Thank God for Evolution!

[wildleafblower]

Every Single ONe of US has said we Believe God is the Creator of all things.

and

I think you don’t really understand what theology is from science.

Yes SpiritMeadow, I do understand the difference between theology and science. I am not a creationist though your first statement may imply such it simply means, “In creating the universe God created time. From him comes the beginning of time, as well as all its later unfolding. . .Time therefore is God’s gift. Continuously created by God, it is in his hands. He guides its unfolding according to his plan. Every day is a gift of divine love for us."
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01101998_p-10_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01101998_p-10_en.html
(p.s.)There aren’t any creationists in the Vatican any longer .

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

HUMMM

wildleafblower, thank you for those quotes. They were very informative.

By the way, is something like this what you were referring to when you mentioned pantheism before?

I will note in advance that there are many things on this web site that I do not agree with.

I’m just seeking a deeper clarification of your opinions regarding the connection between the intelligent design movement and pantheism-- and I thought this would be a good place to start.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m just seeking a deeper clarification of your opinions regarding the connection between the intelligent design movement and pantheismt.

Like oil and water.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Like oil and water.

At least I’m taking the time to address questions that are raised.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony continues making interesting points. He says:

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

The purpose of a partial quotation is to focus on the point under discussion. If, in doing so, a material point is omitted, this would, of course, be reprehensible. This was certainly neither the case nor the intention. I can understand your accusation because it is based upon a translation that was not from an official source. Mine was from Denzinger (DZ 428) a source usually accepted as reliable in the Church. Moreover, (the translation of) the word simul missing from your text, is an integral part of the original Latin:

Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium:qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.

The CCC gives the English translation as:

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made **at once **(simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”

Neil_Anthony continues:

The creation of man isn’t even part of what you are claiming was ‘at once’, it is another phase.

Just a reminder of my partial quotation:

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,

The full text reads:

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, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body

The words “God…creator of all visible and invisible things” must logically embrace everything including man. You will see that the Dezinger translation puts a semi-colon after the word “coporal” (following the Latin original) in the opening phrase. It thus becomes an opening premise which is developed and explained by the ongoing text.

He also writes:

[SIGN]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[/SIGN]

Agreeing that all created things were created without second causes ‘ipso facto’ precludes evolution, i.e. one thing or essence causing a new kind or transforming into another essence, as for instance a bird into a dinosaur. This would mean first, that during the intervening period (e.g .millions of years between bird to dinosaur) there were no physical or natural laws in operation as they didn’t start until creation was finished (Seventh Day), and second that God communicated to one created essence the ability to create another. But St. Thomas says this cannot be:

[SIGN]…the proper effect of God creating is what is presupposed in all other effects, and that is absolute being (existence). Hence, nothing else can act dispositively and instrumentally to this effect, since creation is not from anything presupposed, which can be disposed by the action of the instrumental agent. So therefore it is impossible for any creature to create, either by its own power, or instrumentally – that is, ministerially. And above all it is absurd to suppose that a body can create, for no body acts except by touching or moving; and thus it requires in its action some pre-existing thing which can be touched or moved – which is contrary to the very idea of creation.
…no created being can cause anything, unless something is presupposed; which is the very idea of creation. (ST, I, Q 45, a 5)[/SIGN]

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Peter,
I apologize for accusing you of inserting words into the translation, when in fact it was the catechism that used a different translation than I was using, and put the Latin terms in parentheses.

