The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[edwest2]

And this is where most arguments on this subject go. Sad.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, whatever the evidence, the current promotion of evolution is not designed to align with Biblical truth. We are called animals and accidents, God has told us differently.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

koru << Why do you just find one thing that is possibly incorrect out of hundreds and possibly thousands and throw out the entire read? That’s not how studying is supposed to be conducted. I DO believe that you should research material for authenticity but don’t throw away the whole steak because of a piece of fat! >>

Any creationist book that still refers to the “moon dust” argument when it was discredited by creationists themselves 25 years ago should be absolutely thrown in the garbage can and ignored. There is no steak or meat there. Sorry. I have the PDF in My Documents and I might glance at it again. Definitely one of the longer collection of creationist arguments I’ve seen.

A better PDF booklet backed by scientific organizations is Evolution and the Fossil Record by The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society on my site.

koru << Regarding the radiometric dating, you should know better if you’ve researched it out. Radiometric dating (Carbon 14, Argon, et cetera) cannot be used to accurately identify ages past 30,000 years. The reason being is due to what affects the calculations when deciphering the half-life breakdown. Even the scientist that discovered and invented carbon dating would attest to this! >>

You research it out not by reading The Kolbe Center, Answers In Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, or any creationist sites or books, but by reading the most authoritative works on the subject, which are:

G. Brent Dalrymple’s The Age of the Earth (Standard Univ Press, 1991), and Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies (Stanford, 2004)
Alan P. Dickin’s Radiogenic Isotope Geology (Cambridge Univ Press, 2005)
Faure’s / Mensing’s Isotopes: Principles and Applications (Wiley Pub, 2004) or Principles of Isotope Geology (Wiley Pub, 1986)

These are standard textbooks. Have you read any of these? If you haven’t, you can’t even consider yourself to be moderately informed on radiometric dating. At least read the first one:

Here is a Summary of the first book by Dalrymple, edited by me
Here are further explanations and answers to objections by Dalrymple, edited by me

koru << Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field >>

Bad science.

koru << However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere >>

Bad science.

koru << If based solely on this, the earth has a stop point of 10,000 maximum >>

Bad science.

koru << There are many more problems with radiometric dating and the “geologic column” >>

All bad science and bogus science.

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

koru << You listed a fundamental physics and cosmology link among all these other links. I’ll try my best to look through these, but here’s my argument. >>

Thanks for trying, the Cosmology and Fundamental Physics article was written by John Paul II in 1981 to the Pontifical Adademy of Sciences. It shows that the Pope: (A) doesn’t have a problem with modern cosmology or physics nor the age of the universe/earth, (B) he interprets Genesis figuratively when it describes the creation of the cosmos.

koru << You’re trying to explain quantum mechanics while I’m trying to explain simple mathematics. >>

Bad mathematics.

koru << I think we can both agree that even though in the Pope’s position, they are not always infallible unless they declare they will be speaking for the teachings of the Church. There were bad Popes throughout all of history >>

We’re talking about Pius11, Pius12, JP2, B16. The modern Popes. In summary, Pius11 re-founded the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and said there is no conflict between modern science and Catholic faith. Pius12 said evolution of the human body is OK to be studied. JP2 said evolution has good evidence and is probably true. B16 said macroevolution or common descent is “virtually certain.”

koru << When these Popes speak of evolution, have they ever clarified if they speak of the evolution of kinds (or species) or do they speak of the simple microevolution which is observable and proven >>

Those are creationist distinctions. Micro vs. Macro. Ask SteveAndersen in here, you can’t just be a little bit evolved. The 2004 ITC document is clearly speaking of a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and macroevolution, from a first life, to us homo sapiens, in about 4 billion years. There are several philosophical and theological issues discussed in the paper as well. It is wonderfully written by the top international theologians in the Church.

koru << The evolutionary process puts the role and state of death before the fall of man. The Church teaches that through Adam’s sin, death was introduced into the world. According to evolutionary theory, there are countless generations of lives before the creation of man that have been theorized to have died and become extinct none-the-less! >>

