Thank God for Evolution!

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

See, but we’re not in disagreement on this. That’s fairly well how I view it too. In fact, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Pope John Paul II expessed a strikingly similar opinion if I recall correctly.

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.

I don’t know if I would see the face of God in the double helix. However, I would suppose that double helix, as seen within the caduceus of modern times, can be viewed in a manner similar to how God used serpents to describe some people in Deuteronomy 32:33…

Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.

And also, conversely, one can view the double helix like the Israelites did with the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:4-8 too…

They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.”

This is a particularly disturbing passage for some readers of the Hebrew Scriptures, because they find it difficult to fathom why God would seemingly ask Moses to essentially fashion an idol to guide people toward salvation. But once one sees the christological significance of it, I think it becomes much clearer.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Because science without God results in scientism.

Science is totally unable to deal with God. Too weak a method for the supernatural. Science + theology = heresy and superstition.

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

So why are you operating that diabolical keyboard in front of you? It was developed and made without any metaphysics whatever.

**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?

I think he’s fine with people hearing about God. What I’m seeing, is that he’s concerned about corrupting faith by making it a component of science.

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

That’s like asking, “how do you use your umbrella to bring people to God?” I can see where it might be useful in a peripheral sort of way, but the fact of Jesus is not accessible to science.

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?

Already legal. The problem is, in most communities, people are outraged when their faith is compared to others in public schools.

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?

Maybe some of them, too. But mostly it’s just Christians who know that the government has an abysmal record when it comes to religion. I just don’t trust them to get it right.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Neil_Anthony writes:

…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 agree, but it sets out the parameters within which creation took place. These were that all things were created:

1. At the beginning (of time).
2. At the same time (simul).
3. By God alone (no second causes)
4. From nothing (no pre-existing living matter)

Knowing that creation ended on the Sixth Day, even if one ignores the traditional meaning of “Day”, as either an instant or six periods of 24 hours, these constraints preclude millions of years beween the begining and and of the creation period. Even so, with no procreation from the begining to the end of creation what point is there of allowing millions of years to elapse? Moreover, as death didn’t enter the world until Original Sin (Rom. 5:12-14) there would be nothing to fossilise, i.e. the proposed evidence for evolution disappears.

Your next point is:

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.

I agree once again, but the definition of creation which the council was obliged to make against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldesians and other heretics, just happened (i.e. implicitely) to preclude evolution and long ages. The same dogma was used six centuries later by Vatican I to condemn pantheism. I nterestingly, this also demonstrates the unchangeable nature of the Church’s Magisterial teaching over time.

In your following post you wrote:

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.

I hope you find my earlier remarks above address this point. The Council was not concerned with evolution ‘per se’, only with those who understimated the omnipotent power of God to create everything from a fixed point in time ‘ex nihilo’. Although, implicit in the dogma, the words “whole substance” were added by Vatican I to avoid any misunderstanding, regarding the creation of the whole being or ‘immutable essence’ of ech type of living thing. Evolution theory requires that essences are not immutable.

In all these Magisterial circumstances, and impatially speaking, is it coherant to go for theistic evolution which depends upon an increasingly contested unproved theory?

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

I agree once again, but the definition of creation which the council was obliged to make against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldesians and other heretics, just happened (i.e. implicitely) to preclude evolution and long ages.

Hi Peter. Would you add Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to that list? If not, why not?

In all these Magisterial circumstances, and impatially speaking, is it coherant to go for theistic evolution which depends upon an increasingly contested unproved theory?

It is always contested as are all scientific theories. Additionally, it is unproven, just as all scientific theories are.

To date, there have been zero credible challenges to the fact of evolution and relatively few to the theory of evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Lateran IV against Albigensians who claimed that God did not create corporeal creatures:

… from the beginning of time made at once out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.

Vatican I version of Lateran IV’s creed:

This one true God, …

• 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

Vatican I’s Declaration against pantheism:

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; … let him be anathema.

 

[wildleafblower]

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 . . . .
wildleafblower;3049623:

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.

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
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060315_dna_nebula.html

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
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

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!
And

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! . . .
SpiritMeadow;3047791:

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.

