Thank God for Evolution!

[SpiritMeadow]

I suggest anyone confused about miracles pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The parting of the Red Sea was a miracle as was the pillars of fire. But, today, there is a 'Bible Explanation Industry" that attempts to confuse people.

Ed

What is your confusion ed is other people’s enlightenment. You just don’t like change of any kind there ed. We know.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In answer to **Orogeny’s **concern regarding heresy (the term preferred today is “error”); one can only be a heretic (i.e. in theological error) by deliberate resistance of God’s authority. The CCC defines heresy as:

---

This means that no individual can accuse another of being a heretic unles he is sure that other obdurately opposes the Church’s teaching. I am certain that anyone professing to be a Catholic would’nt deliberately refuse the Church’s authority. However if they learn that the position they are taking is opposed to Catholic teaching, and continue nonetheless to pursue it, they would be in error, but ony the person in question can know. This is why one Catholic cannot accuse another of being a heretic, i.e. those accepting Arianism and evolution no doubt at the time had no inention of questioning the authority of the Church, but with hind sight it is clear that they were. The same will apply to those supporting macro-evolution because it is opposed to the traditional teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium (Lateran IV. Vatican I , Arcanum etc.)

Peter

Well I sure wish you would post that as a banner on the opening page of this forum, cuz I’ve been called a heretic mmmm a good dozen times. Seems a favorite argument by a few here.

 

[drpmjhess]

Surely he realizes that this is philosophy or theology and doesn’t have any bearing on his scientific findings?

As a Jesuit, Bill Stoeger he is well trained in both philosophy and theology. He is well aware of the mutual bearing these two disciplines and science have on each other. He studies a cosmos with a real age of 13.7 billion years, not a pretend age.

Bill is a profound thinker, as is his colleague George Coyne. Both would agree with me that the concept of a trickster God creating a universe with the appearance of age is risible, and theological anathema.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As a Jesuit, Bill Stoeger he is well trained in both philosophy and theology. He is well aware of the mutual bearing these two disciplines and science have on each other. He studies a cosmos with a real age of 13.7 billion years, not a pretend age.

Bill is a profound thinker, as is his colleague George Coyne. Both would agree with me that the concept of a trickster God creating a universe with the appearance of age is risible, and theological anathema.

Okay, I’ll take your word for it, I haven’t met (or heard of) Bill. I hope you understand that I’m not promoting the idea of a ‘trickster God’ as you’ve described it.

I tend to think this whole created world is much less real than the spiritual world, though. I think going to heaven will be analogous to waking up from a dream. Does that make God a trickster God? It’s certainly not the same thing that Philip Gosse proposed.

 

[buffalo]

As a Jesuit, Bill Stoeger he is well trained in both philosophy and theology. He is well aware of the mutual bearing these two disciplines and science have on each other. He studies a cosmos with a real age of 13.7 billion years, not a pretend age.

Bill is a profound thinker, as is his colleague George Coyne. Both would agree with me that the concept of a trickster God creating a universe with the appearance of age is risible, and theological anathema.

I have to continue to take issue with God the deceiver as a valid argument.

There are many many cases of observation that through our faulty reasoning we have reached false conclusions.

I propose this type of argument be taken off the table.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have to continue to take issue with God the deceiver as a valid argument.

There are many many cases of observation that through our faulty reasoning we have reached false conclusions.

I propose this type of argument be taken off the table.

What do you mean buffalo, does this include the stuff I’ve been posting? Should it be taken off the table?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just wanted to add this link for everyone. It’s the most incredibly detailed scientific index of sources I’ve seen so far on evolution. It’s over at Panda’s Thumb which some of you may know of. Here’s the link.

pandasthumb.org/links.html

Enjoy…

 

[buffalo]

What do you mean buffalo, does this include the stuff I’ve been posting? Should it be taken off the table?

If you have been posting that the appearance of things in the universe are instances of God being deceptive then yes.

Should we expect that during transubstantiation we should see Jesus in the form of a man? If we do not does that mean God is being deceptive for He tells us He is present but we cannot see Him?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If you have been posting that the appearance of things in the universe are instances of God being deceptive then yes.

Should we expect that during transubstantiation we should see Jesus in the form of a man? If we do not does that mean God is being deceptive for He tells us He is present but we cannot see Him?

Ohh… I thought you were against the arguments that Dr. Peter M.J. Hess is labelling “trickster God” rather than opposed to his terminology “trickster God” I misunderstood!

 

[buffalo]

Ohh… I thought you were against the arguments that Dr. Peter M.J. Hess is labelling “trickster God” rather than opposed to his terminology “trickster God” I misunderstood!

Actually, I am against his arguments. I do not believe the trickster argument to have any merit.

