Thank God for Evolution!

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

GGive me a site to where these evangelizing evolution promoters are. We are NOT" discussing a type of evolution as a purely natural process - no God needed" and you know it. Every Single ONe of US has said we Believe God is the Creator of all things. You continue to deceive in an attempt to promote Ed’s theology. You are most untrue and I can show you post after post to the contrary. Your hatred for those who appose your theology is horrifying. You are willing to call me an atheist and others here as well. Shame Shame ed. for God’s sake stop this misleading…

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.

**An outrageous untruth. NO ONE HERE HAS PROMOTED A REJECTION OF GOD. You need to apologize now for such horrible untruths. **

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.

OH God Ed how can you perpetrate such falsehood.

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.

**Its fascinating Ed you never mentioned the Lateran IV in all your posts. Someone who knows so much about what the church teaches should have known that, I assume…Or are you just grasping at any strawman ? This is sickening. Weeks of the same nonsense, and you can do nothing now but accuse your debate opponents of being atheists. Is that how a traditional Catholic operates? **

 

[TMC]

I watched a close friend of mine fall into atheism. He calmly told a visitor at his home, while I was only a few feet away, that he “didn’t believe in a book of fairy tales.”

I have known this person for over 25 years. We grew up in the same neighborhood.

Another good friend who I grew up with left his faith behind when he discovered the theory of evolution. It became his answer.

Fortunately, both came back to God. One, who realized that cells are too complex to have formed on their own. The other, through prayer, is now back with the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, I truly understand your concerns about the teaching of evolution leading to a denial of faith. I agree that some atheists point to science to back their arguments. But the real problem, in my opinion, is the insistence of some in holding to what I would call a fundamental view of Creation.

Most of my kids friends are Baptists. When those kids hit a certain age and start learning things in school that contradict the preacher they find themselves forced to believe the teacher or the preacher. That is not the teacher’s fault - its the preacher’s! He has created a false dichotomy that forces them to choose between Faith and reason.

But my kids didn’t have that crisis because they are Catholic. We don’t build false dichotomies. My kids knew that faith and reason could co-exist. They knew that evolution does not deny God, and that astronomy is not in conflict with the Bible. The fundamental view is strong, but it is brittle. It does not allow for reason and when faced with strong reasoning it will break. Faith and reason together are strong and supple. The cannot be broken.

I also fear that teaching science is dangerous to the Faith of some, but the answer is to improve their understanding of the Catholic Faith, not to shield them from the science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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 guess this greatly saddens me because it appears that some Catholics believe that the Church apparently doesn’t catechise nor do parents teach their children anything. You apparently believe its the schools responsibility to teach your children about religion. Are you sure you would be so happy if they did?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s a stupid analogy. Theologians deal with truth,and there is no theological progress beyond the knowledge of the ancient theologians. There is only technological,scientific progress which leaves behind theology and which is mistakenly thought of as an improvement on theological knowledge.

Are you saying there are no theologians today? That might come as a surprise to most of them. What do you think theologians are for? Just repeating? I think you don’t really understand what theology is from science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Neil,

I’m not sure what you know or don’t about the current state of evolution related research. Evolutionary Psychology tells us that it is our genetics (not God or the devil, as such) that make us do what we do. So, little Jimmy and Johnny are just victims of their genes. There was a post here recently about finding a genetic component for hedonism. None of this is proven but it must certainly be welcome news to the atheist who does not want God or His followers bothering him.

You put the emphasis on God, and that’s fine, but you seem to be entirely missing the fact that rationalistic naturalism is being promoted here with the goal of removing God from the picture entirely. Soon, the saying will be: There is no god, only science. I hope you address this aspect and not the God aspect which is under heavy fire by numerous groups

**It’s now time to tell us specifically with a post who here is promoting rationalistic naturalism. Be specific. You continue to accuse without naming names. The time has come. This person or persons have a right to know they are being accused and to respond. WHO ? If you don’t respond we can assume there is no one its just your continual misleading ranting. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I watched a close friend of mine fall into atheism. He calmly told a visitor at his home, while I was only a few feet away, that he “didn’t believe in a book of fairy tales.”

I have known this person for over 25 years. We grew up in the same neighborhood.

Another good friend who I grew up with left his faith behind when he discovered the theory of evolution. It became his answer.

Fortunately, both came back to God. One, who realized that cells are too complex to have formed on their own. The other, through prayer, is now back with the Catholic Church.

**Ahhh now it makes sense. You see yourself as having helped save them. We learned in Spain quite a long time ago that it was not a good thing to use any tactics to get conversions. Do you really think pushing a creationism theme in the long run is good for conversion? **

 

[drpmjhess]

Ahhh now it makes sense. You see yourself as having helped save them. We learned in Spain quite a long time ago that it was not a good thing to use any tactics to get conversions. Do you really think pushing a creationism theme in the long run is good for conversion?

