to fool three Popes, including the current one.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
What is flawed in your analysis is your premise. You assume God created the bible instead of persons setting down the theological underpinnings of their faith. If a man made the mistake in interpreting what other men wrote then why is God required to step in lest He be called a deceiver? your logic is flawed. We by faith believe that they were inspired by God in areas necessary to faith and salvation in what they wrote. It is the TRUTHS of the stories that are important. In that we trust that God kept them from error.Question - Since God cannot deceive or be deceived why would He allow Genesis to stand uncorrected for so many ages?
It would seem to me the Holy Spirit would have set us straight long ago. Why now?
S
Sideline
Guest
Well let’s see.Question - Since God cannot deceive or be deceived why would He allow Genesis to stand uncorrected for so many ages?
It would seem to me the Holy Spirit would have set us straight long ago. Why now?
Perhaps God never intended the book of Genesis to be used as a scientific manual. Perhaps that’s why it doesn’t include things like the maximum velocity of a falling object, the speed of light, or calculations of pi.
Perhaps God never corrected it because the essential points didn’t need correcting. God created the world and saw that it was good. People had the opportunity to live in harmony with God’s plan and didn’t. All humans are related and share equally in the sin of turning away from God. God chose the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to build his covenant. They had a relationship with God, and God always keeps his word.
God didn’t need to write the Bible to explain to us how the natural world worked. We live in the world, and he gave us reason and observation to figure it all out. What he did need to tell us, was our relationship with him. That was what the Bible was for, and that is what the Bible accomplishes.
B
buffalo
Guest
Ahhh! It still is interesting that man had deceived himself for so long.What is flawed in your analysis is your premise. You assume God created the bible instead of persons setting down the theological underpinnings of their faith. If a man made the mistake in interpreting what other men wrote then why is God required to step in lest He be called a deceiver? your logic is flawed. We by faith believe that they were inspired by God in areas necessary to faith and salvation in what they wrote. It is the TRUTHS of the stories that are important. In that we trust that God kept them from error.
God created the Bible indirectly by inspiring men to write it.
Jesus guaranteed the truth of the Catholic faith.
And I repeat why now?
Men could have gotten the point across about faith and salvation without writing anything about the beginnings. Where did they get this information contained in Genesis?
It could have been so much simpler. ie.
In the begining God made everything. Man and women formed. Early man sinned against God. Because of this they had to die…etc…
When you thing about it in context there is an awful lot of explanation and detail. There has to be a harmonization.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Observable facts? It’s “just” science? No, it’s just propaganda designed to allow science a greater say in religious matters. All science is constantly under review by the Catholic Church. Also, the Holy Spirit of God which guides the Church.
The desperate, daily attempts made here to convince Catholics that evolution is 100% true has nothing to do with science. Far from it. It is designed to make science, not God, the focal point of our beliefs. God is the focal point of our beliefs.
They are no more desperate than your attempt to mislead others into thinking that the Church supports Creationism. Not one of us has ever claimed as far as I recall that evolution is 100% true. That would be incorrect, since nothing in science is considered 100% proven. You continue to make these wild claims when you obviously know better. There is no design to do any such thing. We merely suggest that science is science and theology is theology. They do not mix nor should they. I have no “belief” in science, other than a belief that the methodology of science has been proven sufficiently to depend on it for our best understanding of the NATURAL world. It answers ZERO questions about God.
There are no explanationms for the miracles of Jesus Christ: raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, making the paralytic stand up and walk home. If science was there, what would it say? I don’t know? It didn’t happen?
**As you well know by now Ed, science makes no attempt to explain the supernatural. Miracles are by definitions events NOT subject to scientific inquiry or resolution. Science was there surely Ed, and accounted for some of those who didn’t believe in what they saw, and didn’t follow Jesus… They were the poorer for it I would say. I think scientists who don’t believe in God are dumb. That’s a personal opinion tho. **
Wake up my fellow Catholics. There is no lack on our part to understand high school science. But it is the Church and only the Church that provides the necessary scientific and spiritual guidance to its members, with Jesus Christ as its head. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that, I didn’t.
