Thank God for Evolution!

[Peter_Wilders]

**Posted by Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Consequently, since we don’t know for sure how exactly this all happened, this is exactly why the Church has, in her wisdom, permitted us to explore our evolutionary origins more closely-- so long as we proceed very cautiously in this direction while simultaniously allowing people to believe in a specific creation too if they so choose, again, with the condition of caution being urged.**

On the contrary the Church has told us exactly what happened. The definition given in Lateran IV as repeated by Vatican I could not be more precise.

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once (“simul” in the original Latin) 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 he spirit and the body (D.428).

The Church has not permtted us to explore an evolutionary origin. If She had She would be contradicting Herself. The postulate of evolution in its simplest terms is that a primeval explosion (big bang) of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed over billions of years into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled living matter transformed over a long period of time into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. The mechanisms for this transformation are random chance, natural selection and mutation.

Lateran IV definition of creation in its smplest terms requires that the proto-types of “all things” were created at the same time and directly by God from nothing previously existing.1 Evolution affirms the contrary, i.e. that all things took much time
to be produced and always from some preceding substance. The adverb “simul” in the creation definition meaning “all together” or “at the same time” excludes the idea of God spreading out creation of the various kinds over millions of years or having used
evolution as a means of creating them. The concept of living beings gradually developing into other kinds of beings has no support from Holy Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterial teaching of Lateran IV.

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

On the contrary the Church has told us exactly what happened. The definition given in Lateran IV as repeated by Vatican I could not be more precise.

Dear Mr. Wilders,

Is that you speaking in this video:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1397992746961471793

Are you a famous creationist? I’m starting to wonder if I’m the only amateur who posts on here

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On the contrary the Church has told us exactly what happened. The definition given in Lateran IV as repeated by Vatican I could not be more precise.

The Church has not permtted us to explore an evolutionary origin. If She had She would be contradicting Herself. The postulate of evolution in its simplest terms is that a primeval explosion (big bang) of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed over billions of years into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled living matter transformed over a long period of time into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man. The mechanisms for this transformation are random chance, natural selection and mutation.

Lateran IV definition of creation in its smplest terms requires that the proto-types of “all things” were created at the same time and directly by God from nothing previously existing.1 Evolution affirms the contrary, i.e. that all things took much time
to be produced and always from some preceding substance. The adverb “simul” in the creation definition meaning “all together” or “at the same time” excludes the idea of God spreading out creation of the various kinds over millions of years or having used
evolution as a means of creating them. The concept of living beings gradually developing into other kinds of beings has no support from Holy Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterial teaching of Lateran IV.

Peter

Sir we have heard all your arguments on this. Please spar us by not doing it all over again. Clearly nobody is buying it.

 

[drpmjhess]

The postulate of evolution in its simplest terms is that a primeval explosion (big bang) of elementary particles caused the formation of gases which developed over billions of years into stars and planets. At least one planet developed the conditions for life, and by a process of chemical and molecular evolution single-celled living matter transformed over a long period of time into multi-celled plants and animals and eventually man.

Yes, you are correct – this is how the world evolved!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So what is the best guess of Old age Earth Catholic believers here as to when the fall of Adam and Eve happened?

I think they were the first Homo Sapiens so whenever the first Homo Sapiens are thought to existed that is my guess.

Any of the scientific know it alls here that have what they think are different or better guesses as to when the fall of Adam and Eve happened based on both their faith and scientific evidence are welcomed to chime right in.

Hopefully I will not be the only one at this forum brave enough to speculate as to when the fall of Adam and Eve happened at this forum.

This may blow some people’s minds but it is possible to speculate on the timing of evolutionary events and events of faith.

If it takes both a mind of science and a mind of faith to accomplish such a fete I’m sure God would not object to us using both of them that He so beautifully created.

 

[drpmjhess]

the fall of Adam and Eve happened at this forum.

I thought it was in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Church has not permtted us to explore an evolutionary origin.

