S
StAnastasia
Guest
Perhaps it’s because young earthers – like flat earthers – have nothing to contribute to a serious scientific discussion. Among scientists there is no longer any debate about whether evolution happens.
- Status
L
Luke65
Guest
It is true that God gave us His Word to tell us how to get to Heaven - “for the sake of our salvation”. Therefore, it is true that God told us how He created the universe, and how we got here, for the sake of our salvation. That is the logically consistent position; and it is borne out in our Lord’s prophetic words that I quote in my signature. But to say that God told us how to get to Heaven, and therefore not the heavens go, is not only a non sequitur, but it flatly contradicts Scripture, since God told us many things about how the heavens go and how the natural world works in general - and it is all the Truth.
A
alacoque
Guest
C: You said: “The point is that this quip is meant to tell us the Scriptures are NO place to find scientific facts.”
That was MY point all along. So, we agree on that. Same for the Church (she does not speak dogmatically on science). End of story.
I don’t understand the whole flutter about all of this anyway (if my understanding is correct and the ‘flutter’ is all about ‘science’ and the Church’s position viz same).
The Church does not proclaim dogmatically on anything scientific. She leaves that to science and knows, in her wisdom, that true science and real scientific truths will never conflict with God’s revelation - since He created all that is, including science and the truths that we discover with science.
The only dogmatic proclimation, by the Church, remotely concerning any of this, is the fact that the Catholic faith infallibly states, per God’s revelation of Himself, that HE created humankind and created them uniquely, in His image. (even exactly ‘how’ He did it is open to various theories).
This ‘creation of mankind’ issue, however, is not a scientific issue (as far as the Church is concerned), but a metaphysical one, speaking and pertaining to God’s revelation.
So, I reiterate: The Church does not ‘require’ us to believe anything at all, scientifically…whether it be about dinosaurs, black holes, undersea hydrothermal vents or whatever.
The Church has always maintained a belief in the validity and need for secularity, esp. in a free, democratic republic such as ours. Secularity and ‘secularism’ are two very different animals however, but that’s another discussion.
Having said all that, I still fail to see what all the hub-bub is about. As far as the Church and her dogmatic teaching is concerned, there is no issue; as far as PERSONAL opinion and belief are concerned, people will differ in opinion, on almost everything, forever. It’s one of the effects of original sin that they will often also differ with objective Truth.
Good luck with whatever you’re pursuing. For those of us who sincerely seek the Truth, there is every reason to believe we will find it.
God bless you
That was MY point all along. So, we agree on that. Same for the Church (she does not speak dogmatically on science). End of story.
I don’t understand the whole flutter about all of this anyway (if my understanding is correct and the ‘flutter’ is all about ‘science’ and the Church’s position viz same).
The Church does not proclaim dogmatically on anything scientific. She leaves that to science and knows, in her wisdom, that true science and real scientific truths will never conflict with God’s revelation - since He created all that is, including science and the truths that we discover with science.
The only dogmatic proclimation, by the Church, remotely concerning any of this, is the fact that the Catholic faith infallibly states, per God’s revelation of Himself, that HE created humankind and created them uniquely, in His image. (even exactly ‘how’ He did it is open to various theories).
This ‘creation of mankind’ issue, however, is not a scientific issue (as far as the Church is concerned), but a metaphysical one, speaking and pertaining to God’s revelation.
So, I reiterate: The Church does not ‘require’ us to believe anything at all, scientifically…whether it be about dinosaurs, black holes, undersea hydrothermal vents or whatever.
The Church has always maintained a belief in the validity and need for secularity, esp. in a free, democratic republic such as ours. Secularity and ‘secularism’ are two very different animals however, but that’s another discussion.
Having said all that, I still fail to see what all the hub-bub is about. As far as the Church and her dogmatic teaching is concerned, there is no issue; as far as PERSONAL opinion and belief are concerned, people will differ in opinion, on almost everything, forever. It’s one of the effects of original sin that they will often also differ with objective Truth.
Good luck with whatever you’re pursuing. For those of us who sincerely seek the Truth, there is every reason to believe we will find it.
God bless you
A
alacoque
Guest
Luke: I disagree (with what I think you are saying) and the Church disagrees as well. Scripture needs authentic and authoritative interpretation and that the Church provides.