He also writes:

[SIGN]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[/SIGN]

Agreeing that all created things were created without second causes ‘ipso facto’ precludes evolution, i.e. one thing or essence causing a new kind or transforming into another essence, as for instance a bird into a dinosaur. This would mean first, that during the intervening period (e.g .millions of years between bird to dinosaur) there were no physical or natural laws in operation as they didn’t start until creation was finished (Seventh Day), and second that God communicated to one created essence the ability to create another. But St. Thomas says this cannot be:

[SIGN]…the proper effect of God creating is what is presupposed in all other effects, and that is absolute being (existence). Hence, nothing else can act dispositively and instrumentally to this effect, since creation is not from anything presupposed, which can be disposed by the action of the instrumental agent. So therefore **it is impossible for any creature to create, either by its own power, or instrumentally **-- that is, ministerially. And above all it is absurd to suppose that a body can create, for no body acts except by touching or moving; and thus it requires in its action some pre-existing thing which can be touched or moved – which is contrary to the very idea of creation.
…no created being can cause anything, unless something is presupposed; which is the very idea of creation. (ST, I, Q 45, a 5)[/SIGN]

When a species comes to be from an earlier species, by processes of evolution, I don’t see the “natural laws” or “evolution” as a secondary cause. The new species was still created by God, because God created not only the “pre-existing thing”, but the natural laws, and God guides the process. It is all the work of God.

I think the quote from St. Thomas actually supports the position of theistic evolution. When St. Thomas says that it is impossible for any creature to create, he is saying that evolutionary processes and intermediate species are not second causes. They can not be second causes in creation. God has control of the entire process.

I suspect that we disagree because you have the notion that natural laws are independant forces that work without God. I see all the natural laws as the work of God… even when I drop something and it falls on the floor, I understand that as God moving the object to the floor. Gravity is just the name we give to this predictable behaviour to help us understand what God is doing. Science can ‘explain’ it only because God is so dependable, and therefore predictable.

 

[TMC]

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

I haven’t had time to fully digest Spe Salvi, but hope and the continual renewal, discovery, and advancement of the Faith by each generation are both discussed. Here is a quote:

Let us ask once again: what may we hope? And what may we not hope? First of all, we must acknowledge that incremental progress is possible only in the material sphere. Here, amid our growing knowledge of the structure of matter and in the light of ever more advanced inventions, we clearly see continuous progress towards an ever greater mastery of nature. Yet in the field of ethical awareness and moral decision-making, there is no similar possibility of accumulation for the simple reason that man’s freedom is always new and he must always make his decisions anew. These decisions can never simply be made for us in advance by others—if that were the case, we would no longer be free. Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning. Naturally, new generations can build on the knowledge and experience of those who went before, and they can draw upon the moral treasury of the whole of humanity. But they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions. The moral treasury of humanity is not readily at hand like tools that we use; it is present as an appeal to freedom and a possibility for it.

 

[wildleafblower]

I haven’t had time to fully digest **Spe Salvi, **but hope and the continual renewal, discovery, and advancement of the Faith by each generation are both discussed. Here is a quote:

Well, I stick with this:

SPE SALVI, THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL ON CHRISTIAN HOPE

VATICAN CITY, NOV 30, 2007 (VIS) - Benedict XVI’s second Encyclical, “Spe Salvi” which is dedicated to the theme of Christian hope, was published today. The document - which has an introduction and eight chapters - begins with a quote from the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans: “spe salvi facti sumus” (in hope we are saved).

[snip]

Christ makes us truly free. “We are not slaves of the universe” or of “the laws of matter and of evolution.” We are free because “heaven is not empty,” because the Lord of the universe is God “Who in Jesus has revealed Himself as Love.”

Christ is the “true philosopher” Who “tells us who man truly is and what a man must do in order to be truly human.” He shows us “the way beyond death; only someone able to do this is a true teacher of life.” He offers us a hope that is, at one and the same time, expectation and presence because “the fact that this future exists changes the present.”

The Pope remarks that “perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. … The present-day crisis of faith,” he continues, “is essentially a crisis of Christian hope. … The restoration of the lost Paradise is no longer expected from faith,” but from technical and scientific progress whence, it its believed, the “kingdom of man” will emerge. Hope thus becomes “faith in progress” founded on two pillars: reason and freedom which “seem to guarantee by themselves, by virtue of their intrinsic goodness, a new and perfect human community.”

[snip]

The Pope then identifies four “settings” for learning and practicing hope. The first of these is prayer. “When no one listens to me any more, God still listens to me. … When there is no longer anyone to help me, … He can help me.”