I guess I disagree with your interpretation of the council then.

I’ve already explained my view of this that it’s speaking from God’s infinite perspective where he experiences all things at once since he exists outside time and space itself and it not restricted by it.

Even with acknowleging this Catholic truth (which I do), this does not forbid us from believing that God allowed the “manifestation” of his simul creation to “appear in stages” within the creation which is indeed, unlike God, bound by time and space.

Even the creation account using “days” within Genesis allows this for the most literalist interpretation.

While I respect you views on this topic, I do not agree with them.

I think think you are forcing an issue which has already been resolved by contrasting God’s initinite nature with the temporal nature of God’s creation.

If She had She would be contradicting Herself.

And yet the last two popes have indeed said that we are permitted to explore this.

No. We are not allowed to consider polygenism. That is granted.

Yet we are also allowed to believe that God may have used pre-existing living matter too.

Pius XII underlined this essential point:

…if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God.’

Consequently, the theories of evolution which, as a result of the philosophies which inspire them, consider the spirit as emerging from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

They are moreover incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person.

So exactly where this leaves us, I simply have no idea.

Perhaps our generation will not see this answer. But I do believe it may come in the generation of our children. I am hopeful for this anyway-- and hope is good thing too.

 

[hecd2]

This is why one Catholic cannot accuse another of being a heretic,

Really?? I am sure that defence would have gone down a storm when hauled before the Holy Office of the Inquisition

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Peter_Wilders]

**Neil_Anthony writes:

Is that you speaking in this video:

video.google.com/videoplay?do…92746961471793**

Are you a famous creationist?

Yes, I am the presenter BUT I am not a “creationist” famous or otherwise. I am a Catholic who disagrees with evolution being taught as a fact when it is contrary to Magisterial Teaching.

The term “creationist” used over the last 30 or so years connotates with Protestant fundamentalism. Catholics having followed the creation/evolution debate cannot associate themselves with the latter position because Catholics argue from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants.

Peter

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Mr. Ex Nihilo posts:

I guess I disagree with your interpretation of the council then.

I’ve already explained my view of this that it’s speaking from God’s infinite perspective where he experiences all things at once since he exists outside time and space itself and it not restricted by it…

The problem with so many of these posts is that participants say what they think, rather than speaking from the authority of the Church.

You say you disagree with my interpretation. If it were really mine I would’nt have had the temerity to express it, particularly in the knowledge that the dogma proclaimed by the Lateran Council had been discussed by the greatest theologians up until the introduction of evolution theory. They considered it so free from ambiguity no one differed in their understanding of it (I have given sources for this affirmation in earlier posts).

You add: I think you are forcing an issue which has already been resolved by contrasting God’s initinite nature with the temporal nature of God’s creation.

As God created all by his own power during the creation period:

…who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time…(Lateran IV defintion of Creation)

there was no temporal creation with which to contrast the metaphysical creation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, I am the presenter BUT I am not a “creationist” famous or otherwise. I am a Catholic who disagrees with evolution being taught as a fact when it is contrary to Magisterial Teaching.

You’re saying the Pope is wrong about this? He says that common descent is “virtually certain.” How could he be so deluded about Magisterial Teaching?

 

[Peter_Wilders]

**The Barbarian’s post states:

You’re saying the Pope is wrong about this? He says that common descent is “virtually certain.” How could he be so deluded about Magisterial Teaching?/**QUOTE]

Not deluded; misinformed.