There was animal death before the Fall. This is not a problem. Plenty of threads in here address that. Old earth creationist sites do this much better than I – Hugh Ross www.Reasons.org and Rich Deem www.GodAndScience.org

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

koru << I’m saying that the evidence portrayed in there list the hundreds and hundreds of flaws with evolution. >>

95% of those arguments or “flaws” are simply wrong or bad or bogus science. The other 5% will be scientists arguing about the details of evolution, not common descent (macroevolution) itself.

koru << but that is no reason to throw out the entire compendium because of who it was dedicated to or because it isn’t endorsed by a university press and that a few of them might be incorrect >>

I pointed out they dedicate the book to the founder of modern young-earth creationism, who is indeed a Seventh-day Adventist preacher/teacher named George McCready Price, also Henry Morris, founder of ICR. It is not endorsed by any scientific organizations or university press. Nor is it endorsed by the Popes like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is. I want the real deal, the real science. Give me the real science, thanks.

koru << The theory of evolution has caused nothing but trouble and never brought a soul to Christ >>

Evolution is a scientific subject, its purpose is not to bring souls to Christ. Evolution teaches how our world developed, the true nature of the evolution of plants, animals, man. It is a biological topic. Geology, Biology, Astronomy, etc purpose is not to save souls. That is religion’s job. Science is not religion nor theology.

koru << I have seen how the theory of Creationism has brought people TO Christ. There has to be SOME merit granted to the latter if for this only. >>

I disagree. Lying about science, whether intentionally or not, is never good or justified. You don’t bring people to Christ by lying to them, intentionally or not.

koru << I will continue to read through the links you provided and try to reason with and research both sides extensively in the pursuit of truth. I used to have no problem with the theory of evolution until it entirely corrupted the faith of my best friends. I have seen no good and never found any good that has come from this theory. >>

Good in the sense of eradicating disease, improving medicine, better crops and food, and learning how God truly brought the world into existence. Here are some more books for you, all evangelical Christians or Catholics and scientists (astronomers, geologists, biologists):

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller
Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk
The Language of God by Francis Collins

I’ll accept recommendations from you, but please no more “moon dust” type arguments. :whacky:

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << My brothers and sisters in Christ, whatever the evidence, the current promotion of evolution is not designed to align with Biblical truth. >>

No, that’s up to you and me to align evolution and the rest of science with Biblical truth.

Ed << We are called animals and accidents, God has told us differently. >>

Fact: we are animals. You are an animal, a chordate, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a synapsid, a mammal, eutherian, and primate of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

My brother in Christ, we are not called accidents by these books:

The Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims-only version
Catechism of the Catholic Church
In The Beginning… by Cardinal Ratzinger
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller

I suggest continue reading these and ignore the ones by Dawkins and the atheists you don’t like. For the science, you can read Dawkins and ignore his philosophy.

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

Dawkins is a good example of how claimed evidence for evolution is taken and used to prostelytize people. “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’ve just added one more.” Such clear bias shows me that the “evidence of evolution” is currently considered the biggest weapon in the atheist, free thinker, bright, secular humanist, and anarchist toolbox.

No thanks.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

ed << Dawkins is a good example of how claimed evidence for evolution is taken and used to prostelytize people. >>

Fine, now I double-dog dare you to buy and read the book edited by Keith Miller: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation

CONTENTS:

I. PROVIDING A CONTEXT

1. An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight? (Keith B. Miller)
   ----Worshipping the God of Providence [Deborah Haarsma]
2. Comparing Biblical and Scientific Maps of Origins (Conrad Hyers)
3. The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals (Edward B. Davis)
   ----Worshipping the God of Wisdom and Mystery [Edward B. Davis]
4. Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield on Science, the Bible, Evolution, and Darwinism (Mark A. Noll & David Livingstone)
5. Does Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles, and Scientific Practice (Loren Haarsma)

II. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THEORY

1. An Evolving Cosmos (Deborah Haarsma & Jennifer Wiseman)
   ----Worshipping the Creator of the Cosmos [Deborah Haarsma]
2. Geological Framework of an Evolving Creation (Jeffrey Greenberg)
3. Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record (Keith B. Miller)
4. The “Cambrian Explosion”: A Challenge to Evolutionary Theory? (David Campbell & Keith B. Miller)
   ----Worshipping the Creator of the History of Life [Keith B. Miller]
5. Hominids in the Garden? (James P. Hurd)
6. Finding Adam: The Genetics of Human Origins (David Wilcox)
   ----God’s Power and Faithfulness: A Lesson from Nature [Loren Haarsma]
7. Biochemistry and Evolution (Terry M. Gray)
8. Complexity, Self-Organization, and Design (Loren Haarsma & Terry M. Gray)

III. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND INSIGHTS

1. Is the Universe Capable of Evolving? (Howard J. Van Till)
2. Special Providence and Genetic Mutation: A New Defense of Theistic Evolution (Robert John Russell)
3. Christology, Evolution, and the Cross (George L. Murphy)
   ----The Peaceable Kingdom [Laurie J. Braaten]
4. An Evolving Creation and Environmental Issues (Jeffrey Greenberg)
   ----Being Stewards of the Creator God [Jeffrey Greenberg]
5. May the Glory of the Lord Endure Forever! Biblical Reflections on Creation Care (Laurie J. Braaten)
6. Animal Pain: Beyond the Threshold? (John C. Munday, Jr.)
7. Evolution and Original Sin (Robin Collins)
8. Evolution, Cognitive Neuroscience, and the Soul (Warren S. Brown)
   ----Remembering God’s People [George L. Murphy]

It is written by multiple authors, all evangelical or moderate Protestant Christians, all theistic evolutionists. They even quote the Popes so they are ecumenical. And write your review of the book in here.

Phil P

 

[Koru]

I can’t help but feel you are taking me for a fool… but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Although I may write appearingly as if I am being condescending or degrading in my following commentary, I am not, and I pray that no offense be taken regarding our faith and loyalty to the Lord and to His Church. Especially since this subject’s knowledge is not necessary for salvation.

“Geology, Biology, Astronomy, etc purpose is not to save souls. That is religion’s job. Science is not religion nor theology.” - PhilVaz

• All science should point towards God and a designer, not towards evolutionary process. You say that science’s job isn’t to save souls, but shouldn’t all truth show evidence for God, a designer, and not this evolutionary process especially since science and God cannot be against eachother because they both contain the truth? Religion doesn’t save souls, GOD saves souls… and if everything you’re being taught is dividing the lines between God and what’s being taught as truth/science, how can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because the truth/science says he or she has evolved from chimps?! Evolution separates His children from His saving grace, and I can personally attest to the works of this process.

“Evolution is a scientific subject, its purpose is not to bring souls to Christ. Evolution teaches how our world developed, the true nature of the evolution of plants, animals, man.” - PhilVaz

Evolution is a religion, just like creationism because neither have DIFINITIVE evidence that can be scientifically studied as observably working. THIS is a bare-bones fact. Evolution attempts to teach how this world could have developed. Science can never prove origins, it’s just the nature of science. Science IS perceived and SHOULD be perceived as a method to approach information, not a subject that is used to push ideology and assumptions.

When i spoke of the mathematics/physics scenario, it was purely metaphorical, not literal. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution… these terms aren’t just used by creationists. Evolutionists (both athiestic and thiestic) use these terms all the time to clarify which area they are discussing for clarification, so don’t try to minimalize the group down to make it seem as if I’m part of a minority group when using definitive terminology to get my point across.

“95% of those arguments or “flaws” are simply wrong or bad or bogus science. The other 5% will be scientists arguing about the details of evolution, not common descent (macroevolution) itself.” - PhilVaz

How can you come to that conclusion by only reading a few sections and tossing out the book? I’d say that 95% is a pretty finite amount and determined outcome for somebody who hasn’t READ it all. You say you are searching for the truth… is this how you conduct your research? Or are you telling me you actually read the entire 1000’ish page book in the past day or so?