Alongside prayer is action: “Hope in a Christian sense is always hope for others as well. It is an active hope, in which we struggle … towards a brighter and more humane world.” Yet only if I know that “my own life and history in general … are held firm by the indestructible power of Love” can “I always continue to hope.”

Suffering is another of the “settings” for learning hope. “Certainly we must do whatever we can to reduce suffering,” however “it is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, Who suffered with infinite love.” Another fundamental aspect is to suffer with others and for others. “A society unable to accept its suffering members … is a cruel and inhuman society,” he writes.

Finally, another setting for learning hope is the Judgement of God. “There is a resurrection of the flesh. There is justice. There is an ‘undoing’ of past suffering, a reparation that sets things aright.” The Pope writes of his conviction “that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favor of faith in eternal life.” It is, indeed, impossible “that the injustice of history should be the final word. … God is justice and creates justice. … And in His justice there is also grace. … Grace does not cancel out justice. … Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened.”
ENC/SPE SALVI/…VIS 071130 (1160)
212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a1_en.htm
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a1_en.htm

(p.s. Mr. Ex Nihilo, I’ll have to get back to you tomorrow but in the meantime think about Christology and how the Intelligent Design Movement has panenthesits and pantheists which use it as a claim for them to be part of the Roman Catholic Church which is the ‘universal church of Jesus’. I.D. isn’t just made up of YEC any longer. ID is moving into a second phase unfortunately. We haven’t heard the last of them.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

and

Yes SpiritMeadow, I do understand the difference between theology and science. I am not a creationist though your first statement may imply such it simply means, “In creating the universe God created time. From him comes the beginning of time, as well as all its later unfolding. . .Time therefore is God’s gift. Continuously created by God, it is in his hands. He guides its unfolding according to his plan. Every day is a gift of divine love for us."
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01101998_p-10_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01101998_p-10_en.html
(p.s.)There aren’t any creationists in the Vatican any longer .

Wildleafblower, the above post of mine you refer to was not addressed to you, so you have no need to defend yourself. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony responds:

When a species comes to be from an earlier species, by processes of evolution, I don’t see the “natural laws” or “evolution” as a secondary cause. The new species was still created by God, because God created not only the “pre-existing thing”, but the natural laws, and God guides the process. It is all the work of God.

This comes back to the simultaneity of creation decreed by Lateran IV. Beings created at the same time in their whole substance cannot logically be the result of one transforming into another.

Natural laws are necessary for birds to fly and fish to swim (aerodynamics and hydraulics respectively). These and all the other physical laws were created by God to govern all he had brought into existance at the start of the period of Providence (from the Seventh Day). Prior, was the period of Creation during which all the various kinds or types of living things were brought into being. It was a metaphysical period in which God exercised his omnipotent power to maintain his creations without generation. Procreation began when creation was completed.

He continues:

When St. Thomas says that it is impossible for any creature to create, he is saying that evolutionary processes and intermediate species are not second causes. They can not be second causes in creation. God has control of the entire process.

Let’s take the creation of man as an example. The following reasoning shows no prior species (or evolutionary processes) could be involved in his creation.

The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God…Now God, though He is absolutely immaterial, can alone by His own power produce matter by creation : He alone can produce a form in matter without the the aid of any preceding material form…therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God (ST, I, Q 91, a 2)

He concludes:

I suspect that we disagree because you have the notion that natural laws are independant forces that work without God. I see all the natural laws as the work of God… .

Yes, if God interfered with the process he has put into operation, science would be impossible and we would all be faced wth the unpredictable. The laws he created on the Seventh Day are reliable and although they need no divine intervention, they are nevertheless dependent on their creator.

But I cannot agree when you say:

…even when I drop something and it falls on the floor, I understand that as God moving the object to the floor. Gravity is just the name we give to this predictable behaviour to help us understand what God is doing.

Yes God is always in control whilst remaining transcendant to his creation. To say he is actually the driver or mover is a touch too close to pantheism to accept.