This goes back to around 1860 as a result of the claims of amateur natural scientists such as Charles Lyell that the rocks were much older than calculated by the Genesis genealogies, and as understood from Moses up to that time. The late nineteenth theologians believed the natural scientists had proved their case and, applying Augustine’s rule, decided that the Church’s teaching had to be aligned with the proven scientific facts of geology. As is known today no such proof was or is available; in consequence the reason for re-interpreting the Lateran IV dogma was not factually based and, therefore, once against according to Augustine’s rule should have been strongly resisted. The pressure from the Pontifical Academy of Scientists on the theologians and hence the Pope prevents the latter knowing the absence of tangible proof for long ages. Ironically, new evidence is now being produced showing that rocks can form rapidly. (See www.sedimentology.fr)

Peter

Peter

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You say you disagree with my interpretation. If it were really mine I would’nt have had the temerity to express it, particularly in the knowledge that the dogma proclaimed by the Lateran Council had been discussed by the greatest theologians up until the introduction of evolution theory. They considered it so free from ambiguity no one differed in their understanding of it (I have given sources for this affirmation in earlier posts).

Peter, can you refer us to any theologians besides yourself who interpre Lateran IV in a way that rules out evolution?

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

“…science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”

“To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists…is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense…I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

–Albert Einstein (1879-1955), The German-born American physicist.
(Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?)

In, “The Supreme Court Decision And Its Meaning,” an evaluation of Louisiana’s 1987 “Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation Science and Evolution,” it states:

• “Creation-science is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms [DNA, etc.].
  Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the lower court decision) forcefully agreed in a dissenting opinion, that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.” -Wendell R. Bird, J.D. (Yale). –IMPACT article, No. 170, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR).
  Attorney Wendell R. Bird’s entire concise evaluation, No. 170, may be reviewed at:
  icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=2

In fieldwork studies, publications, and debates with non-creationists, scientific creationists can, and have for long applied their scientific methods rather successfully.
–And, in needed historical retrospect, it should be noted that:
“Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)…Chancellor of England, is considered primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the scientific method. Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible.”
And, “Even though Galileo (1564-1642) was officially censured for his *heliocentric teachings by the Church, he himself believed the Bible and that it supported his views (of God’s special creation.”)
-Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Men of Science, Men of God (1988), Master Books, pp. 12, 13, 22. icr.org *The planets orbit the Sun.

Norman Geisler, Ph.D. (Loyola), in his book, lists some, “Creationists Who Founded Modern Science:
Kepler-Astronomy; Pascal-Hydrostatics; Boyle-Chemistry; Newton-Physics; Steno-Stratigraphy; Faraday-Magnetic theory; Babbage-Computers; Agassiz-Ichthyology; Simpson-Gynecology; Mendel-Genetics; Pasteur-Bacteriology; Kelvin-Thermodynamics; Lister-Antiseptic surgery; Maxwell-Electrodynamics; and Ramsay-Isotopic chemistry.”
–When Skeptics Ask (1990), Victor Books, pg. 214.

“Darwin, it has become commonplace to acknowledge, never really addressed the “origin of species” in his book of that title.”
–Niles Eldredge, Ph.D. (geologist, paleontologist, and atheist), “Progress in Evolution?” -New Scientist, vol. 110 (June 5, 1986), pg. 55. -On: Darwin’s Origin of Species by Natural Selection (1859).

“Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has been maintained.” –Geisler, When Skeptics Ask pg. 212.
[Darwin’s Gradualism Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium.]

“Creationists, of course, have always argued that, while natural selection is a real process that serves to eliminate unfit organisms, it could never create the complex, wonderfully adapted organisms found in the living world.”
–H.M. Morris, The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, Science & Creation (1996), Master Books, pg. 34.

“Their theory (Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium)…appears to be based solely on the absence of transitional fossils. Darwin, after all, understood suddenness to be evidence of Creation. If this is true, then it supports what Creationists said all along – the sudden appearance of fully formed animals is evidence of Creation.” –Geisler, pg. 231.

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Memorable Quotes: SCIENTISTS

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord overall, and on account of His dominion
He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” -Sir Isaac Newton* (1686).

“When I wrote my treatise *Mathmatica Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (1692).
–Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, astronomer, inventor of the Calculus (1666), and considered one of the most outstanding scientists of all time.

