Thank God for Evolution!

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Pope Benedict wants a vigorous dialogue with science but it must be a science free of naturalist only explanations. For what then is there a place for God?

Presuming that they insist on naturalist only explanations it would seem to me that there is indeed no room for God in their man-made hell.

Evolutionists will also tell you that god and religion ‘evolved’ as a survival mechanism.

Are they correct? Did religion evolve over time? We do definitely see a sharp shift between the Hebrew’s and Christian’s Scriptures for example.

A useful fantasy before we had the brains and knowledge we have now. The atheist is pounding on the door of the Church, “We know everything now! We don’t need you anymore! Just stay in your buildings and quit bothering us!”

Rome tried to conquer us, and they converted. In fact many have attempted to conquer us, and most of them have converted too. Only the secularists and the Muslims and the denominations effectively remain now. Then the Jews, the ones who wish to be left alone.

Nonetheless, if “evolution” attempts to conquer the Church, I suspect that evolution will convert too. We’re still in the early stages right now.

Look at Romans 2:20

ok…lets’ look…at the whole thing in Romans 2:17-24

The two part answer is this: partly, whatever evidence of evolution as Pope Benedict has stated, and, in continuity with Humani Generis (as was Pope John Paul II), divine revelation that tells us of the sin of our first parents.

And yet the Theology of the Body displays something about God’s relationship with man simply by looking at the relationship between man and woman.

Does not this physical relationship reveal something spiritual about God?

Or does this require faith to see?

I tell you this brother, do not be anxious about this, which men speak of over and over and over, as those employed as town criers and advertisers, sent by others to convince you that a thing is true. If something is true, it needs no further advertising.

That’s not true. For if it were true we would not need preach the Gospel.

If a teenager can understand it, so can a man. But the snare is from those who proclaim only the science and allow not even the tiniest bit of light for the Light of the World.

If authentic science is an honest search for truth unchained from pre-supposation then science will lead toward God who is the source of all Truth.

Is this the same thing as scientism?

I don’t think it is but I would like to hear your words on this.

I’m not talking about scientists here, but the proclaimers all over the internet, single minded and daily in their work. And diligent for what reason? Ask yourself that. This is not some rare, hidden thing for only a few.

It’s probably going to get worse before it gets better.

Wait on the Church and read what the Pope has written. God is the complementary rest of the answer with science.

God bless,
Ed

I am waiting on the Church for many answers. Thank you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m seeing a number of people here who think science should have something to say about God or faith. It can’t. It’s just a method of understanding the physical world. No more than that.

As the saying goes, science can’t approach God, but scientists can. When I pray, I’m not being scientific, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m saying that we who who believe God could use disorder to lead to order are those who “hope in God”.

Indeed, Pope Benedict seems to think so.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m seeing a number of people here who think science should have something to say about God or faith. It can’t. It’s just a method of understanding the physical world. No more than that.

And yet theology is considered a science…

To define dogmatic theology, it will be best to start from the general notion of theology. Considered etymologically, theology (Gr. Theologia, i.e. peri Theou logos) means objectively the science treating of God, subjectively, the scientific knowledge of God and Divine things.

If defined as the science concerning God (doctrina de Deo), the name of theology applies as well to the philosophical knowledge of God, which is cast into scientific form in natural theology or theodicy.

However, unless theodicy is free from errors, it cannot lay claim to the name of theology. For this reason, pagan mythology and pagan doctrines about the gods, must at once be set aside as false theology. The theology of heretics also, so far as it contains grave errors, must be excluded.

In a higher and more perfect sense we call theology that science of God and Divine things which, objectively, is based on supernatural revelation, and subjectively, is viewed in the light of Christian faith.

Theology thus broadens out into Christian doctrine (doctrina fidei) and embraces not only the particular doctrines of God’s existence, essence, and triune personality, but all the truths revealed by God.