“Lying about science, whether intentionally or not, is never good or justified. You don’t bring people to Christ by lying to them, intentionally or not.” - PhilVaz

You are absolutely correct. I don’t lie to people to bring them to Christ. But the ones who proposed the evolutionary process and old earth concepts DID lie to get people to take them from Christ. Charles Lyell had HUGE issues with the bible and having to answer to God… so his book “Principles of Geology” lied about the facts and information to make it seem to refute a young earth creation. Charles Darwin, the father of the evolutionary concept, was highly influenced by his good friend’s writings.

Macro-evolution is not a part of true scientific study, and you stating it as so would be hypocritical to your statements regarding lying about science is to never be justified.

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[Koru]

“Good in the sense of eradicating disease, improving medicine, better crops and food, and learning how God truly brought the world into existence.” - PhilVaz

Show me how the THEORY of evolution helped in any miniscule way to eradicate diseases, improve medicine, produce better crops, and show how God truly brought this world into existence. I’m sure the only thing God had written down about how he made all that exists in the book of Genesis. I try not to add words to the Lord’s mouth when discussing what He created. True scientific study (nothing to do with evolution) shows the fruits of labor when improving medicine, eradicating diseases and producing better crops. These advances are all done by studying and studying over and over again, these things that CAN be studied and observed… namely, the human body and crops itself!

If macro-evolution is true, then it would also be true… that a man is not a man, but merely a step to the next evolutionary advancement! The evolutionary theory is a really recent concept! The Church has always taught since the apostles that the Lord God created all in seven days, it’s only recently that it’s become an issue. You’ll most likely bring up Galileo and how the Church made a mistake with him… well, the Church DIDN’T make a mistake turning down Galileo’s proposal. Also, Christians never thought the world was flat if you wanted to bring that up.

Galileo didn’t propose the currently taught heliocentricity as we know it today. He proposed that the entire UNIVERSE revolved around the sun, and THAT was struck down as heretical in the teachings of the Church. All major fields of scientists that founded and explored these fields were CHRISTIANS and all but few believed in the creation of seven days written and spoke of in Genesis.

Why are you now presenting books and literature written by protestant evolutionists (even though just a few posts back you were demeaning the compilation of arguements against evolution that I supplied as non-sufficient because it was dedicated to a protestant creationist)?

This is why believing in the Creation as it’s been passed down through the ages is important over modern, mainstream evolutionism

This looks like a good site for you to look into:
Kolbe Center

My view in a nutshell should be on that site… i don’t see any more room to debate this topic because all I could ever say has already been said before by other Catholic creationists. This topic really doesn’t concern the salvation of our souls, so to preserve our integrity before crossing into the realm of arguing just for the sake of being the winner, I will walk away from this thread. I see no sense in arguing with fellow Catholics unless they truly want my understanding on how God said He created all in this existence and then fulfilled His statement with the evidences I can provide (among many others providing the same evidences).

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[PhilVaz]

OK, this time I’ll try to keep it short. NOT!

I don’t see you responding to (A) the Popes affirm an old universe, an old earth, and macroevolution; (B) the Popes and Catechism affirms modern mainstream science does not conflict with Catholic faith. And by mainstream science I mean modern astronomy, modern geology, modern biology which includes evolution.

koru << All science should point towards God and a designer, not towards evolutionary process. >>

Both/And. Science and evolution points toward God. God set up nature’s laws. Those laws eventually led to us intelligent creatures capable of worshipping their Creator. The fact there is a universe finely-tuned for life points toward God. I’ll accept the cosmological and “anthropic principle” I.D. arguments.

koru << Religion doesn’t save souls, GOD saves souls… >>

Both/And. God set up the Catholic religion, that religion saves souls. Religion is not a bad word, it is found in James 1. And Karl Keating used the word often in the old days (his tapes, and first book Cath and Fund).