Mr. Ex Nihilo, Coyne is talking about COSMOLOGY which has nothing to do with the Eucharist! FYI, the mystery of the Passion is hidden in the bread made of ground grain. Flour, the ground wheat, presuppose the death and resurrection of the grain. In being ground and baked, it carries in itself once again the same mystery of the Passion. (HOLY MASS AND EUCHARISTIC PROCESSION ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE SACRED BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, 6/15/06)

I agree with Coyne and this: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. . God is the transcendent “director” of history. (POPE JOHN PAUL II, GENERAL Audience, 11/19/97)

It appears that you, SpiritMeadow, and Ahisma are panentheists. I’m not.

 

[wildleafblower]

**
Vatican I’s Declaration against pantheism:**

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; … let him be anathema.

 

[buffalo]

Neil, Vatican I has been replaced by Vatican II. Thank God. I’d like a link to your statement about the declaration. I haven’t found what you claim to be a declaration against pantheism in the Vatican archives. Again I will repeat, none of the bishops, Pope, or me are pantheists or panentheists.

General Reminder for those using biblical text, please use the New American Bible (2002) from the Vatican which can be located on the following URL otherwise I will ignore the scripture you present:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

Councils do not replace an older one.

 

[wildleafblower]

Well, being an atheist isn’t so terrible you know It’s possible to be an atheist in good conscience, to be a good human being and a good friend to believers and non-believers alike.

But, to be serious, this board seems to attract an inordinate number of people who hold that all those who do not adhere to their particular narrow brand of belief are atheists, heretics, amoralists and damned.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You are sweet Alec. :hug3: Luv ya ooodles! You are special.

Father G. used to always say, “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t so when I get to Heaven I’ll ask God until then remember heaven isn’t planet EARTH.” :harp:

I should mention that two couples that are my dear longtime friends are Roman Catholics and were married in the Church. Their husbands who cherish their wives don’t believe in GOD but LOVE isn’t always logical.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I agree, but it sets out the parameters within which creation took place. These were that all things were created:

1. At the beginning (of time).
2. At the same time (simul).
3. By God alone (no second causes)
4. From nothing (no pre-existing living matter)

1. **From **the beginning of time… **then **man was created later
2. Corporeal and spiritual orders were created at the same time… man was created after
3. Agreed that it has to be by God alone, disagree that natural laws under control of God can not be part of the creation ‘from nothing’
4. Agreed.

Note: “Beginning of time” could easily refer to all of the time before man came on the scene. In terms of salvation history, millions or billions of years without man on the scene are not significant… they’re just “what came before”.

I hope you find my earlier remarks above address this point. The Council was not concerned with evolution ‘per se’, only with those who understimated the omnipotent power of God to create everything from a fixed point in time ‘ex nihilo’. Although, implicit in the dogma, the words “whole substance” were added by Vatican I to avoid any misunderstanding, regarding the creation of the whole being or ‘immutable essence’ of ech type of living thing. Evolution theory requires that essences are not immutable.

See the actual texts of the councils that I quoted in post #365:

…

“whole substance” was not added to the creed of Lateran IV, it comes up in a new section written to condemn pantheism.

In all these Magisterial circumstances, and impatially speaking, is it coherant to go for theistic evolution which depends upon an increasingly contested unproved theory?

I believe the councils provide limits to what we can theorize about when looking for versions of evolution that are compatible with Catholicism. I think it’s coherent and possible to find ways to reconcile them.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil, Vatican I has been replaced by Vatican II. …

Oh my, I hope that’s a joke … anyway I typed the Lateran IV and Vatican I quotes and had to rush off to a meeting without finishing my post, thats why they appear there… they’ve been discussed a lot in this thread and thought putting them together with some context would be helpful.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Knowing that creation ended on the Sixth Day, even if one ignores the traditional meaning of “Day”, as either an instant or six periods of 24 hours, these constraints preclude millions of years beween the begining and and of the creation period.

