Thank God for Evolution!

[drpmjhess]

I don’t think the Canaanites were listening to Yahweh. Even the Hebrews barely listened to Him. So how could God lead the Canaanites away without violating their free will?

If God made more fertile land, wouldn’t some other nation have been living there already? That might have stopped the Exodus in its tracks.

No, I mean that God could have created unoccupied fertile land right in front of the Israelites for them to walk into. There would have been no need for the Israelites to engage in divinely-encouraged genocide.

I’m not sure what you mean by God “leading the Canaanites away without violating their free will” – lead them where? why? Canaan was their home. There was no more reason for God to lead them away from their home to make way for the Hebrews than for God to lead the Native Americans back across the Bering land bridge so as to free up real estate for Anglo Puritans to enter into and take over the promised land of the North American continent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, I mean that God could have created unoccupied fertile land right in front of the Israelites for them to walk into. There would have been no need for the Israelites to engage in divinely-encouraged genocide.

God likes to work in Mysterious Ways… often very subtly

I’m not sure what you mean by God “leading the Canaanites away without violating their free will” – lead them where? why? Canaan was their home. There was no more reason for God to lead them away from their home to make way for the Hebrews than for …

God favored the Hebrews because they were His people and He was their God. He used the Hebrews to bring salvation to the nations! That’s pretty fundamental stuff for a theologian to not know…

 

[buffalo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, the American Academy of Religion is the largest association of theological scholars in the world (it draws theologians from well beyond the US). It would be impossible to summarize the breadth and depth of the theological conversations in which it is engaged. At last week’s annual convention there were dozens of parallel sessions running all day long for four days; thousands of papers were presented and discussed.

Here is a link to the AAR’s Program Units, from which you can get a sense of the sorts of themes and theological issues discussed at annual conferences, both national and regional: aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Program_Units/default.asp

Petrus

What is the percentage of Bible alone Protestants in this group?

 

[edwest2]

SpiritMeadow writes:

1. Lateran IV was re-affirmed and clarified (Canon 5) by Vatican I (post Darwin) so for evolutionists it wasn’t that far back.
2. The Lateran IV dogma, far from being an encyclical, was a infallible doctrine that forms part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church. It provides the Church’s official definition of Creation.
3. Catholics believe in dogmas such as the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist which might require them to “suspend their natural reasoning”. As our salvation depends on them Catholics do not put them into question. Logically, the same applies to the entire deposit of the Faith. But when it comes to evolution, where natural reasoning is not challenged because it (evolution) is unproven there are many who demur. Yet the rationale is the same:

Peter

Hello Peter,

I agree with you. The current conflict involves a kind of ‘evangelization’ going on that is attempting to convince all Catholics that evolution must be true. The type of evolution being discussed involves what is being taught as a purely natural process - no God needed. While Pope Benedict has made the necessary causal link between evolution and God, I submit that few here see it that way.

What I am seeing is a promotion of rational naturalism that strictly rejects God and the Church as containing real knowledge. In part, it goes back to old arguments about whether the Church or science are the best sources of knowledge. While science has discovered and made many things, God Himself is the first cause, the wellspring of all that is. The emphasis has clearly shifted to science only, with God assuming a subordinate or marginal role.

The deposit of faith is forgotten as if it never existed. The constant, daily attempts to promote the theory of Evolution along with a philosophy that excludes God’s factual causal role leads me to one conclusion. The goal is not to educate but to confuse and further, appealing to a naturalistic rationality that acknowledges God with words but sweeps under the rug His divine revelation, the deposit of faith and the reality of miracles.

The ultimate goal, it appears to me, is to explain away the works of the Bible through purposely deceptive alternate interpretation and to finally denounce, as unreasonable, an ‘invisible man in the sky’ and to downgrade Jesus Christ to a nice guy who had a few good ideas, but the Son of God? No, no way.

I encourage you to continue poiinting out what the deposit of faith contains.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Dear Ed,
Could you please explain how evolution could possibly happen without God causing it to happen? It seems like you are proposing that evolution is a force of its own which can operate without God. This seems athiestic to me.

Neil

The constant, daily attempts to promote the theory of Evolution along with a philosophy that excludes God’s factual causal role leads me to one conclusion.
Ed

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony writes:

The Church Fathers allowed that there could be an intermediary, such as dust, used to create man, since that intermediary was also created by God from nothing. So whether the intermediary is dust or dust then slime then lower life forms then man, it’s the same thing. God created man from nothing, because he created everything from nothing, including the intermediaries. So evolution doesn’t contradict Lateran IV.