koru << how can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because the truth/science says he or she has evolved from chimps? >>

Oh I can think of a couple of those kinds of questions…

How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because science says the earth is a sphere?
How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because science says the earth rotates around the sun?
How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because science says the earth is very old?
How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because science says we an animal, a chordate, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a synapsid, a mammal, eutherian, and primate of the species homo sapiens sapiens?
How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this (outside of common descent or macroevolution) is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93?
How can God save one who rejects his mercy and grace because science says that chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

Same answer applies to each. Facts of science are facts of science. Tell those people to start posting here, and I and others will set them straight immediately. It is creationist lies that make those people run away from the faith. If they had read the Popes, been aware of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and read the books I recommended, they would understand better.

koru << Evolution is a religion, just like creationism because neither have DIFINITIVE evidence that can be scientifically studied as observably working. THIS is a bare-bones fact. >>

Observed Instances of speciation Part 1
Observed Instances of speciation Part 2
Evolution is both a fact and a theory
Definitive Evidence for Macroevolution

The theory is the mechanism. Evolution (speciation) has been observed, therefore it is also fact.

koru << Macro-evolution and micro-evolution… these terms aren’t just used by creationists. >>

These terms are used primarily by creationists. However, those involved in the creation-evolution controversy have responded.

koru << How can you come to that conclusion by only reading a few sections and tossing out the book? >>

Oh there’s no question that any book today that claims the earth is 10000 years old or less is full of bogus science.

The Age of the Earth by Dalrymple (Stanford Univ Press, 1991)
The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)

Those are the standard works, along with the other books I have listed on Radiometric dating.

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

To be fair, I also have the book "In Six Days" attempting to show the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old and the three Ph.D. geologists in this book admit they get their science from GENESIS in the Bible, NOT from the scientific DATA. They admit the scientific evidence and data is totally AGAINST their view. I have quoted from this book before in here, and I might dig up that thread and find those quotes again.

koru << You are absolutely correct. I don’t lie to people to bring them to Christ. >>

Anyone who presents the “moon dust” argument for a young moon/young earth is lying about science.

koru << But the ones who proposed the evolutionary process and old earth concepts DID lie to get people to take them from Christ. >>

Where? Who exactly? Read the history and you’ll find out about the old-earth Christian geologists: England’s John Pye Smith, America’s Edward Hitchcock, and Scotland’s Hugh Miller.

koru << Charles Lyell had HUGE issues with the bible and having to answer to God… so his book “Principles of Geology” lied about the facts and information to make it seem to refute a young earth creation. >>

People knew the earth was very old before Charles Lyell, but he was a major contributor to modern geology. He was a Deist if I remember correctly. The whole history is here.

koru << Macro-evolution is not a part of true scientific study >>

Says Who? Not the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed by the Popes but The Kolbe Center rejected by the Popes and rejected by Cardinal Schonborn. I have already quoted his view of young-earth creationism. He calls it “nonsense.” That is his word.

koru << Show me how the THEORY of evolution helped in any miniscule way to eradicate diseases, improve medicine, produce better crops, and show how God truly brought this world into existence. I’m sure the only thing God had written down about how he made all that exists in the book of Genesis. >>

The theory and facts of evolution gives us the framework on how diseases evolve, how crops grow and can be modified. The study of these gives us the information to stop disease, and grow better crops. Evolution and the science of genetics are both involved.

The book of Genesis is not a scientific text. Pope John Paul II already told you that. Evolution IS how God brought the world into existence since evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The evidence is overwhelming.