If St. Thomas can say that the 6 days were only figurative and really meant just an insant, in order to make Catholicism compatible with ancient Greek philosophy, then we can also say that the 6 days referred to everything that happened until man appeared on the scene, to make it compatible with evolution. The 6 days are figurative. Nothing in Lateran IV or Vatican I limits this time to either an instant or 6 days, or precludes creation overlapping with a period in which natural laws are in effect.

Even so, with no procreation from the begining to the end of creation what point is there of allowing millions of years to elapse?

There was procreation. I disagree that anything said by the councils rules out procreation before man came on the scene. Even in 6 days, smaller animals like flies and bacteria would have done lots of procreation.

Moreover, as death didn’t enter the world until Original Sin (Rom. 5:12-14) there would be nothing to fossilise, i.e. the proposed evidence for evolution disappears.

This is a difficult area for sure, something for theologians to study to reconcile theology about original sin and death with evolution. But I think we can both agree that no human being ever died until a human being was actually created, and that the first human beings sinned and died. There is no reason to believe that animals never died before sin entered the world.

 

[Ahimsa]

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.

I see God in all things.

Now, living as if I see God in all things, that’s a bit tougher.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I found the following link just a few minutes ago. Since the site is impecable from ANY Catholics prospective, what do you think of this:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

I’d say the belief of this current Pope, and the last are quite obvious from this.

 

[edwest2]

Impeccable? I don’t think so.

The answer consists of two complementary parts, science, and divine providence, the ‘first cause.’ Science by itself is an inadequate answer, and can be misleading.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It appears that you, SpiritMeadow, and Ahisma are panentheists. I’m not.

Actually, to be fair wildleafblower, it “appears” that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is also “apparently” a panentheist to you as well.

I mean no disrespect, but some of your points are simply absurd.

Quite frankly, you haven’t listened to anything that anyone on either side of this debate has offered for discussion– and it appears that you simply don’t want to discuss anything using clear reason either, even though you have resorted to “name calling” quite a bit.

 

[wildleafblower]

336 Mr. Ex Nihilo, Coyne is talking about COSMOLOGY which has nothing to do with the Eucharist! FYI, 'the mystery of the Passion is hidden in the bread made of ground grain. Flour, the ground wheat, presuppose the death and resurrection of the grain. In being ground and baked, it carries in itself once again the same mystery of the Passion. HOLY MASS AND EUCHARISTIC PROCESSION ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE SACRED BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, 6/15/06

I agree with Coyne and this: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. . God is the transcendent director of history. POPE JOHN PAUL II, GENERAL Audience, 11/19/97

It appears that you, SpiritMeadow, and Ahisma are panentheists. I’m not.
Mr. Ex Nihilo;3049977:

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 . . . .
wildleafblower;3049623:

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.
wildleafblower;3049521:

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
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060315_dna_nebula.html

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 * 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
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

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!
And

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! . . .
SpiritMeadow;3047791:

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.

 

[wildleafblower]

Actually, to be fair wildleafblower, it “appears” that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is also “apparently” a panentheist to you as well.

I mean no disrespect, but some of your points are simply absurd.

Quite frankly, you haven’t listened to anything that anyone on either side of this debate has offered for discussion– and it appears that you simply don’t want to discuss anything using clear reason either, even though you have resorted to “name calling” quite a bit.

RIDICULOUS! Mr. Ex Nihilo, it’s evident that if it doesn’t suit or you read what you like then you dismiss it as absurd. There isn’t anything to debate. I’ve provided resources and you have failed to give me anything but rude remarks. FYI, in the future address our exchanges rather than fabricating something that doesn’t exist. I wasn’t name calling anyone. Observations are part of science. And science is truth.

 

[Ahimsa]

Me? A panentheist? You don’t know the half of it.

 

[wildleafblower]

I see God in all things.

Now, living as if I see God in all things, that’s a bit tougher.

ok. Nothing is absolute for you. As you say, “You don’t know the half of it.” Errr, let me guess …Third Wave, New Apostolic Reformation & Word of Faith New Age part-time panentheist/pantheist Christian reincarnated. oh, silly me.

Peace and Goodwill to all God’s critters whatever you may turn out to be. LOL!

(oh dear what can the matter be? i’m becoming a PHILVAZ!)