It is true, as you say, that God created all things from nothing including the elements of slime, earth and water through which he brought them into existence. He created them altogether at the beginning. Each thing spiritual and corporeal was created in its whole substance, i.e. its whole immutable being or essence, both in form and matter.

Biological evolution, however, requires everything to be produced over millions of years and not at the same time; that single-celled
living matter transforms into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. In creation there is no transformation each beng is immutable. The mechanism for the transformation is random chance, natural selection and mutation. In creation there is no change of essence, everything was produced in its entire being from non-existence. There is no chance, everything was intended by God. The contradiction is plain to see.

He continues:

Lateran IV doesn’t claim that everything was completed at the same time, in fact it allows for instantaneous creation, as per Augustine, or 6 day creation as per many of the Fathers, or a longer period.

Lateran IV states that God:

…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once (simul) from the beginning of time created each (utramque) 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 (DZ 428)

All things including the angels were created simul, translated as “at once”, “simultaneously”, “all together”, NOT “instantaneously” or “6 days”. Within the parameters of the wording “instantanously” or “six days” is allowed, but the council fathers precluded longer periods by insisting that everything was created “simul”.

He then writes:

Regarding the ‘constant flux’ in biology that concerns you: The fact that a child is not exactly the same as his parents does not mean that God didn’t create human beings.

The various stages a child passes through to become an adult are determined at conception; everything is programmed, there is no random chance or evolution involved; it is the opposite of “flux”.

Peter

 

[edwest2]

Dear Neil,

Open up a high school biology textbook. The theory of evolution works, in its entirety, through purely natural processes. I’m not saying that God should be added to biology texts, what I am saying is that I personally know people who have rejected God’s role in the development of life because the biology text shows how evolution occurred entirely on its own.

Imagine getting a phone call from a guy you grew up with, went to the same Catholic school and when you ask, “Do you believe in God?” He replies, “I believe in evolution.” That just throws God out the window and then it’s anything goes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Ed,
Are you trying to tell me that ‘natural processes’ are not the work of God?
I have news for you: everything in the universe, along with its natural laws would cease to exist the moment God stopped willing them into existence!
Neil

Dear Neil,

Open up a high school biology textbook. The theory of evolution works, in its entirety, through purely natural processes. I’m not saying that God should be added to biology texts, what I am saying is that I personally know people who have rejected God’s role in the development of life because the biology text shows how evolution occurred entirely on its own.

Imagine getting a phone call from a guy you grew up with, went to the same Catholic school and when you ask, “Do you believe in God?” He replies, “I believe in evolution.” That just throws God out the window and then it’s anything goes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Biological evolution, however, requires everything to be produced over millions of years and not at the same time;

It doesn’t have to be at the same time. Whether it’s in one instant, over 6 ‘days’ of work, or 6 longer periods of time, the point is that all was created by God at the beginning, i.e. before the story of mankind.

All things including the angels were created simul, translated as “at once”, “simultaneously”, “all together”, NOT “instantaneously” or “6 days”. Within the parameters of the wording “instantanously” or “six days” is allowed, but the council fathers precluded longer periods by insisting that everything was created “simul”.

Sorry, the fathers interpreted it as being either 6 literal days, instantaneous, or 6 longer periods of time. “Simul” does not have to mean in one instant, or in a short time. The Fathers did not preclude longer periods of time. This is evidenced by your lack of quotations from the Church Fathers.

 

[edwest2]

Neil,

I don’t know how much more plainly I can say it. People reject God entirely because evolution, in their mind, explains it all. God is not needed, not necessary. For some others, it only takes someone like Richard Dawkins on television to confirm that, Hey! I don’t have to believe in that pesky, inconveniet God anymore.

It’s all over the media. God? Pfft! Who needs God? I’ve got Rights! And I don’t want no God or religion interfering with my ability to do what I want to do. Also, in case you’ve missed it, atheism is all the rage in the United States right now. But somehow, people are sort of missing the fruit of this belief system - pornography, profanity, adultery, fornication… the list goes on.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I agree with Ed about the following.

No matter what when the kids come out of the chute they have been consistently taught emperical science. From this solid grounding the theories of science are interlaced.