As the saying goes, science can’t approach God, but scientists can. When I pray, I’m not being scientific, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And yet we can perceive God’s invisible qualites through his creation which reflects his glory…
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

One would almost think that Vatican I had absolutely nothing to say about this matter…

1. 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. [13]
2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14].

Science, properly understood, is not in conflict with Divine Revelation properly understood.

I’m saying that we who believe God could use disorder to lead to order are those who “hope in God”.

Indeed, Pope Benedict seems to think so.

And I agree.

 

[buffalo]

you know you seem like a nice enough fellow, but I’m unable to understand these crytically short one sentence retorts. That’s the second or third time now. If there is a point, please make it.

buffalo aka Mr. succint thought it was obvious.

Here’s the deal. I believe if more Catholics read and understood with depth the teaching more would follow. There have not responded to the simple thou shall not contracept.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I tell you this brother, do not be anxious about this, which men speak of over and over and over, as those employed as town criers and advertisers, sent by others to convince you that a thing is true. If something is true, it needs no further advertising. If a teenager can understand it, so can a man. But the snare is from those who proclaim only the science and allow not even the tiniest bit of light for the Light of the World. I’m not talking about scientists here, but the proclaimers all over the internet, single minded and daily in their work. And diligent for what reason? Ask yourself that. This is not some rare, hidden thing for only a few.

You’re so right Ed. It seems there’s a small army of people working to crush the notion of God creating the world, but when you ask them to explain where faith fits into their views, all they say is “go do your own research”. It’s hard not to question their motives.

 

[davidv]

davidv;3043727:

sorry I didnt say it…Ed did. I only said that upon reflection I choose not to debate him any longer. It’s too clear that his issues are a good deal deeper than evolution. I have no qualifications in that area.

I knew that. It looks like the quote function didn’t work as I intended.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Sorry for the delay

Neil_Anthony wrote:

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”:

This is your personal interpretation to accommodate science. The meaning had never been in challenged until thetheory of evolution entered the theological arena. Vatican I, however, teaches that there is no freedom to put a different meaning on a dogma to than intended by its authors. The Council anathematises those who say that:

…it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands (Faith and reason – canon 3).

You continue:

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?

The hallmark of Catholic dogma is its clarity. It is without ambiguity. The Lateran IV definition of creation is no exception. Catholic theologians up to the mid-nineteenth century applied the dogma literally. This is clear from such theological leaders as St. Thomas (13 th century) Francesco Suarez 17th century) and Joseph Scheeben (19th century). I am reading nothing more into the teaching than those eminent theologians and, therefore, the Church.

Further on you write:

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?

Part 1. question 69 article 2 of the Summa discusses the production of plants on the Third Day; it says:

…the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe.

St. Thomas also says that:that things created started to operate on the seventh day. Before that, creation was not complete.

…God did act on the seventh day, not by creating new creatures, but by directing and moving His creatures to the work proper to them, and thus He made some beginning of the “second” perfection. So that, according to our version of the Scripture, the completion of the works is attributed to the seventh day, though according to another it is assigned to the sixth. Either version, however, may stand, since the completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh. It may also be added that in continuous movement, so long as any movement further is possible, movement cannot be called completed till it comes to rest, for rest denotes consummation of movement. Now God might have made many other creatures besides those which He made in the six days, and hence, by the fact that He ceased making them on the seventh day, He is said on that day to have consummated His work.

(For the above quotes from Thomas see Pt. 1 Q. 73 Art. 1 replies 1, 2, 3)

The terms Creation and Providence are from orthodox metaphysics. I suggest you research Scheeben’s Dogmatik and Fr. Fehlner’s “In the beginning” for the detail.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Continued from my previous post to Neil_Anthony

Regarding mixing up Creation with Providence, it’s true the
Protestant creationists do it all the time. Apart from being a Catholic, this is one of the many other reasons I dissociate myself with “creationism”. St. Thomas explains, however that things created started to operate on the seventh day. Before that, creation was not complete (see Pt. 1 Q. 73 Art. 1 replies 1, 2, 3)

There really is no way round it Lateran IV precludes belief in evolution.