Torquemada was wrong?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I truly understand your concerns about the teaching of evolution leading to a denial of faith. I agree that some atheists point to science to back their arguments. But the real problem, in my opinion, is the insistence of some in holding to what I would call a fundamental view of Creation.

Most of my kids friends are Baptists. When those kids hit a certain age and start learning things in school that contradict the preacher they find themselves forced to believe the teacher or the preacher. That is not the teacher’s fault - its the preacher’s! He has created a false dichotomy that forces them to choose between Faith and reason.

But my kids didn’t have that crisis because they are Catholic. We don’t build false dichotomies. My kids knew that faith and reason could co-exist. They knew that evolution does not deny God, and that astronomy is not in conflict with the Bible. The fundamental view is strong, but it is brittle. It does not allow for reason and when faced with strong reasoning it will break. Faith and reason together are strong and supple. The cannot be broken.

I also fear that teaching science is dangerous to the Faith of some, but the answer is to improve their understanding of the Catholic Faith, not to shield them from the science.

Thank you for your reply. When I listen to Catholic radio, I often hear about the Catholic faithful’s “amnesia” over the last 30 years and how so many Catholics, including older Catholics, need to be Catechized.

I actually lived through those 30 years in question. I watched as my strong Catholic community, which lived its faith daily, slowly succumbed to a subtle influence from without which eventually spread to the interior of the Church. I watched as certain groups gained the right to kill babies on demand, followed by another group that turned men and women, husbands and wives, against each other, then promoted a No-Fault exit from sacred matrimony, with more and more porn playing in the background. Gradually, living together, fornication, divorce, adultery and a lukewarm faith became the ‘norm.’

These groups found a way to break Catholic families apart and severely damaged the traditional source of Catholic teaching and Catholic example. You are right, but things, as they say, are different now. Without God as the true head and only one father or one mother or both needing to work, the young ones are only partly being raised, so they are more vulnerable. As Paul writes in Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

So, all of my fellow Catholics need to understand that Pope Benedict has combined the reason of science with the reason of faith. And some understand this correctly. But some insist that in no way is the reason of faith to be regarded as actual reason or as reasonable. The reality of the living God is also not regarded as real. The deposit of faith and the Teaching Authority of the Church are not regarded as a sacred trust but as malleable, changeable things as if men, not God, gave them to the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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”.

In fact the council of Vatican I further distanced the creation of humans from the creation of the other creatures by adding the word “thereafter”

He creates,
by an absolutely free plan,
together **from **the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing
the twofold created order, that is
the spiritual and the bodily,
the angelic and the earthly,
and **thereafter **the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The United Nations General Assembly defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II, 1951

This declaration was drawn up in large part to prevent another liquidation of an entire people as had been perpetrated by the Nazis. Ironically, by this definition, the Hebrews who burned entire cities and killed their inhabitants were engaging in genocide. They may have been acting no differently than others around them, but it was still genocide. And they may have justified it by constructing a theology of history in which “God” told them to do it, but it was still genocide. If God isn’t keen on genocide today, I doubt that God was keen on it in the twelfth century BCE.

Before I proceed, I need to know if you are still holding to Point 1 you posted before…

quote=drpmjhess that the Canaanites were any more a “horrible people” (neither using the term “El” nor participating in fertility rites are capital offenses), than the Hebrews who sacrificed their own children as did Jephthah and Abraham;
[/quote]

Do you accept that God allowed these same things to happen to Israel as well as the nations around Israel?

The reason why I ask is because this first part of your response seemed to be arguing, “Why didn’t God punish the Israelites like he did with the other nations around them? Why did God act so unfairly?”

My short answer is, “He did. The Isrealites did suffer just like the pagan nations around them did, and at God’s hand at that.”

And, consequently, I’ve provided ample Scriptural documentation to vindicate this. There is also ample archeological evidence to verify that God “did this” to his own “chosen people” too.

Do you agree with this?

If we have an agreement, then we’ll move to Point 2 you mentioned previously.

If not, then could please explain why you not agree?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

Then you should be qualified to tell me what evolution tells us about God.

This should be especially true since Vatican I specfically said that the same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

If God can indeed be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, and if evolution is the means by which God created living things, how does our consideration of evolution reveal to us with certainly how God can be known?

Indeed, if ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, and if evolution is the method by which God has made living things, then how do we clearly perceive God’s invisible nature in evolution?

I think these are valid questions that need to be addressed. And I’m sure the American Academy of Religion should be qualified enough to answer these questions too.

 

[anthony022071]

Are you saying there are no theologians today? That might come as a surprise to most of them. What do you think theologians are for? Just repeating? I think you don’t really understand what theology is from science.