**The Church does not provide “scientific” guidance to science. Nor does it provide spiritual guidance to the scientist. It receives the evidence and gives guidance as to how that science fits into church teachings. And you obviously have by now read my link wherein Benedict called a contradiction between evolution and religion absurd, and that evolution could not be denied as correct. **
Those whose job it is to convince Christians everywhere of the “fact” of evolution has a purpose that is not science but the misuse of science to remove God from Christianity.
There you go, calling us atheists again. You are the one with an agenda to mislead, distort and make the Church conform to your personal theology
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church guides the Body of Christ in all things, scientific and spiritual.
Cardinal Ratzinger: “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.
God bless,
Ed
Cardinal Ratzinger: “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.
God bless,
Ed
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
The Sideline, Buffalo, Spirit Meadow edwest ‘et al’ exchange suggests the participants have not been following the parallel one concerning the Lateran IV definition of Creation. The latter’s preclusion of the principle of evolution as confirmed by Vatican I leaves no leeway for discussion other than micro-evolution.
If one can validate macro-evolution then there are obviously many problems to resolve, but if the Church has spoken authoritatively on the subject, i.e. Magisterially, as it has, the rest is little more than dialectics.
The following posts, which should be read before responding, refer:
5,8,16,18,23,29,31,34,35,41,43,48,51,52
Peter
If one can validate macro-evolution then there are obviously many problems to resolve, but if the Church has spoken authoritatively on the subject, i.e. Magisterially, as it has, the rest is little more than dialectics.
The following posts, which should be read before responding, refer:
5,8,16,18,23,29,31,34,35,41,43,48,51,52
Peter
S
Sideline
Guest
I don’t entirely understand what you are asking about here. First off, the terms micro- and macro-evolution aren’t scientific terms. It is an artificial distinction dreamed up by those who realize that changes occur over time, but don’t want to accept the processes of evolution.The Sideline, Buffalo, Spirit Meadow edwest ‘et al’ exchange suggests the participants have not been following the parallel one concerning the Lateran IV definition of Creation. The latter’s preclusion of the principle of evolution as confirmed by Vatican I leaves no leeway for discussion other than micro-evolution.
If one can validate macro-evolution then there are obviously many problems to resolve, but if the Church has spoken authoritatively on the subject, i.e. Magisterially, as it has, the rest is little more than dialectics.
The following posts, which should be read before responding, refer:
5,8,16,18,23,29,31,34,35,41,43,48,51,52
Peter
As to the rest of your post, you said,
Prove it. As far as I can tell. This is something that you just decided independently and arbitrarily.The distinction between invisible things as spiritual and corporal is proof that the dogma is not referring to just “matter”.
An invisible spiritual substance : soul.
An invisible corporal substance : an electron
My last point, if the Church really did infallibly declare that you can not believe evolution, then they were really, really, really stupid to do so, because they would have been just dead wrong.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Why?Ahhh! It still is interesting that man had deceived himself for so long.
**Yep, it takes a while to develop the tools necessary to do the investigations. Man believed the earth was flat for a good long time I believe. It took a long time for man to realize that doctors needed to sterilize instruments and themselves before operating, oh man can be quite obtuse some times. **
God created the Bible indirectly by inspiring men to write it.
Well he didnt inspire men to write a bible…we did that. He inspired people to convey accurately the theological truths about God, God’s entry into the world, and how Man should respond. We looked at a very large collection of these writings, and over time,decided that certain of them hung together to convey a coherent story. I assume God guided that as well.
Jesus guaranteed the truth of the Catholic faith.
**I think I know what you mean but what citation in the bible are you referring to for this? **
And I repeat why now?
**Why now what? **
Men could have gotten the point across about faith and salvation without writing anything about the beginnings. Where did they get this information contained in Genesis?