Your next point is:

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.

Part 1 Question 91 of the Summa does not admit of this idea:

Reply to Objection 3. Some have thought that man’s body was formed first in priority of time, and that afterwards the soul was infused into the formed body. But it is inconsistent with the perfection of the production of things, that God should have made either the body without the soul, or the soul without the body, since each is a part of human nature. This is especially unfitting as regards the body, for the body depends on the soul, and not the soul on the body.

To remove the difficulty some have said that the words, “God made man,” must be understood of the production of the body with the soul; and that the subsequent words, “and He breathed into his face the breath of life,” should be understood of the Holy Ghost; as the Lord breathed on His Apostles, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22). But this explanation, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 24), is excluded by the very words of Scripture. For we read farther on, “And man was made a living soul”; which words the Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:45) refers not to spiritual life, but to animal life. Therefore, by breath of life we must understand the soul, so that the words, “He breathed into his face the breath of life,” are a sort of exposition of what goes before; for the soul is the form of the body.

To my reply:

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.

You responded:

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.

The laws were made to govern the beings created including man in his total substance. Man was created before the laws came into force, so how could they play a role in building him? Your proposal is not coherent. Also see above; the soul is the form of the body and both were created together (‘simul’)

Regarding pantheism you wrote originally:

…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.

God makes the laws for his creations, i.e. it is us his creatures who live with them or by them. Gravity causes an object to fall to the ground, not God. To say he does could infer an insufficiency on the part of the law he made.

Peter

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is in this revelatory sense that I’ve been wondering how evolution fits into this framework of God’s revelation of himself through creation-- and, to date, all’s that I’ve really received regaridng this question is that evolution effectively tells us nothing about God.

One one level I saw, well of course it doesn’t it’s not supposed to. and on another level I saw just the opposite.

First. I fail to see why some want science to address what it is simply not equipped to address. I really don’t get it. Science is science, it has no mechanism to explore or define or locate God. Philosophy discusses this quite readily as of course do any religious studies class of any kind. Why some want it artificially grafted onto a science concept is simply odd and unnatural. And of course the very very minute those that want this done got their wish, the war and i mean serious war would begin as to who’s version are we to graft on. So the whole discussion is simply without sanity as far as I can see. Where else should we graft on God? science fiction writing? a stamp on each book: (This is a work of fiction, any license taken with how God may be described therein should not be taken as endorsement by the publisher of any particular faith tradition. Readers are referred to their respective religious leader for advice.)

Secondly. This is purely personal with me. Whenever i watch a nature show, especially where I am taken to a forsaken and one would assume lifeless place, I’m shown in exquisite detail the cooperation between species and between species and environment, the symbiotic relationships, the tenacity of life, the breathtaking adaptation to harsh environs, the ebb and flow of life death and renewel, I am struck anew of God’s beyond understanding power and glory. What a universe, what a planet,…and everything He knew in perfect detail that from the utterance of his WORD, all would unwind, weaving a tapestry of energy, power, light, beauty, and LIFE…oh how can anyone not see the face of God in the glory of the double helix? When I think of God, I think of the Universe, I think elegance and beauty.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It started here…

It then went to here…

And it continued here…

And, yes, I’m still waiting for answers from you.

Thanks.

some of these quotes are too small to recall without going back further and trying to locate what i said originally. Others are just plain too long and too old. I’d have to take 3 hours to go thru all this. Sorry, I just don’t have the time. You would have to restate the questions one at a time in some context and then i will attempt to do so…but since you don’t agree with me on much, I am not sure why you want my (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil_Anthony:

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”:

This is your personal interpretation to accommodate science. The meaning had never been in challenged until thetheory of evolution entered the theological arena. Vatican I, however, teaches that there is no freedom to put a different meaning on a dogma to than intended by its authors. The Council anathematises those who say that:

…it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands (Faith and reason – canon 3).