Through her dogma and those beliefs / issues requiring assent from all Catholics, the Church (as I said in my post re Cassini) does not dogmatically pronounce on any scientific fact. A person may chose, personally, to believe none, some or all of what you have referred to as God’s telling us the ‘how’ of things, but it remains a personal choice / belief.
The Church, the Body of Christ on earth, is safeguarded and protected by Him (through His Holy Spirit) from teaching error when stating dogmatic Truth demanding assent. The unalterable fact remains: The dogmatic / doctrinal teaching of the Church is infallible and she alone is the one to whom Christ has given the authority to interpret scripture and to hand down, to mankind, His revelation therein. If, in the Scriptures, we find here and there some revelation by God of things that coincide, as scientific discoveries unfold, with the facts of science, so be it. That does not mean, however, that Scripture is a science book, that it contains the sum total of all scientific knowledge, or that it’s purpose is to teach us science. There may be some ‘science’ in Scripture, but it remains God’s revelation of Himself viz mankind and teaches the way of salvation. That’s it’s purpose.
To the degree that we, in our own reading / interpretation / feeling about what is in Scripture, find conflict or contradiction with the teaching of the Church, it is WE who need to think again, pray again, and search…not the Church. Once again, the Church does not provide or teach any scientific data as part of her doctrine.
God be with you
L
Luke65
Guest
Praise God, indeed! My indoctrination wasn’t completed, thanks be to God. I was sold on “billions of years”, but not Evolution, though I didn’t give it much thought. But it is very difficult to overcome the brainwashing of the world. That is why it is written:
“Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants.” (Deuteronomy 32:2)
Because “old grass” gets stuck in its ways - pride prevents people from receiving God’s graces. God wants His people to know the truth and put their trust in Him, not the foolish wisdom of the world. He has said this many times in many ways, but you have to believe before you can understand. And God-willing, we will continue to proclaim this!
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for your kind words and prayers. We must speak the truth daily to combat the falsehoods being spread among the people. I know the modernists/secularists/atheists come here to start a debate for the sole purpose of getting free advertising for their message. Few wish to understand something more perfectly.
Peace,
Ed
A
alacoque
Guest
Thank you for your kind words and prayers. We must speak the truth daily to combat the falsehoods being spread among the people. I know the modernists/secularists/atheists come here to start a debate for the sole purpose of getting free advertising for their message. Few wish to understand something more perfectly./QUOTE]
Dominus vobiscum, Ed!!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
A great post, alacoque!
C
cassini
Guest
As usual Anastasia (you no longer deserve the title St), you demonstrate the Modernist arrogance and censorship that now prevalis within the Church. You have decided we have nothing to contribute so is this why your Vatican cronies do not allow creationist to set foot in Rome these days.
As regards your reference to flat-earthers, you demonstrate the correctness of the following:
**
The Earth: a Sphere or Flat?**
Any mention of the pre-Copernican geocentric or earth-centred reality today would without a doubt be replied to with a reference to what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This would be the standard reaction for a generation led to believe we are more intelligent and knowledgable than those ignoramuses of historic times and especially those Bible-thumping Churchmen of the Middle Ages and the seventeenth century. But the hard fact is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ among the great geocentricists of old exist in the sceptics’ prejudices, for it is a long time since that notion was seen off. The first recorded science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in Isaias, yes, in the Old Testament, the Bible itself:
‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.’ — Ch. 40:22.
That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient science. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as the Copernican propagandists would have us believe.
C
Cbailey2
Guest
Thanks Ed! This was exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned Aquinas, especially Proof five: all of creation is at the service of God, from evaporation to DNA recombination. What appears to be a process lacking intelligence and proceeding from the chaos Cassini mentioned is, in fact, fufilling an intelligent purpose at the behest of our Creator.
All of nature, all observation/all fact/all science must point to God if it has any hope of being true.
C
Cbailey2
Guest
Great Post Alacoque! Christ had two commandments for us: to love God with all that we are and to love one another as He loved us. If our anything causes us to lose track of either or both of these things, then we’ve lost everything.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
assini I censor nothing. I have no Vatican cronies, as you say, as I don’t work in the Vatican. However, if your theories about the universe are worth pursuing, no doubt the pope and the cardinals will see to it that you get a hearing.