**There were lots of beginnings stories floating around. The two creation stories had both been orally transmitted for I think at least a thousand years before they were formally written down I believe during the babylonian exile. Given the stress of those times, one can surely understand why the faithful hebrews attempted to get it down for once and for all on paper. **
It could have been so much simpler. ie.
In the begining God made everything. Man and women formed. Early man sinned against God. Because of this they had to die…etc…
**Yep, simple but people like stories. Its what they are used to. You always like a good teacher who can tell a good story better than the one who reads the dry words don’t you? These stories were full of suspense, intrigue, danger, fear, joy, relief…and people were undoubtedly spellbound AND learned the theological truth that was offered. **
When you thing about it in context there is an awful lot of explanation and detail. There has to be a harmonization.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The Church guides the Body of Christ in all things, scientific and spiritual.
Cardinal Ratzinger: “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9968
Time to read it Ed. Its a bit newer, just said it in July…
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Sideline writes:
It depends on how one defines a “scientific term”. Normally it is one used by scientists. In this context Cardinal Ratzinger in his book "Truth and Tolerance quoted the words of two evolutionary scientists Szathmary and J.M. Smith from:…the terms micro- and macro-evolution aren’t scientific terms. It is an artificial distinction dreamed up by those who realize that changes occur over time, but don’t want to accept the processes of evolution.
The citation from the Pope’s then Cardinal R’s book was(“The Major Evolutionary Transitions,” Nature 374:227-32, quoted in Junker and Scherer, Evolution, p.5)
Responding to my words:Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which points Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of the all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: “There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.”
Sideline says:Quote:
The distinction between invisible things as spiritual and corporal is proof that the dogma is not referring to just “matter”.
Prove it. As far as I can tell. This is something that you just decided independently and arbitrarily.An invisible spiritual substance : soul.The contribution to the Council defintion by Vatican I was:An invisible corporal substance : an electron
The whole substance of a corporal thing is the body complete with all its parts including electrons.If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing - let him be anathema (canon 5).
He continues:
Catholics accept the domatic teaching of the Church as infallible and binding for their salvation.…if the Church really did infallibly declare that you can not believe evolution, then they were really, really, really stupid to do so, because they would have been just dead wrong.
Peter
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, but you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the teaching. Or at a minimum you have to agree that you differ from the current Pope on this issue, because he called the idea that Catholic faith cannot accomate evolution absurd. Do you think that he is misreading Latern IV? Or that he is deliberately distorting it? Because if you accept him as Pope, there are only 3 ways to reconcile your position with his – either he does not understand the Church’s teaching on this issue, or he understands the teaching but is deliberately misrepresenting it. So which one is it?Catholics accept the domatic teaching of the Church as infallible and binding for their salvation.
O
Orogeny
Guest
If I teach that evolution, even evolution guided by God, is true, am I a heretic?My reply is still “No” because since he now knows, as a Catholic he has not that liberty. He is now aware that Lateran IV and evolution theory are incompatable. I believe that many clerics do not know of the incompatibility because it has not been pointed out to them.
Peter
Peace
Tim
S
Sideline
Guest
Er… the quote about macro-evolution and micro-evolution came from Ratzinger who is a theologian not a biologist.It depends on how one defines a “scientific term”. Normally it is one used by scientists. In this context Cardinal Ratzinger in his book "Truth and Tolerance quoted the words of two evolutionary scientists Szathmary and J.M. Smith from:
The quote from the scientists:
Makes no mention of macro-evolution or micro-evolution.“There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.”
On to the point about Vatican I.
This is the teaching of the Church.If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing - let him be anathema (canon 5).
This is your interpretation.The whole substance of a corporal thing is the body complete with all its parts including electrons.
Teaching of the Church.If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing - let him be anathema (canon 5).
Your interpretation.The whole substance of a corporal thing is the body complete with all its parts including electrons.
Yes, so thank goodness they didn’t say something as patently stupid as: “You must believe that the Universe, the Earth, and every living thing on it was created in six days, in its current form, if you want to go to heaven.”Catholics accept the domatic teaching of the Church as infallible and binding for their salvation.