I agree with you that I’m interpreting Lateran IV so that it doesn’t contradict science. But I don’t think I’m giving new meaning to a dogma. I don’t think Lateran IV intended to dogmatically define how much time passed between the initial creation of the orders of creatures and the creation of man. I have tried to find out what Lateran IV was responding to when it came up with the creed, but I haven’t seen that it was even addressing anything to do with the timing of creation.

The hallmark of Catholic dogma is its clarity. It is without ambiguity. The Lateran IV definition of creation is no exception. Catholic theologians up to the mid-nineteenth century applied the dogma literally. This is clear from such theological leaders as St. Thomas (13 th century) Francesco Suarez 17th century) and Joseph Scheeben (19th century). I am reading nothing more into the teaching than those eminent theologians and, therefore, the Church.

While Catholic dogma is clear and unambiguous, it also is cautious about defining things. We shouldn’t read more into what was said than was intended. The church rarely defines dogmas until a question comes up that needs to be answered. Before the theory of evolution there was no reason to consider whether man might have been created billions of years after the earth was created. It’s only natural that the theological leaders didn’t discuss such a possibility.

Your quotes from St. Thomas certainly contradict theistic evolution. But it’s ironic that you would quote from St. Thomas, when he was so intent on reconciling Catholic dogma with the ‘science’ of his day, Greek philosophy. Rather than looking for quotes from St. Thomas that disagree with evolution, why not look to his *method *for examples of how to reconcile dogma with secular philosophies?

You’re obviously educated in theology and I’m just an amateur trying to share my amateur opinion that I’ve come up with in my spare time. Anything else I could add here would just be repeating myself again.

If you know where I could find background information on the reasons for the wording of the first canon of Lateran IV would you please share them; I’d like to read more about it.

Neil

 

[wildleafblower]

Secondly. This is purely personal with me. Whenever i watch a nature show, especially where I am taken to a forsaken and one would assume lifeless place, I’m shown in exquisite detail the cooperation between species and between species and environment, the symbiotic relationships, the tenacity of life, the breathtaking adaptation to harsh environs, the ebb and flow of life death and renewel, I am struck anew of God’s beyond understanding power and glory. What a universe, what a planet,…and everything He knew in perfect detail that from the utterance of his WORD, all would unwind, weaving a tapestry of energy, power, light, beauty, and LIFE…oh how can anyone not see the face of God in the glory of the double helix? When I think of God, I think of the Universe, I think elegance and beauty.

Cooperation between species! That’s a joke. People are dying in wars at the hand of our species. Ever watch the flick “Blood Diamond” and what adults did to children?

I don’t see ’ the face of God’ in the double helix nor in the universe! As I’ve stated before I’m totally against a watch maker God so I don’t see God ‘weaving a tapestry of energy, power, light, beauty, and LIFE’. I do thank God I’m alive and for my every breath and most definately love Jesus and the Holy SPIRIT for giving the strength to continue onward.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Peter,

I found some background on the reasons for the wording of the 1st Canon of Lateran IV.

It is the common teaching of the Church that God created angels and human beings. In the early thirteenth century, the Church had to formulate the Lateran Creed (1215) to defend the faith against the Albigenses, who claimed there were two gods. The good god created spiritual beings, while the evil god created the material world. The Lateran Creed declares:

We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God . . . the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . . They are the one and only principle of all things - Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal. By His almighty power from the very beginning of time, He created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing, the spiritual or angelic world and the corporeal or visible universe. And afterwards He formed the creature man, who in a way belongs to both orders, as he is composed of spirit and body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good according to their nature, but they made themselves evil by their own doing. As for man, his sin was at the prompting of the devil (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

(reference: therealpresence.org/essentials/creed/acc02.htm)

Lateran IV didn’t dogmatically definevthe amount of time between the initial creation of the “orders of creatures” and man. Rather it defined that God created both orders from the beginning of time, against the Albigenses who held that an evil god created ‘corporeal’ creatures. So Lateran IV wasn’t defining anything to do with evolution.