Article on crops, agriculture and evolution
Article on how understanding evolution helps us fight disease

koru << You’ll most likely bring up Galileo and how the Church made a mistake with him… >>

Naw, I’ll do one better. I’ll provide this MP3 file "The Church and Science" from How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Some of the world’s top scientists have always been Catholics.

koru << Why are you now presenting books and literature written by protestant evolutionists (even though just a few posts back you were demeaning the compilation of arguements against evolution that I supplied as non-sufficient because it was dedicated to a protestant creationist) >>

Because Protestant evangelical evolutionists are doing a better job (in my opinion) at reconciling the Catholic faith and evolution than are Catholic evolutionists. I would not recommend, for example, John Haught’s book 101 Questions on God and Evolution. I would recommend Keith Miller’s book Perspectives on an Evolving Creation which is more in line with Catholic faith on Adam/Eve, original sin, and Genesis than Haught’s books are. Keith Miller’s book is also clear the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

It was indeed a Seventh-day Adventist preacher at the beginning of the 20th century who brought us the modern “young earth creationism” movement. Are you going to listen to the modern Popes, or a Seventh-day Adventist?

koru << This looks like a good site for you to look into: Kolbe Center >>

Bad source if you are looking for solid science. I have read the site fairly extensively, also listened to the talks by Sungenis, Gerald Keane, and others there. All bogus science. The standard scientific texts I listed above are far superior because they present accurate science. Thank you. Is our little debate over yet?

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The basic, root question is why is it so important for Catholics to accept the evidence for evolution? There is more here than science. We are talking about an ideology.

Because if the Bible is in some true sense God’s doing, & if the same God is the Author & Lord of all creation, no real conflict is to be expected. Obscurity in plenty is to be expected - because God “dwells in inaccessible light”, whereas we are not only finite, but (what is much more troubling) sinful.​

Why accept evolution ? Because it appears to be true & valid. If it is true - then God is its author. That it is true, in no way guarantees that it cannot seem false; there are difficulties with anything. Those in creationism look much more formidable than those in evolution: because evolution does not proceed theologically - so it is less difficult than a solution that tries to. Evolution ignores God & Scripture - so it leaves one free to accept both

The Catholic Church holds that God creates from nothing. I would like to ask all Theistic Evolutionists exactly where does God intervene in evolution?

God bless,
Ed

Talk of God “intervening” in anything, is exactly wrong. God is not an interloper, mucking about in someone else’s universe like a party-crasher: that would imply that all created things were not created by Him, & that He is not transcendent or eternal. It is an impossible position to maintain - if one is not going to jettison a great deal of doctrine in regard to God.​

It is because God is not related to the universe as an intervener in its life & nature, that it is “safe” for evolution. There is no need for evolution to appear anything any other than random - that does not in the slightest mean that it is not subject to God: it does mean that we know God by faith & not by any created effect - but that would be the case even if evolution were no more than a discredited superstition, & creationism were unchallenged & undoubted. God is not an object in the universe - He is absolutely & unmaginably different from it in general, as well as from every creature in partticular. Theologically evolution makes excellent sense. In no way does it go against the dogma of the creation of all things from nothing by God.

If we have to bring the Bible into this discussion, Ecclesiasticus* 18 says much of what needs to be said:

Chapter 18

• (18:1) qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul Deus solus iustificabitur et manet invictus rex in aeternum
• (18:2) quis sufficit enarrare opera illius
• (18:3) quis enim investigabit magnalia eius
• (18:4) virtutem autem magnitudinis eius quis enuntiabit et quis adiciet enarrare misericordiam eius
  *AKA: Sirach

18 He who lives forever created the whole universe;
2 the Lord alone is just.a
4 To none has he given power to proclaim his works;
and who can search out his mighty deeds?
5 Who can measure his majestic power?
And who can fully recount his mercies?

cursus.uea.ac.uk/vulgate/Ecclesiasticus

hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/SIR/SIR18.HTM

FWIW, there are other Biblical passages on the creation that Genesis 1-2.4a. If people were not so hypnotised by the opening of the Bible, they might pay more attention to these other passages, & this (wholly unnecessary) controversy might be avoided.

