Thank God for Evolution!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Orogeny asks:
If instantaneous creation of everything has been infallibly declared, I am not at liberty, again as a faithful Catholic, to teach otherwise, am I?
No, but instantaneous creation of everthing has not been infallibly declared. The Lateran IV dogma refers to God creating:
…all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time…
The underlined expression is the translation of the Latin word simul. At once, or at the same time is not equivalent to the word instantaneous. It was St. Augustine who believed creation of all things was instantaneous. The Council wording allows for either instantaneous of six days.

Peter
Peter
 
The underlined expression is the translation of the Latin word simul. At once, or at the same time is not equivalent to the word instantaneous. It was St. Augustine who believed creation of all things was instantaneous. The Council wording allows for either instantaneous of six days.

Peter
Peter
But if it can be either instantaneous or six days, then why can’t evolution have occured over a symbolic six days?
 
Mr. Ex Nihilo asks:
But if it (Creation) can be either instantaneous or six days, then why can’t evolution have occured over a symbolic six days?
Biological evolution requires things to develop through multible separate stages (invertibrate to vertibrate and so on) over time, whereas the dogmatic texts under discussion state that all things were created at the same time in their whole substance at the beginning, from nothing i.e. without development. Whereas evolution depends upon secondary causes; Creation is by God independent of second causes.
God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who **by His own omnipotent power **at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing,
Peter
 
Yes, the media has been spreading vicious lies about the identity of Christians in the United States, “American Taliban,” “Radical Christianity,” and let’s not forget that we all really want to kill abortion doctors. But it is standard procedure in any conflict to demonize and to regard the enemy as somehow less than human, and in this case, less than rational.

This is also a way to sell “believe in evolution before it’s too late” by fear, which is neither accurate or scientific.

Let the Government go after the terrorists wherever they may be, but do not add fear to the marketing tools being used to promote evolution as science. This is a great example of, if it’s “just” science, why promote it like this?

God bless,
Ed
What on earth are you talking about?

“Do not add fear to the marketing tools being used to promote evolution as science”

Who do you think is doing this? Do you know why so many people keep promoting Evolutionary Theory? Because it’s true! It is the backbone of modern Biology. Not because of some atheistic conspiracy, but because nothing fits the evidence as well as it does.

Are there genes? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Do genes carry heritable information from generation to generation? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are there a variety of alleles within the population? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Does the allele frequency change over time? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are there pressures at work in nature that affect the allele frequency? Yes, there are limited resources for which species have to compete, and predation. Again, observable facts.

Are the changes to allele frequency predictable? Yes, the alleles that give the species a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency. (We call this natural selection. This is however not the only process that affects allele frequency, but the others are fairly well understood.)

Are there changes in the genes over time? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are the mutations predictable? No, they are random. (random = unpredictable. If you like, you can believe that the mutations are selected for by God and only appear random.)

Are all mutations bad? No, some are beneficial, and give the species a better chance of surviving.

Are all mutations equally likely to become predominant in the gene pool? Of course not. The ones that kill you before you can reproduce won’t be passed on, whereas the ones that increase your reproductive capacity can be passed on.

Do accumulated mutation and selective pressure lead to speciation? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Does this mean that people don’t have souls? That there is no morality? That there is no God? Nope. Science doesn’t speculate on the supernatural.
 
No, but instantaneous creation of everthing has not been infallibly declared. The Lateran IV dogma refers to God creating:

The underlined expression is the translation of the Latin word simul. At once, or at the same time is not equivalent to the word instantaneous. It was St. Augustine who believed creation of all things was instantaneous. The Council wording allows for either instantaneous of six days.

Peter
Peter
OK, replace “instantaneous” with “at once”. My questions still stand.

Peace

Tim
 
God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal;… by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.
This seems to contradict scripture, which says that man was created from dust, not from nothing. Also the first man was created on the 6th day, not at the beginning of time. And what about all the creatures which have been born since then, they were created much later.

What is it supposed to mean? I think we’re missing some context.
 
Mr. Ex Nihilo asks:

Biological evolution requires things to develop through multible separate stages (invertibrate to vertibrate and so on) over time, whereas the dogmatic texts under discussion state that all things were created at the same time in their whole substance at the beginning, from nothing i.e. without development. Whereas evolution depends upon secondary causes; Creation is by God independent of second causes.

Peter
If that’s the case, then why do the Scriptures even bother with the days of creation?

For that matter, why do they even mention Adam being created from the “dust of the earth” on the sixth day?

I’m not understanding your points that you’re addressing.
 
Orogeny writes:
OK, replace “instantaneous” with “at once”. My questions still stand.
His original question was:
If instantaneous creation of everything has been infallibly declared, I am not at liberty, again as a faithful Catholic, to teach otherwise, am I?
referring to my post:
At once, or at the same time is not equivalent to the word instantaneous. It was St. Augustine who believed creation of all things was instantaneous. The Council wording allows for either instantaneous of six days.
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
 
This idea could not be further from the truth. Evolution and the Bible are NOT compatible. God Created all things in 6 24 hour periods of time as recorded in Genesis. To say that Geneisi is not to be taken literally or that it is incorrect is to denegrate God’s precious Word. If Genesis is wrong then how much more of the Bible is incorrect?
 