 

[Ahimsa]

I don’t see ’ the face of God’ in the double helix nor in the universe!

You have my condolences.

 

[wildleafblower]

Ahimsa, I didn’t realize you and SpiritMeadow are able to see the face of God in the glory of the double helix’. You two seem to see things that escape my world of reality. So God looks like the picture in the following article (Cosmic 'DNA: Double Helix) to you and SpiritMeadow? space.com/scienceastronomy/060315_dna_nebula.html

Cosmic 'DNA': Double Helix Spotted in Space

Magnetic forces at the center of the galaxy have twisted a nebula into the shape of DNA, a new study reveals.

www.space.com

Ahimsa, you and SpiritMeadow are biologists that see God as DNA in that picture? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I’ll stand by what I stated in my last post to this topic I don’t see God ‘weaving a tapestry of energy, power, light, beauty, and LIFE’] with further emphasis on what Father George Coyne wrote in Wired Magazine which I totally agree with: * “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: **“God is not information,” *he says. “God is love.” (The Pope’s Astrophysicist, MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) By Margaret Wertheim, p.g.2 of Issue 10.12 | December 2002 )
wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

The Pope's Astrophysicist

MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) We have come to meet the Pope. It’s tourist season, and the Sistine Chapel is punishingly full. Visitors from around the world crowd together, ogling Michelangelo’s ceiling. At the back of...

www.wired.com

People wake-up and smell the coffee. Anyone who ‘sees the face of God in the glory of the double helix’ is is is is well, God help them see the light of truth!

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa, you and SpiritMeadow are biologists that see God as DNA in that picture? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think seeing God as DNA, and seeing God in DNA, are two different things.

 

[wildleafblower]

I think seeing God as DNA, and seeing God in DNA, are two different things.

So which is it for you, Ahimsa, since you are a biologist. Do you see God in DNA or God as DNA. SpiritMeadow seems to see the face of God in DNA. Either way, whether the word “as” or “in” how can you possibly SEE the FACE OF GOD is beyond the realm of logic and reason nor is it scientifically based in truth. Unless you both wish to wonder into the realm of psuedo-science.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Thank you for your support. If I am banned by the CAF moderators for speaking the truth, I go with a clear conscience, and you will know where to contact me.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

I don’t think you’ll be banned drpmjhess for saying what you think.

Me personally, I actually agree with you in many areas except as noted already. I just think you need to polish your statements a bit more.

Please remember that I’m actually arguing in favor of theistic evolution-- not against it.

Having said this, sometimes you do seem to come across as deriding the Scriptures for example. Many people, including myself, become wary when we read things like this.

When people read that you teach within a Catholic institution they become even more concerned when you call the Scriptures “spiritual mumbo jumbo” for example. Although I myself am used to reading academic papers and am familiar with various interpretations of Scripture, I’ve yet to read a conservative theologian expound on the Scriptures in this way.

Things like this cause people to doubt one’s sincerity toward their claim that they uphold the Dogmatic Theologies of the Church.

Plus…it’s the internet…so anyone can really claim to be somebody, claim many things actually, and make certain claims regarding the Scriptures without having to actually back-up their credentials.

Without any solid way to verify the status of any particular participant in a discussion, we are left to read through their posts with as much precision as God has enabled us and try to discern their theological understanding in order to guage the accuracy of their statements.

Myself, I’m a simple laymen. I’m not a genius. And I’m not particularly holy either to be honest. But I think I have a good understandng of the basics of the creation/evolution debate-- the very things which we’re trying to discuss here in this thread.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

*“To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: **“God is not information,”***he says. “God is love.”