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This comes back to the simultaneity of creation decreed by Lateran IV. Beings created at the same time in their whole substance cannot logically be the result of one transforming into another.

I interpret the quote from Lateran IV as saying that spiritual and corporeal “orders of creatures” were created at the same time. This doesn’t mean that every single creature had to be created right at that instant. It says that humans were created after the initial simultaneous creation of the “orders of creatures”:
"CCC 327:

The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”

I suppose one could also interpret it to mean that humans were made immediately after, or 5 days after, but why would you choose to interpret it that way, when it can be interpreted the way that the Popes interpret it? Are you perhaps reading more into it than it meant to convey, and tying the hands of today’s leaders of the church when it isn’t necessary?

Natural laws are necessary for birds to fly and fish to swim (aerodynamics and hydraulics respectively). These and all the other physical laws were created by God to govern all he had brought into existance at the start of the period of Providence (from the Seventh Day). Prior, was the period of Creation during which all the various kinds or types of living things were brought into being. It was a metaphysical period in which God exercised his omnipotent power to maintain his creations without generation. Procreation began when creation was completed.

What is your basis for theorizing that there was a distinct Period of Creation followed by Period of Providence? Who says it happened like that rather than mixing up creation with providence like in theistic evolution? Where did you get this terminology from?

Let’s take the creation of man as an example. The following reasoning shows no prior species (or evolutionary processes) could be involved in his creation.

The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God…Now God, though He is absolutely immaterial, can alone by His own power produce matter by creation : He alone can produce a form in matter without the the aid of any preceding material form…therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God (ST, I, Q 91, a 2)

St. Thomas is using the terminology of the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato here.

Platonic Forms: The pure objects of mathematical and dialectical knowledge. In the vigorous realism of Plato’s middle dialogues, necessary truths are taken to involve knowledge of eternal, unchanging Forms (or Ideas).

He says that God alone can produce the form for a new species, and that it can’t be created from a previous species. Theistic evolution doesn’t claim that a previous species of ape ‘created’ man’s form. God created man’s form, whether he built the first man from dust of the earth or through evolution, God created that form.

Yes, if God interfered with the process he has put into operation, science would be impossible and we would all be faced wth the unpredictable. The laws he created on the Seventh Day are reliable and although they need no divine intervention, they are nevertheless dependent on their creator.

Exactly. So even if those laws somehow played a role in building the first man, God still created that first man. Even moreso with the form of man, where natural laws played no role whatsoever.

Yes God is always in control whilst remaining transcendant to his creation. To say he is actually the driver or mover is a touch too close to pantheism to accept.
Peter

Is this the definition of pantheism you use:

Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract ‘god’ rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

If you accept this definition, then what I said about God ‘making things fall’ is not pantheism, because I am not limiting God to the role of carrying out natural laws. The natural laws are only one of the many things God does.

 

[buffalo]

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?

There has been a 40 year adult Catechesis gap in the US.

I want the schools to reinforce the truth. The truth is the truth is the truth. Teach it in all schools.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There has been a 40 year adult Catechesis gap in the US.

I want the schools to reinforce the truth. The truth is the truth is the truth. Teach it in all schools.

Who do you blame for this gap? and what truth do you propose?

 

[buffalo]

Who do you blame for this gap? and what truth do you propose?

The ultimate truth.

I blame the poor Catechesis on a watered down pastoral approach to preaching and day to day issues.

 

[drpmjhess]

Who do you blame for this gap? and what truth do you propose?

SpiritMeadow, you make a good point. Because I’ve been participating in parishes served by fine priests since I became a Catholic in 1959, and since my children go to a Catholic school, I’ve no real personal experience with this “catechesis gap.”

However, I have indirect evidence from the number of people I meet who still don’t realize that one can be a Catholic and accept biological evolution, and who still don’t realize that there are environmental problems that demand of us a Catholic theological response. (I’ve met conservatives who honestly believe that global warming is a liberal atheist myth!)