Because it would have been tantamount to saying, “You must believe a falsehood to go to heaven.” Luckily, they didn’t.
E
edwest2
Guest
“patently stupid”? That is only your characterization. Catholics are allowed to believe that.
The correct Catholic answer to the issue is a two part one. Science and divine providence working in all processes. However, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Part 69, Human Persons Created in the Image of God.
It does not matter that the Pope is not a scientist, he advises Catholics as regards the Church’s position on many scientific issues.
God bless,
Ed
The correct Catholic answer to the issue is a two part one. Science and divine providence working in all processes. However, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Part 69, Human Persons Created in the Image of God.
It does not matter that the Pope is not a scientist, he advises Catholics as regards the Church’s position on many scientific issues.
God bless,
Ed
S
Sideline
Guest
Yes, it is my characterization. Well spotted.“patently stupid”? That is only your characterization.
Read what I wrote. They aren’t. Catholics are not free to believe that it is a necessary belief of the Catholic Church that one must believe in a 6 day creation. The average Catholic can not decide matters of faith and morality for the Church…Catholics are allowed to believe that.
They are allowed to believe that there was a 6 day creation. They are also allowed to believe in the Loch Ness monster and the abominable snowman. They are mistaken if they believe that it is necessary tenet of the faith. I never said that believing in a 6 day creation was patently stupid (I just implied it). I said it would have been stupid of the Church to make it a tenet of the faith.
Science doesn’t work in any processes. Science isn’t a force or a natural effect. Science is the study of natural processes. That is like saying that Theology created the world.The correct Catholic answer to the issue is a two part one. Science and divine providence working in all processes. However, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Part 69, Human Persons Created in the Image of God.
Evolution isn’t an ideology, it is a biological theory. If you have a bone to pick with people who say that Evolution proves there is no God. Fine, you are right. Science doesn’t prove there is no God. It can’t. It doesn’t say anything about variables that it does not consider. God is as appropriate in a scientific study of biology as he is in a scientific discussion of gravity or electricity. “God made electricity” isn’t a scientific statement, it is a religious one. It deals with faith. “God directs evolutionary processes” isn’t a scientific statement, it is a religious view of the natural process found in nature.
Do you actually expect textbooks on physics to say, “God created the universe in such a way that matter is neither created or destroyed.” Or God willed that energy should be equal to matter times the speed of light squared"?
Why do you expect biology textbooks to say that? Science isn’t in the business of catering to your sensibilities.
Benedict doesn’t say that evolution and Catholicism are incompatible (recently he said that such notions are absurd). He said that evolution must be driven by God.
Random mutations mean unpredictable and non-patterned mutations. It isn’t incompatible with faith in God or God-driven evolution. But until Benedict presents his evidence for God-driven evolution, it isn’t a scientific theory it’s a matter of faith.
I find it interesting that saying “that is a matter of faith” bothers Catholic and Christians so much. Why are they so concerned that their beliefs aren’t a science?
This point is, as usual I’m afraid, totally irrelevant to the point I was making.It does not matter that the Pope is not a scientist, he advises
Catholics as regards the Church’s position on many scientific issues.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
“patently stupid”? That is only your characterization. Catholics are allowed to believe that.
**Okay, lets say that is correct. Catholics are allowed to believe that.Why would any Catholic want to when it is unnecessary and makes both the believer and the Church by reflection appear naive, uninformed, living in the dark ages? I can understand if you are a fundamentalist, you have nothing to fall back on…the scriptures must be exactly correct in every tittle as they say. But you are Catholic. You need not limit yourself to such a narrow and logically untenable position. So I am at a loss why anyone given the choice and both being sanctioned by the Church, why why would anyone choose creationism? **
E
edwest2
Guest
You are free to believe that science is over here and religion is over there. You should understand that for believers, the two are regarded in an integrated fashion. In fact, even non-religious people hold certain beliefs along with any science they may know.Yes, it is my characterization. Well spotted.