C
Cbailey2
Guest
Ed,
I don’t know if I should read this to mean me. If yes, please advise. I’ve tried to explain how it is possible for a catholic to be a good catholic and believe the science behind evolution. I don’t make the claim that all who believe in evolution are good catholics or that none are, nor have I said the same about creationists who derive science from the Bible. I have never sought to pass judgment on your or your faith in Christ.
I realize you’ve had this conversation with a great many people, some of whom do not believe in Christ or the Truth of scripture. Those who think that scientific truth “invalidates” any Biblical truth will readily discover that even their science doesn’t support them. I am not one of them.
I have tried to make the case that not all Biblical truth is scientific truth. That there are many forms by which God has spoken to us in Scripture and all of them speak the truth. Christ had to use parables to express His Truth to us because we were and are too much like children to fully understand His Mystery without Him simplifying it.
Not all truth must be literally taken and I know you must agree with me on this! One cannot define love in a literal form and be satisfied. St. Paul writes “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.” He could have literally written that those who speak or argue without love sound abrasive to people 98.4% more often, but that doesn’t express the truth as well as the literary device of metaphor. (Even “abrasive” or similar words are metaphor: these words have meaning to us because when we say “abrasive” our mind pictures the friction between two objects and resulting effect)
My end is not to debate science with yourself or Cassini but literature (using the original meaning of literature: anything that is written for the purpose of expression/communication).Or largely “what forms can truth take?” When Psalm 5 says “For there is no sincerity in their mouths; their hearts are corrupt. Their throats are open graves; on their tongues are subtle lies” it does not literally mean that there are open graves in the throats of liars but it does conjure up the truth that lies are like the stench of rot and decay.
Modernists have put forth the canard that only literal fact has a claim to being called Truth. But for the majority of human history this has not been so: how do we teach our children about the important things? About morals and truth and beauty?
When your child asks you for an account of where babies come from, do you explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse, the motility of sperm, fertile cycles, amniotic fluid, and the rest? This might be pointless and irresponsible, as your child is not yet ready for that knowledge. Is telling an illiterate shepherd about particle physics and DNA similarly pointless and irresponsible? Wouldn’t we just say Mommy and Daddy loved each other very much so God blessed them with a child?
Which one of those explanations accounts for where a child comes from? Wouldn’t we say both?!?!? This debate seems to be insisting that it’s either one or the other.
E
edwest2
Guest
That would be fine if not for the fact that way too many people, including scientists, are taking the time to repeat, including here, there is no mention of God in science. And, if you pick up a Biology textbook, you will see that the entire process is mechanistic and self-developing. At no point is God identified as a truly causal agent. Way too many people are walking around with the totally false belief that:
A) Man is nothing but another animal.
B) Evolution does not need a supernatural force to operate as described.
C) Science is the source of all truth and all knowledge.
That is 100% of what these ‘debates’ are about. 100%
Now I’m not advocating that God get added to the Biology textbook, but, increasingly, there are posts here that identify science and religion as completely unconnected which violates the Church’s statement that the two are complementary. And most atheists/secularist/freethinkers hold up evolution as proof that there ain’t no God.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
At, where in the textbook would you put the material about God having done it? In the Preface? The Introduction? In the chapter on plate tectonics, or the chapter on evolution? In the conclusion? It will need to go somewhere, and I’m trying to think of the most logical place for it.
StAnastasia
C
cassini
Guest
Hardly stasia, their too busy telling the arians they have a wonderful faith.
C
Cbailey2
Guest
Cassini, I’m confused: are you protestant? Have you stop believing that the Catholic Church held the fullness of truth? The protestant reformers also believed they knew better than the Magisterium and the Pope and used Augustine and other Church fathers to their ends. I just find it very strange that a Catholic would take cheap shots at the Vatican, even when they disagree.
C
cassini
Guest
I am a Catholic.I believe the Catholic Church hold the fullness of truth. Which magisterium are you refering to above? Where do I use Augustine out of context? When I see the Vicar of Christ on Earth praising a religion that rejects the divinity of Christ I WORRY.