No,I’m not saying that. I’m saying that theology does not progress beyond the truth found in the early theologians,the way that science progresses beyond earlier theories and practices.
It can’t,or it becomes heretical. Theologians can’t improve upon the full truth of the Church that has already found expression from the beginning. They can only elaborate on that truth.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony writes:

Referring to Lateran IV and its use of the word simul

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.

The council definition of Creation is specific:

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 creature from nothing,

There is no ambiguity, the Council declared that all things were created “at once” (simul). All things, including the “beginning”, were created together as part of the hexameron or creation period.

The words “by his own omnipotent power” affirm the absence of second causes, i.e. without which there is no evolution. God did it without help. St. Bonaventure, an authority on the teaching of Lateran IV, made the point that he wouldn’t disagree with St; Augustine that everything was created in an instant, but personally he preferred creation in Six Days because this is what the Scriptures say. The notion of “six longer periods” of time is absent from the text and is not coherent with the teaching. Logically, as nothing was created after the creation period, and God created all by his own divine power, and all things were created in their entire substance, why would God wait around. As St. Thomas wrote:

…God is said to have rested on the seventh day…**He ceased from creating new creatures on that day **(I Q.73 A.2)

Peter

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil-Anthony raises a good point.

In fact the council of Vatican I further distanced the creation of humans from the creation of the other creatures by adding the word “thereafter”

“He creates,
by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is
the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body”

Thereafter utramque in the Council wordings (both Lateran IV and Vatican I) indicates a chronology; first plants and animals then man. This is in accordance with Scripture and Tradition. It cannot, however, accomodate a gap of millions of years between rational and non-rational beings which infers reproduction having occurred. Creation is limited to the initial period of creation in which the prototypes were produced, whilst the multiplication of the original prototypes took place after creation was finished.

…God is said to have rested on the seventh day…He ceased from creating new creatures on that day (I Q.73 A.2)

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Peter,
Why would you resort to inserting your own words into the canons of the Lateran IV council, and truncating their sentences:

The council definition of Creation is specific:

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 creature from nothing,

Here is what Latera IV actually said:

who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common.

(reference: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)

Not only is the phrase “at once” missing, but if you allow us to continue reading, we see that the first portion you quoted did not even refer to human beings. Human beings are referred to only after the word “then”. Why would you add words and hide the part that referred to the creation of man, if not to hide from us that it was indicated to occur later? The creation of man isn’t even part of what you are claiming was ‘at once’, it is another phase.

The words “by his own omnipotent power” affirm the absence of second causes, i.e. without which there is no evolution. God did it without help.

We all agree on that. God did it without help, without any second causes. Everything that led up to mankind coming on the scene was completely the work of God. This makes me wonder if you have any idea at all what theistic evolution is. You should at least learn what it is before saying that the modern popes are in error!

St. Bonaventure, an authority on the teaching of Lateran IV, made the point that he wouldn’t disagree with St; Augustine that everything was created in an instant, but personally he preferred creation in Six Days because this is what the Scriptures say. The notion of “six longer periods” of time is absent from the text and is not coherent with the teaching. Logically, as nothing was created after the creation period, and God created all by his own divine power, and all things were created in their entire substance, why would God wait around. As St. Thomas wrote:
Peter

Why would St. Bonaventure have even considered longer periods of time… he didn’t know about modern scientific findings. However, his method shows a flexibility, in that he allowed for more than one interpretation.

And St. Thomas was working to reconcile church teaching and scripture with ancient greek philosophy. That’s great. If he were here today, he’d be trying to reconcile it with modern science, like the proponents of theistic evolution do. No one is saying that God had to ‘wait around’. God is outside time, he created it all, including the natural processes, and time itself. For all we know, he created the present first then the distant past afterwards, as an afterthought.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil-Anthony raises a good point.

Thereafter

utramque in the Council wordings (both Lateran IV and Vatican I) indicates a chronology; first plants and animals then man. This is in accordance with Scripture and Tradition. It cannot, however, accomodate a gap of millions of years between rational and non-rational beings which infers reproduction having occurred. Creation is limited to the initial period of creation in which the prototypes were produced, whilst the multiplication of the original prototypes took place after creation was finished.

Peter

Please provide a magesterial citation for your claim that this cannot accomodate a gap of millions of years.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Torquemada was wrong?

Now if I say he was, somehow I’ll have claimed that the Church made a mistake, and you know what will happen then. The church makes no mistakes, she “increases in her knowledge”. So a big fat NO COMMENT…

No,I’m not saying that. I’m saying that theology does not progress beyond the truth found in the early theologians,the way that science progresses beyond earlier theories and practices.
It can’t,or it becomes heretical. Theologians can’t improve upon the full truth of the Church that has already found expression from the beginning. They can only elaborate on that truth.