We are heading for a cliff in terms of petroleum availability (probably by 2012) with no workable plans to replace the thousand barrels of oil we burn every second (1000barrels.com/)). I am working to catechize Catholics I know to issues such as these and the theological response they require. Our parish has a vibrant adult theological education program, both on issues of social justice and on questions of doctrine. So on the whole, I’m positive about the state of catechesis in the Church.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

SpiritMeadow, you make a good point. Because I’ve been participating in parishes served by fine priests since I became a Catholic in 1959, and since my children go to a Catholic school, I’ve no real personal experience with this “catechesis gap.”

However, I have indirect evidence from the number of people I meet who still don’t realize that one can be a Catholic and accept biological evolution, and who still don’t realize that there are environmental problems that demand of us a Catholic theological response. (I’ve met conservatives who honestly believe that global warming is a liberal atheist myth!)

We are heading for a cliff in terms of petroleum availability (probably by 2012) with no workable plans to replace the thousand barrels of oil we burn every second (1000barrels.com/). I am working to catechize Catholics I know to issues such as these and the theological response they require. Our parish has a vibrant adult theological education program, both on issues of social justice and on questions of doctrine. So on the whole, I’m positive about the state of catechesis in the Church.

Petrus

The survey says - 85% of Catholics contracept.

You thinks it’s because of obstinance or they just haven’t had the complete Catholic explanation?

 

[drpmjhess]

The survey says - 85% of Catholics contracept. You thinks it’s because of obstinance or they just haven’t had the complete Catholic explanation?

Most of the Catholic couples I know have between one and three children; two is the average at our school. I know that for most of them it is a matter of conscience: they understand the biological realities of the human carrying capacity of the Earth, and they have chosen to limit their family size to replacement rate. Whether they manage this through abstinence or other means is a matter for them and God alone. I don’t have a prurient interest of prying into what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Most of the Catholic couples I know have between one and three children; two is the average at our school. I know that for most of them it is a matter of conscience: they understand the biological realities of the human carrying capacity of the Earth, and they have chosen to limit their family size to replacement rate. Whether they manage this through abstinence or other means is a matter for them and God alone. I don’t have a prurient interest of prying into what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Petrus

What??? Carrying capacity of the earth? WOW!!!

This sort of goes against God’s command go forth and multiply.

It also goes way against putting our trust in God for He will provide.

I have not seen the command rescinded nor do I see God either in scripture or Tradition spelling out family size.

Uh NO!!! A properly formed conscience is required not a conscience of convenience.

Bottom line - you are making a case that we should limit the number of souls that will spend eternity with God.

 

[drpmjhess]

This sort of goes against God’s command go forth and multiply. I have not seen the command rescinded nor do I see God either in scripture or Tradition spelling out family size. Bottom line - you are making a case that we should limit the number of souls that will spend eternity with God.

“Go forth and multiply” served well in a time when the population of the earth was 500 million, and when the Hebrew people were struggling for existence in the geopolitical context of their large neighboring states in the Ancient Near Est. It reads very differently in 2007, when the earth’s population is approaching seven billion, at the same time that the era of cheap oil and gas necessary for feeding this population is ending. I leave it up to God how many “souls” God wants in heaven, but I don’t leave it up to God to do what we can to prevent billions from starving in the 21st century.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

“Go forth and multiply” served well in a time when the population of the earth was 500 million, and when the Hebrew people were struggling for existence in the geopolitical context of their large neighboring states in the Ancient Near Est. It reads very differently in 2007, when the earth’s population is approaching seven billion, at the same time that the era of cheap oil and gas necessary for feeding this population is ending. I leave it up to God how many “souls” God wants in heaven, but I don’t leave it up to God to do what we can to prevent billions from starving in the 21st century.

Petrus

So we know better than God what the planet can sustain? A woman who breast feeds for around three years will have between 4 and 12 children. God knows this and I believe He planned the earth pretty well. It is apparent you do not believe He did.

There is no question we need to be good stewards of the planet. However, we must use technology and goodwill to provide for those in need, not population control.

We need to work harder on this.