A
alacoque
Guest
Cassini - have I got this right? It’s now ‘modernist’ to believe the discoveries and ongoing contributions [secular] science provides? Who determined this was a modernist view? I realize you are claiming so in your posts, but is there some general, universal belief in this ‘label’ by the Church? Do you consider the view of the ‘old earth’ to be “modernist” simply because it’s a part of our ‘modern’ times or does that label go deeper than that, to you? Is it “modernist” because (like may other modernist ideas) it undermines the faith? (if that’s it, that’s false, because it doesn’t have anything to do, ultimately, with faith.) It seems from sentiments you express [terms like “Vatican cronies”, censorship prevailing in the Church, etc] that you do not hold the Church in very high esteem or honor her - even though you claim to be a Catholic and faithful to the Magesterium.
I’m ignorant on many things, and maybe this (the argument you and others are carrying on here) is one of them, but I still don’t get the point of all this discussion/thread. I can’t figure out if all that’s at issue is the ‘young earth’/‘old earth’ idea or if we’ve added the existence of God to the mix (some posts give the proofs of God’s existence/St. Thomas) along with a bunch of other issues. Sometimes, these threads have a tendency to grow beyond their boundaries, I know.
If your issue is only about the age of the earth and creation in 6 days, etc., then I can see where it makes for an interesting exercise and discussion, but I don’t know what your beef is with the Church, per se. Secular science is the one claiming what you seem to disagree with, so why are you arguing this on a Catholic forum and why are you hostile to the Church about it??
Humbly speaking for the Church, if I may, here’s the deal:
Catholics are free to believe in Creationism. Some faithful Catholics believe that God created the universe and all that is in it exactly word for word as it is laid out in Genesis - i.e. “young earth”. Other good Catholics believe in an “old earth”. The Church has no defined Dogma regarding the specifics of how the earth and the human body were created. Nor does it think that we have to nail that down to be saved.
In fact, if someone believes the world is flat, they can still be a faithful Catholic. Centuries ago, most Catholics believed the world was flat, and they still went to heaven. God is in search of a faithful heart, not a degree in science. Jesus said “become as children.” (Mat 18:3) Most children don’t know how old the earth is and don’t care.
Some faithful Catholics believe that the book of Genesis describes word for word what happened when God made creation. In the first 3 days God created the sky, earth and water, in the next 3 days he populated sky, earth and water. Then on the last day he rested. There are several movements within the Church, which are in perfectly good standing , that legitimately dispute the theory of the old earth, based on their interpretations of various scriptures, writings of the fathers and interpretations of various scientific findings. It is unlikely that the Vatican will ever make a dogmatic pronouncement on this issue, just as it has never made a pronouncement on the shape of the earth. Both views are perfectly welcome in the Church.
So, what am I missing?
Peace to you and your family :yup:
G
geoformeo
Guest
Hello all,
You’ve breached a topic that is very near and dear to my heart. Please allow me to add a few thoughts.
You’ve breached a topic that is very near and dear to my heart. Please allow me to add a few thoughts.
- With regard to the question in the OP, my answer is no. A Catholic scientist myself (yes, a theistic evolutionist), the Church’s position is spot-on.
- Some of you are unfortunately perpetuating the “conflict” between science and religion because you are acting as obtusely as the atheistic materialists in promoting your “faith alone” credo. You sound more like sola scriptura Protestants than Catholics. Both sides of the debate need to refrain from being ignorant of the other.
- Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. If you have objections to evolution, you need to address them from a scientific standpoint, not a theological one. In the same vein a scientist should not engage theology using a scientific theory.
- God made the natural physical laws. Evolution by natural selection is (for all intents and purposes) a natural law. Therefore, God made evolution. Who here can honestly claim that they know better than God how to create and diversify life?
- Faith and science are not at odds, no more than faith and works are. Again, as Catholics we believe in faith and works. What are the natural, physical laws other than one manifestation of God’s works? So it is not faith or science, it is faith and science. As other posters have so appropriately addressed and as the Catechism explains, they are complementary.
- God gave us brains that enable us to understand both our physical existence as well as our spiritual existence. Do we do Him justice by omitting the use of the brain’s ability to comprehend our physical world through science? Do not forget that “For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.” God not only made the universe, but also the laws that control it.
- For those of you who struggle with this issue, pray about it. Do not pray that your own rationale is correct, but that God will reveal to you His design. In the end, I can guarantee you, you will find His truth.
- Status