(The Pope’s Astrophysicist, MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) By Margaret Wertheim, p.g.2 of Issue 10.12 | December 2002 )

What exactly is wrong with God interacting his creation?

Is the Creator merely “twiddling with the constants of nature” when he causes the Eucharist during the consecration of the bread and wine to change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood as the Council of Trent affirms?

This is indeed the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, where Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, something which Father George Coyne seems to indirectly deriding when he makes these claims he does.

Coyne also said that if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time.

And what exactly is the major concern with this, especially since our knowledge of God has increased through Catholicism over the last 2000 years?

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. In other words, she transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.
Definition of Expound:

Verb 1. expound - add details, as to an account or idea; clarify the meaning of and discourse in a learned way, usually in writing; “She elaborated on the main ideas in her dissertation”

Coyne also said God is not information, something which I agree with with. And yet all forms of communication are transmitted through data and perceived through our senses, are they not?

There is also the communication of God’s Spirit with man’s spirit too, is there not?

Indeed, are we not in Communion with God during the Eucharist? Are we not communicating with God himself through the Eucharist?

EUCHARIST:

Transformation of death into life

And so in this transformation is contained the broader transformation of death into resurrection, of the dead body into the risen body. If the first man was a living being, as St Paul says, the new Adam, Christ, will become by this spiritual event the giver of life (I Cor 15, 45). The risen one is gift, is spirit who gives his life, “communicates”, indeed, is communication. This means that there is no farewell here to material existence; rather, in this way material existence achieves its goal: without the actual event of death (with its interior transcendence) all this complex transformation of material things would not be possible. And so in the transformation of the resurrection all the fullness of Christ continues to subsist, but now transformed in this way; now being a body and the gift of self are no longer mutually exclusive, but are implicit in each other.

Look, I hope Father George Coyne does well and has a speedy recovery from his cancer. May God bless him in this. But some of these thoughts he’s expressed really do make an indirect mockery of the very essential things which we believe to be true.

God can and does interact with his creation. Period.

Whether God did so in some “special way” to speciate life on earth, however, remains to be seen. But Father George Coyne’s philosophical materialist arguments against intelligent design go well beyond the realm of science and well into the realm of theology– and I think he’s doing some serious damage to people’s faith when he does this.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

On one level I saw, well of course it doesn’t it’s not supposed to…

Why is it not supposed to?

…and on another level I saw just the opposite.

Ok, let’s go with this one then…

First. I fail to see why some want science to address what it is simply not equipped to address. I really don’t get it. Science is science, it has no mechanism to explore or define or locate God.

Because science without God results in scientism. Science with God is the only true “true science”. In other words, -physics without the meta- in front of it results in death.

Philosophy discusses this quite readily as of course do any religious studies class of any kind. Why some want it artificially grafted onto a science concept is simply odd and unnatural.

So you are fine with people not hearing about God?

Now before you jump to conclusions, I’m not calling you an atheist. I know that you believe in God based on what you have said here.

What I’m asking you is, "How do you use science to bring people toward God?"

And of course the very, very minute those that want this done got their wish, the war (and I mean serious war) would begin as to who’s version are we to graft on. So the whole discussion is simply without sanity as far as I can see.

What about teaching a comparative religion class in school, so that people can be grounded and introduced to many religions and decide for themselves instead of religions being totally restricted from schools altogether?

You do realize that those who uphold various forms of scientism are the very ones who insist there be no reference to God in the school systems, correct?

Where else should we graft on God? science fiction writing? a stamp on each book: (This is a work of fiction, any license taken with how God may be described therein should not be taken as endorsement by the publisher of any particular faith tradition. Readers are referred to their respective religious leader for advice.)

Me personally, I think that the science fiction genre could use a good injection of Godly principles. Certainly, atheists that converted to Catholicism speaking on the Journey Home have noted this.
Colossians 3:17:

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

I suppose this could include the making of stamps too.