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.
You are aware that these “many clerics” include the last six Popes?
 
Neil_Anthony writes:
This seems to contradict scripture, which says that man was created from dust, not from nothing.
The Magisterial text of Lateran IV rather than contradicting Scripture clarifies it. Man was “created” (Gen. 1:27) and “formed of the slime of the earth” (Gen. 2:7 Douay-Rheims). Things “created” are brought into existence from nothing, i.e. they did not exist before, through the intermediary of something; in this case the slime of the earth.The Church Fathers who interpreted Scripture gave it this explanation. The Council defintions are drawn from the tradtional interpretations.

He continues:
Also the first man was created on the 6th day, not at the beginning of time.
The Church Fathers referred to the “beginning” as the metaphysical period of creation which could be an instant according to St. Augustine ‘et al’ or six days according to the majority of the Fathers.

And ends with the question:
And what about all the creatures which have been born since then, they were created much later
One must distinguish here between the period of Creation during which everything was brought into existence by God alone, and that of pro-creation or multiplication of the living things that had been created.The latter, known as the period of Providence, started when God had ceased creating and governed everthing by means of natural or physical laws (secondary causes) that he brought into being for the purpose.

Peter
 
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
If that’s the case, then why do the Scriptures even bother with the days of creation?
For that matter, why do they even mention Adam being created from the “dust of the earth” on the sixth day?
My latest response to Neil_Anthony should answer these points.

Peter
 
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?
 
What on earth are you talking about?

“Do not add fear to the marketing tools being used to promote evolution as science”

Who do you think is doing this? Do you know why so many people keep promoting Evolutionary Theory? Because it’s true! It is the backbone of modern Biology. Not because of some atheistic conspiracy, but because nothing fits the evidence as well as it does.

Are there genes? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Do genes carry heritable information from generation to generation? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are there a variety of alleles within the population? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Does the allele frequency change over time? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are there pressures at work in nature that affect the allele frequency? Yes, there are limited resources for which species have to compete, and predation. Again, observable facts.

Are the changes to allele frequency predictable? Yes, the alleles that give the species a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency. (We call this natural selection. This is however not the only process that affects allele frequency, but the others are fairly well understood.)

Are there changes in the genes over time? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Are the mutations predictable? No, they are random. (random = unpredictable. If you like, you can believe that the mutations are selected for by God and only appear random.)

Are all mutations bad? No, some are beneficial, and give the species a better chance of surviving.

Are all mutations equally likely to become predominant in the gene pool? Of course not. The ones that kill you before you can reproduce won’t be passed on, whereas the ones that increase your reproductive capacity can be passed on.

Do accumulated mutation and selective pressure lead to speciation? Yes, it is an observable fact.

Does this mean that people don’t have souls? That there is no morality? That there is no God? Nope. Science doesn’t speculate on the supernatural.
Sadly you are wasting your time. ED has made it clear he is not interested in facts, only in returning the Church to some bygone era that he feels more comfortable with. He has in the end been reduced to calling us atheists who come here to undermine the Church. Of course it is he who is doing the undermining.

I just found this at CNA July 2007. Benedict can’t speak a whole lot more clearly that this American obsession with literalness regarding creation is as he calls it absurd.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9968

One wonders who here is the actual intentional perveyor of untruth!
 
This idea could not be further from the truth. Evolution and the Bible are NOT compatible. God Created all things in 6 24 hour periods of time as recorded in Genesis. To say that Geneisi is not to be taken literally or that it is incorrect is to denegrate God’s precious Word. If Genesis is wrong then how much more of the Bible is incorrect?
I guess Benedict JPII are heretics…how sad …
 
This idea could not be further from the truth. Evolution and the Bible are NOT compatible. God Created all things in 6 24 hour periods of time as recorded in Genesis. To say that Geneisi is not to be taken literally or that it is incorrect is to denegrate God’s precious Word. If Genesis is wrong then how much more of the Bible is incorrect?
When Jesus told people the parables, was he talking about a real prodigal son? Did he actually know a vintner that paid the first last and the last first, or a wedding guest that got tossed out for wearing the wrong garment?

Teaching stories have a long, long, long history. To say that it denigrates the word of God is to have a rather limited view of what the word of God really is.
 
Sadly you are wasting your time. ED has made it clear he is not interested in facts, only in returning the Church to some bygone era that he feels more comfortable with. He has in the end been reduced to calling us atheists who come here to undermine the Church. Of course it is he who is doing the undermining.
Thanks, I figured as much. I can’t understand a belief system that expects you to deny observable facts.
 
When Jesus told people the parables, was he talking about a real prodigal son? Did he actually know a vintner that paid the first last and the last first, or a wedding guest that got tossed out for wearing the wrong garment?

Teaching stories have a long, long, long history. To say that it denigrates the word of God is to have a rather limited view of what the word of God really is.
The Gospels clearly identify parables as such.
 
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.

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?

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.

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.

God bless,
Ed
 
The Gospels clearly identify parables as such.
I’m sorry, you’re right. Evolution must be bunk because the book of Genesis doesn’t have a footnote saying, “By the way, this is an allegory.” Too bad, it’s a brilliant theory otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top