More Ecclesiasticus:

• [&version=4chapter=17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=28&chapter=17&version=4)
• [&version=4chapter=18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=28&chapter=18&version=4)
  According to Wisdom, He created all things “by number and measure and weight”. Put these passages together with those from Genesis (& others); & a far more
  balanced notion of creation is possible. No one account says all that the Bible says about creation - & they together are incomplete without Christ in Person. And belief in Him, is not imperilled in the slightest by believing that creation took place by evolution. Some passages in the NT almost seem to point to it - or at least, to be applicable to it; though they do not in fact refer to it.

 

[wildleafblower]

And this is where most arguments on this subject go. Sad.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, whatever the evidence, the current promotion of evolution is not designed to align with Biblical truth. We are called animals and accidents, God has told us differently.

God bless,
Ed

“Evolution. The biological theory which teaches that all forms of plants and animals, including man, living on the earth today have developed through a long series of progressive modifications from lower or simpler primeval types.” (The Holy Bible, edited by Reverend John P. O’Connell M.A., S.T.D., Published with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch Archbishop of Chicago, The Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1952. At the back of the Holy Bible [A Roman Catholic Holy Bible] there is the Catholic Encyclopedia wherein my statement in quotes is located on p.g. 87.)

 

[Palladio]

Ignatius << The Church does not suport old earth creationism. >>

Yes, the Church supports old earth evolution. I hope that’s what you meant, and not young-earth creationism. :banghead:

Cardinal Schonborn on young earthers:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Phil P

thanks for this!

 

[Koru]

“A) the Popes affirm an old universe, an old earth, and macroevolution; (B) the Popes and Catechism affirms modern mainstream science does not conflict with Catholic faith. And by mainstream science I mean modern astronomy, modern geology, modern biology which includes evolution.”- PhilVaz

(A) I don’t ever remember reading anything that proves that the Popes affirm or teach that the universe is old, that the earth is old, and that macroevolution is true. Why don’t you provide some quotes from the Popes that explicitly state what you say they state… not implicitly.

(B) I agree, mainstream science does NOT conflict directly with the Catholic faith. That’s a given. There is still the issue with calling the theory of evolution as a scientific fact though. Calling something ‘science’ makes the assumption that it is testable and provable. Remember that science is NOT a subject, it is the approach to testing and observing subjects for proof. The approach of science determines that this theory cannot be proven because it is an origin theory, no man was there before man was created. So why are people so adamant on trying to call evolution ‘science’? I have no problem with those who actually understand that macroevolution is as much as a religious idiology of that which I believe, creationism.

I’ve already stated WHY the how of creation is irrelevent towards faith. One belief brings people TO that faith and the other steals the faithful from it. This is just a simple observation that more than I will attest to. Since the how isn’t relevent towards salvation, it shouldn’t even be addressed pro or con in the Church’s teachings on whether either side is the correct side. Only that the Church state the guidelines and boundaries to following both sides…which is exactly what the Church does.

Now, referring back to (A). This is why the Popes can never give a difinitive statement (even though you say that they have) regarding the age of the earth and whether or not macroevolutionary means were the how of God’s design.

P.S.
-I’ve read through the book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” previously (both audio and text). It’s a very good read. Catholic monks discovered the majority of all the major sciences… but none of them ever tried using scientific approaches to determine origin stories because it was known that using the scientific approach towards something that can’t be physically tested and physically observable would be an obvious waste of time and effort. Although off the subject, it is encouraging to know that it was Catholic monks that discovered champagne!

You provide protestant evolutionists who, you say, are doing the battle much more efficiently towards the evidences of evolution… yet you turn around and specify protestants who are defending the creationist view better than many Catholics and say that they should be looked down apon because of this.