The bottom line is that most believe in unguided evolution without God as a necessity because they cannot be taught about God in the classroom. Since parents protect and shield them from God thorugh the laws we have written what are they to conclude? Why of course, God is an option and certainly not important or true enough to be part of the currciluum.

The conclusion is evolution triumphs - God loses.

They then take this worldview with them into the world.

This my friends is what Ed is speaking of.

 

[edwest2]

That’s it. Thank you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Neil,

I don’t know how much more plainly I can say it. People reject God entirely because evolution, in their mind, explains it all. God is not needed, not necessary. For some others, it only takes someone like Richard Dawkins on television to confirm that, Hey! I don’t have to believe in that pesky, inconveniet God anymore.

It’s all over the media. God? Pfft! Who needs God? I’ve got Rights! And I don’t want no God or religion interfering with my ability to do what I want to do. Also, in case you’ve missed it, atheism is all the rage in the United States right now. But somehow, people are sort of missing the fruit of this belief system - pornography, profanity, adultery, fornication… the list goes on.

God bless,
Ed

Yep. No doubt that all of those things you list are the direct result of the teaching of evolution. Clearly, those evils entered the world with the publication of “Origin of Species”. Perhaps we should ban the teaching of evolution. Anyone up for a good biology book burning?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I agree with Ed about the following.

No matter what when the kids come out of the chute they have been consistently taught emperical science. From this solid grounding the theories of science are interlaced.

The bottom line is that most believe in unguided evolution without God as a necessity because they cannot be taught about God in the classroom. Since parents protect and shield them from God thorugh the laws we have written what are they to conclude? Why of course, God is an option and certainly not important or true enough to be part of the currciluum.

The conclusion is evolution triumphs - God loses.

They then take this worldview with them into the world.

This my friends is what Ed is speaking of.

I’m surprise at this, Buffalo.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

What is the percentage of Bible alone Protestants in this group?

Fairly small. Sola scriptura is a theology killer, like sola scriptura or sole Magisterie (do I have that ablative correct?). The theologians who participate in AAR are by and large represent mainstream Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and other faiths.
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

No book burning needed. As Catholics we need to observe the cause and effect relationship between: “As you can see, all of these processes occurred through purely natural means.” and Pope Benedict’s position that science/evolution and divine revelation combined gives us the complete answer, the correct answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Dear Ed,

There’s no reason to give up your faith just because modern science has shown that humans might have evolved from apes. The fact is that there is much evidence of God everywhere in nature. And even the process of evolution is so much more amazing and complex, in the physical sense, than what the creation accounts in Genesis describe.

It’s obvious even without evolution that God created the universe with ‘laws of nature’ that make things happen predictably. These laws of nature are evidence of God, rather than reason to disbelieve in Him.

If you’re looking for areas that are unexplainable to science, human consciousness is probably a good place to look. Biology will never be able to explain how human beings can be conscious. Each of us has proof in our own consciousness of the existence of our souls, a thing that exists beyond the realm of physics and biology.

Neil

Neil,

I don’t know how much more plainly I can say it. People reject God entirely because evolution, in their mind, explains it all. God is not needed, not necessary. For some others, it only takes someone like Richard Dawkins on television to confirm that, Hey! I don’t have to believe in that pesky, inconveniet God anymore.

It’s all over the media. God? Pfft! Who needs God? I’ve got Rights! And I don’t want no God or religion interfering with my ability to do what I want to do. Also, in case you’ve missed it, atheism is all the rage in the United States right now. But somehow, people are sort of missing the fruit of this belief system - pornography, profanity, adultery, fornication… the list goes on.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

No book burning needed. As Catholics we need to observe the cause and effect relationship between: “As you can see, all of these processes occurred through purely natural means.” and Pope Benedicts position that science/evolution and divine revelation combined gives us the complete answer, the correct answer.

God bless,
Ed

You reject evolution outright. Why do you keep using the Pope when he clearly accepts thiestic evolution? Are you not aware of this after all this time?

And, Ed, you should be happy to see a book burning if it would keep people from pornography, profanity, adultery, fornication…

Peace

Tim

 

[inthecloud]

BTW I’m reading Heshel Shanks compilation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and I read a article linking the tale of the Nephilim with the jewish conquest of Canaan.
The religious lesson, dead exist to make room for the living. So evolutionist.

 

[buffalo]

I’m surprise at this, Buffalo.

Peace

Tim

What specifically?