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry, buffalo, but when someone posts that God made the universe with the appearance of age, that is an argument FOR God the Trickster. I reject that completely. If God created the universe with an apparent age that is different than the actual age, He is deceiving us.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Actually, I am against his arguments. I do not believe the trickster argument to have any merit.

Calling it “trickster God” and saying it is “risible” isn’t even an argument. It’s the scientific version of calling people names and making fun of what you can’t understand

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sorry, buffalo, but when someone posts that God made the universe with the appearance of age, that is an argument FOR God the Trickster. I reject that completely. If God created the universe with an apparent age that is different than the actual age, He is deceiving us.

Orogeny, can you explain the difference between the terms “actual age” and “apparent age”, and how one would determine which is correct?

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, buffalo, but when someone posts that God made the universe with the appearance of age, that is an argument FOR God the Trickster. I reject that completely. If God created the universe with an apparent age that is different than the actual age, He is deceiving us.

Peace

Tim

I will only agree that if God created it with the appearance of age to purposely deceive us, would it be deceptive, something which he cannot do.

That puts the onus on us to make sure we have exhausted every conceivable inquiry. You are the one who has posted many many times that we should not stop the pursuit of knowledge and scientific inquiry, which I agree with.

I think the argument is arrogant and assumes we know more than we actually do know.

Why did God only allow us to realize three dimensions? It is apparent to us there are three. Is God being deceptive if it turns out there are more? I can go on and on.

 

[edwest2]

The trickster and deceptive God arguments have no merit. God can and does perform miracles, even today. The problem here is that the focus is on man and science and not God and miracles.

As Pope Benedict has written, science can do certain things and no more. God, however, is unlimited according to His Divine nature.

It is clear that science allows humans to manipulate materials and energies, and build devices that ease the burden of our lives. Jesus Christ did not lie to the worried men around Him when He told them that His Father in heaven knew that they needed certain things. Science, carried out ethically and with proper intent, includes God’s providence, because men are physical beings and spiritual beings.

Whatever evolution occurred was guided by God. This is what Catholics believe. However, this would be anathema to a secular world that rejects this link.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny, can you explain the difference between the terms “actual age” and “apparent age”, and how one would determine which is correct?

The way that it is being used on these forums, actual age is, well, actual age. The universe got it’s start about 13 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion years ago.

Apparent age, as used on these forums, is the universe and the earth are 6,000-10,000 years old. All physical indications of age were created instantaneously to give the appearance of a much greater age.

As far as how one determines which is correct, it comes down to the concept that my friend buffalo doesn’t want discussed - unless one chooses to believe that God created the universe to appear old, it is old. I don’t believe that God would do that.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The way that it is being used on these forums, actual age is, well, actual age. The universe got it’s start about 13 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion years ago.

Apparent age, as used on these forums, is the universe and the earth are 6,000-10,000 years old. All physical indications of age were created instantaneously to give the appearance of a much greater age.

As far as how one determines which is correct, it comes down to the concept that my friend buffalo doesn’t want discussed - unless one chooses to believe that God created the universe to appear old, it is old. I don’t believe that God would do that.

Peace

Tim

Well thats just what I’m asking… how would you tell if a universe was created by God to ‘appear old’ or to actually be old. I propose that there is no difference between the two, since God can create time.

 

[Orogeny]

The trickster and deceptive God arguments have no merit. God can and does perform miracles, even today. The problem here is that the focus is on man and science and not God and miracles.

Tell me, Ed, what other miracles did God perform to trick us?

As Pope Benedict has written, science can do certain things and no more. God, however, is unlimited according to His Divine nature.

Ed, you reject the Pope’s stance on science. You need to be careful about using him as a source.

Whatever evolution occurred was guided by God.

Have you changed your mind? You rejected this earlier.

This is what Catholics believe.

Yes, but you reject it. We have been telling you this for a long time now and you rejected it. Have you changed? Evolved as it were?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

The Pope’s stance on science includes theology as well, specifically, Humani Generis, as did John Paul II.

As far as the age of the universe, it is entirely possible that God formed the earth in a few days, moving and cooling elements of it according to His will (i.e. separating water and land). And that He instantly stretched out the heavens.

Evolution, as defined in biology textbooks, is incomplete. It lacks what Pope Benedict refers to as the complementary action of divine providence.

To put it another way, a scientist is walking with Jesus to his lab. When he reaches the door, he tells Jesus, “You’ll have to wait out here.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Well thats just what I’m asking… how would you tell if a universe was created by God to ‘appear old’ or to actually be old. I propose that there is no difference between the two, since God can create time.

God can create time, but we are bound by that time. If He created it to be 13 billion years ago, even if, in His timeframe (which I don’t think actually exists), then it was 13 billion years ago.

Now, if you are suggesting that He created that time AFTER creation of the universe, then you would be referring to God the Trickster because the only reason to do so would be to give an appearance of something that is different than reality.

Peace

Tim