“From the Divine Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed…” –Galileo Galilei, Galileo’s letters of 1613-15.
-The Italian physicist and astronomer, who stood for freedom of inquiry.

“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle. 1st Corinthians 2:14. 1st Century A.D.

And, He really gets down to earth:

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
–Jesus, the Christ, the KING. John 3:12. (Ch. 3.)

And, He really gets down to earth:

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” –Jesus, the Christ, the KING. John 3:12. (Ch. 3.)

“…I am with you always…” –Matthew 28:18-20. (Acts 18:9-10; 23:11.)

“Follow Me.” –Matthew 9:9. John 8:12; 10:27. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-18; and, 7:1.)

“…for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…”
–John 12:47. (John 3:14-36.)

“I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
-John 11:25-26.

“Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” –John 5:24.
(Isaiah 48:16. John 1:1-18; 14:26; 17:1-26; 20:21. 1 John 4:10.)

“…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” –John 3:15. (Ch .3.)

“…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
-Paul, in Romans 10:13.

“He who is not with Me is against Me…” –Jesus. Matthew 12:30. 1st John 5:10-20.
(Jeremiah 32:17. Psalms 14 and 139. Colossians 1:1-29. Galatians 3:1-29.)

 

[wildleafblower]

However, if they do know that their postion is opposed to Catholic teaching and they refuse to change, they would be a heretic, correct?

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim You addressed that comment to Peter Wilders who apparently doesn’t agree with the theory of evolution and the Big Bang yet we know that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI do and have stated such. John Paul II did say that ‘science is TRUTH’! I do think there is a possiblity that Peter Wilders and others that oppose current scientific findings endorsed by Vatican II might be considered a heretic according to:

JOHN PAUL II
Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
AD TUENDAM FIDEM,
by which certain norms are inserted
into the Code of Canon Law
and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

**Canon 1436 **– § 1. *Whoever **denies a truth *which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. *In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

1. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding*.
   (Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 18 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.JOHN PAUL II)
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...otu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

I think we are trying to warn them how important it is that we should all believe that Science is Truth and not be afraid to accept and value the scientific communities expertise of which they agree the theory of evolution is a fact. What do you think?

 

[edwest2]

“science is truth”? No. “Truth cannot contradict truth.” All truth eventually leads back to, or points to, God. Let’s not leave God out of the equation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

“science is truth”? No. “Truth cannot contradict truth.” All truth eventually leads back to, or points to, God. Let’s not leave God out of the equation.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, science is truth (scientific truth) as explained by John Paul II in this document:

THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

"Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research. We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful. . .

*"Scientists themselves perceive in the study of the human mind the mystery of a spiritual dimension which transcends cerebral physiology and appears to direct all our activities as free and autonomous beings, capable of responsibility and love, and marked with dignity. This is seen by the fact that you have decided to expand your research to include aspects of learning and education, which are specifically human activities.

**“Thus your considerations focus not just on the biological life common to all living creatures but also include the interpretive and evaluative work of the human mind.” ***

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...cdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf

 

[wildleafblower]

Really?? I am sure that defence would have gone down a storm when hauled before the Holy Office of the Inquisition

Alec
evolutionpages.com

“We” dont have to haul anyone away! The Magisterium is on the side of science. It’s nice to have it around these days when the battle between science and psudeo-science gets in our way as you can note in my above messages. There’s nothing wrong with a logical counter attack. I will use whatever I can find to stop the nonsense. Damn me if you will ( Note of interest, I just found out that Blehmeim Place protected a pope. It’s the estate of the 11th Duke of Marlborough.)

 

[Peter_Wilders]

**Wildleafblower quotes:

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty**.

It is precisely canons such as the above which condemn as erroneous those who reject the Lateran IV definition of Creation.

There are no macro-evolutionary teachings which have magisterial support. If a Pope or other Church dignatary supports a teaching contrary to a conciliar decree they are in error. History has witnessed such cases, e.g. Arianism.

Peter