Now, since we both won’t come to a conclusion on this matter apparently… and nobody has actually come to a difinitive conclusion on these topics (and nobody ever will until Christ tells us how it all happened), I think it best to not even argue over an issue on a Catholic apologetics page because it does NOT pertain to salvation, which is what apologetics is used to defend… the traditional and still-standing teachings passed down in the Church. This thread should really be relocated to a “theory discussion” forum because none of it is relevent in Apologetics. uch:

We should just agree to disagree and move on. We both think that our individual sides show more evidence to the contrary, and there’s not moving past that. There are more than one way to interpret and study findings, It’s called perspective. If mainstream science wants to make some pretty big assumptions to fit their perspective, that’s their issue. I’m sure you can say the same towards my view as well.

I thought I was done explaining, but you had the whole (A) & (B) thing… i couldn’t help myself to resist replying

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[edwest2]

“double-dog dare you”? I think the last time I heard this was when I was 8, maybe 10 years old.

I prefer to return to the Bible and the passage that talks about always learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

All I’m getting is “Once you undrstand it, you’ll know it’s true.” I understand it. It’s a lot of speculation. It’s proponents here do not allow for any any evidence contrary to evolution. And I’ve seen evidence that contradicts evolution, but it’s inadmissable here.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, there are a lot of things I would like to know about but I know I won’t get any “free lessons” about those subjects here because the desperate, eternal goal is to convince Christians that evolution is a fact. It’s not. In a USA Tody article, Pope Benedict said that it cannot be proven. But you will notice that as the days, weeks, and months pass, we will be told over and over that we must decide that evolution is a fact. We have no choice (or at least, that’s what we’re led to believe).

Always learning, they will never come to the knowledge of the Church, and their desperate commitment to “evangelize” all Christians is not for our betterment. Brothers and Sisters, this is about corrupting our relationship with God and the downgrading of our Divine creation to us being only animals with no god of any kind.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

<< “double-dog dare you”? I think the last time I heard this was when I was 8, maybe 10 years old. >>

All right now you’ve done it. I triple-cat dare you.

<< I understand it. It’s a lot of speculation. >>

Yeah sure, you’ve read this, all of this? None of it is speculation.

<< In a USA Today article, Pope Benedict said that it cannot be proven. >>

No theory in science is "proven." Benedict has already said as Cardinal Ratzinger that macroevolution (common descent) is "virtually certain." That is as proven as can be in science.

Kind of like the Pod people in The Invasion, don’t fight it. It will be much better once you accept evolution is the fact it is. Sleep now, and accept evolution.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

koru << I thought I was done explaining, but you had the whole (A) & (B) thing… i couldn’t help myself to resist replying >>

(A) thanks for your reply, (B) go back and read what I quoted from Pius11, Pius12, JP2, B16, (C) consider buying some of the books I listed, or checking them out from the library, (D) try to avoid creationist texts and web sites for a month or two, and you will come to conclusion: (E) the earth is very old, evolution is a fact, the Church hasn’t had problems with these facts, so we must not run from these facts, we should try to incorporate these facts into our faith the best we can. (F) Keith Miller, Ken Miller, Darrel Falk, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux all do this exceptionally well.

(G) Phil P

 

[edwest2]

Evolution has become the religion of the Atheist. All the constant chatter here is just an attempt to “evangelize” Christians, and to downgrade our Divine creation to being just another animal. No can do.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, evolution cannot be proven.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

God bless,
Ed

 

[zian]

All I’m getting is “Once you undrstand it, you’ll know it’s true.” I understand it. It’s a lot of speculation. It’s proponents here do not allow for any any evidence contrary to evolution. And I’ve seen evidence that contradicts evolution, but it’s inadmissable here.

I keep hearing about this evidence, Ed. Bring a few items so we can see them and discuss their merits. Oh, and by the way, it’s the business of those who do science to try to shoot down theories, all theories. And “speculation” (hypothesis) is a valid part of scientific inquiry.

I’ve been doing industrial chemical research for 31 years, and we are always looking for evidence that may contradict our current theories. Contrary evidences are the stones on which the theoretical knife is sharpened. This is how all science is done. If all we had were a lot of bumbling yes-men, then many projects would never make any progress. When we fail to find contradictory evidence, we have increasing confidence that we are on the right track - until the next experiment is done, anyways.