You just said the same thing again. So what do theologians do today? We in your view do not progress at all in our understanding of scripture or God? How do you define elaborate? Why would there be different types of theology then? Since they cannot add to our knowledge, but only what reflect it from different points of view? Isn’t that the same as making progress?

 

[drpmjhess]

Now if I say he was, somehow I’ll have claimed that the Church made a mistake, and you know what will happen then. The church makes no mistakes, she “increases in her knowledge”. So a big fat NO COMMENT…

So what do theologians do today? We in your view do not progress at all in our understanding of scripture or God? How do you define elaborate? Why would there be different types of theology then? Since they cannot add to our knowledge, but only what reflect it from different points of view? Isn’t that the same as making progress?

SpiritMeadow, the Church has made a lot of mistakes; all human institutions do. Christians have been butchering each other in the name of one institution or another for much of two millennia, although I’m hopeful that we are becoming more tolerant and understanding with passing years. Gay people used to be wrapped in bundles of sticks and used as fire starters for burning heretics (hence the origin of the term “******”). Lots of innocent people were executed as witches, or heretics, or just for being different. The Church doesn’t do that anymore, so I’m hopeful.

Theology is not a static but a dynamic enterprise, with later generations sifting, assessing, probing, assimilating, rejecting and otherwise accommodating the discoveries of each passing generation.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

No,I’m not saying that. I’m saying that theology does not progress beyond the truth found in the early theologians,the way that science progresses beyond earlier theories and practices.

Not true at all. If it were, we’d be stuck with the theological articulations of the first century.

 

[wildleafblower]

Now if I say he was, somehow I’ll have claimed that the Church made a mistake, and you know what will happen then. The church makes no mistakes, she “increases in her knowledge”. So a big fat NO COMMENT…
drpmjhess;3029827:

Torquemada was wrong?

**Ahhh now it makes sense. You see yourself as having helped save them. We learned in Spain quite a long time ago that it was not a good thing to use any tactics to get conversions. Do you really think pushing a creationism theme in the long run is good for conversion? **

HUMMM

and

You just said the same thing again. So what do theologians do today? We in your view do not progress at all in our understanding of scripture or God? How do you define elaborate? Why would there be different types of theology then? Since they cannot add to our knowledge, but only what reflect it from different points of view? Isn’t that the same as making progress?

SpiritMeadow, you appear to be admitting you are a theologian. Are you? These are the theologians for the Roman Catholic Church. I’ll enjoy the pleasure of their advise starting with Pope BENEDICT XVI:

**ORDINARY PUBLIC CONSISTORY
FOR THE CREATION OF NEW CARDINALS

EUCHARISTIC CONCELEBRATION WITH THE NEW CARDINALS AND PRESENTATION OF THE CARDINAL’S RING**

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

St Peter’s Basilica
Solemnity of Christ, King of the Universe
Sunday, 25 November 2007

Your Eminences,
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Solemnity of Christ, King of the Universe, the crown of the liturgical year, is enriched by the acceptance into the College of Cardinals of 23 new members whom, according to tradition, I have invited to concelebrate the Eucharist with me today. I address to each one of them my cordial greeting, which I extend with fraternal affection to all the Cardinals present. I am also pleased to greet the delegations from various countries and the Diplomatic Corps of the Holy See; the numerous Bishops and priests, the men and women Religious and all the faithful, especially those from Dioceses entrusted to the pastoral guidance of some of the new Cardinals.

The liturgical Feast of Christ the King gives our celebration an especially significant background, outlined and illuminated by the Biblical Readings. We find ourselves as it were facing an imposing fresco with three great scenes: at the centre, the Crucifixion according to the Evangelist Luke’s account; on one side, the royal anointing of David by the elders of Israel; on the other, the Christological hymn with which St Paul introduces the Letter to the Colossians. The whole scene is dominated by the figure of Christ, the one Lord before whom** we are all brothers and sisters. **The Church’s entire hierarchy, every charism and ministry, everything and everyone are at the service of his Lordship.
[snip-please read]
Dear Cardinal-Brothers, this Psalm expresses well the ardent love song for the Church that you certainly carry in your hearts. You have dedicated your life to the Church’s service, and now you are called to assume in her a duty of utmost responsibility. May the words of the Psalm find full acceptance in you: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”! (v. 6). Prayer for peace and unity constitutes your first and principal mission, so that the Church may be “solid and compact” (v. 3), a sign and instrument of unity for the whole human race (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 1). I place, or rather, let us all place your mission under the vigilant protection of the Mother of the Church, Mary Most Holy. To her, united to her Son on Calvary and assumed as Queen at his right hand in glory, we entrust the new Cardinals, the College of Cardinals and the entire Catholic community, committed to sowing in the furrows of history Christ’s Kingdom, the Lord of Life and Prince of Peace.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20071125_anello-cardinalizio_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...-xvi_hom_20071125_anello-cardinalizio_en.html