Read what I wrote. They aren’t. Catholics are not free to believe that it is a necessary belief of the Catholic Church that one must believe in a 6 day creation. The average Catholic can not decide matters of faith and morality for the Church…
They are allowed to believe that there was a 6 day creation. They are also allowed to believe in the Loch Ness monster and the abominable snowman. They are mistaken if they believe that it is necessary tenet of the faith. I never said that believing in a 6 day creation was patently stupid (I just implied it). I said it would have been stupid of the Church to make it a tenet of the faith.
Science doesn’t work in any processes. Science isn’t a force or a natural effect. Science is the study of natural processes. That is like saying that Theology created the world.
Evolution isn’t an ideology, it is a biological theory. If you have a bone to pick with people who say that Evolution proves there is no God. Fine, you are right. Science doesn’t prove there is no God. It can’t. It doesn’t say anything about variables that it does not consider. God is as appropriate in a scientific study of biology as he is in a scientific discussion of gravity or electricity. “God made electricity” isn’t a scientific statement, it is a religious one. It deals with faith. “God directs evolutionary processes” isn’t a scientific statement, it is a religious view of the natural process found in nature.
Do you actually expect textbooks on physics to say, “God created the universe in such a way that matter is neither created or destroyed.” Or God willed that energy should be equal to matter times the speed of light squared"?
Why do you expect biology textbooks to say that? Science isn’t in the business of catering to your sensibilities.
Benedict doesn’t say that evolution and Catholicism are incompatible (recently he said that such notions are absurd). He said that evolution must be driven by God.
Random mutations mean unpredictable and non-patterned mutations. It isn’t incompatible with faith in God or God-driven evolution. But until Benedict presents his evidence for God-driven evolution, it isn’t a scientific theory it’s a matter of faith.
I find it interesting that saying “that is a matter of faith” bothers Catholic and Christians so much. Why are they so concerned that their beliefs aren’t a science?
This point is, as usual I’m afraid, totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
My point is, what I believe is what I believe. I do not speak for anyone else, just myself.
I am uninterested in promoting science but I am interested about why this particular matter has inspired such a ‘fire brigade’ response. It does not interest me that some people put on a cape and perform a ritual at the solstices.
In any case, your seemingly intense concern that Catholics should see things your way puzzles me.
God bless,
Ed
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Sideline writes:
The point is that the Lateran IV dogma is all-embracing. It refers to all things visible, in the sense of corporal in their whole material substance (i.e. all their material parts; thus including electrons), and invisible in their whole spiritual substance in abstraction of anything material.
You conclude
You are, of course free to disagree with the wording but one would expect a good reason. To say, however, that the authors were stupid and dead wrong amounts to lining yourself up against the Council Fathers and Pope Innocent who signed it, as well as the Church Fathers whose teaching it reflected.
Peter
You are right, but many scientists agree with the Cardinal, such as Steven Stanley, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. Mark Ridley in his book 2004. Evolution. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Pub. wrote:…the quote about macro-evolution and micro-evolution came from Ratzinger who is a theologian not a biologist.
You say it is my interpretation that:Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population … Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution … or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion … Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution. (Source “Macroevolution Its Definition, Philosophy and History”
by John Wilkins)
I agree, but it is an informed one based upon Scholastic theology definition of whole substance. If you disagree I should be interested to have your reason?The whole substance of a corporal thing is the body complete with all its parts including electrons.
The point is that the Lateran IV dogma is all-embracing. It refers to all things visible, in the sense of corporal in their whole material substance (i.e. all their material parts; thus including electrons), and invisible in their whole spiritual substance in abstraction of anything material.
You conclude
The words of the dogmatic decree on Creation are without ambiguity, as of course must be the case for all doctrinal declarations.…if the Church really did infallibly declare that you can not believe evolution, then they were really, really, really stupid to do so, because they would have been just dead wrong.
You are, of course free to disagree with the wording but one would expect a good reason. To say, however, that the authors were stupid and dead wrong amounts to lining yourself up against the Council Fathers and Pope Innocent who signed it, as well as the Church Fathers whose teaching it reflected.
Peter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.