The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[Stephentlig]

few more qoutes from the Bible for the road, just to really drive it home.

2 Corinthians 1

12 For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity of heart and sincerity of God, and not in carnal wisdom, but in the grace of God, we have conversed in this world: and more abundantly towards you.

so you see they spoke to the people with the simplicity of God and not the carnal wisdom of the world.

1Corinthians:1:19-21 ''As scripture says: ''I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned. Where are the philosophers now? Where are the scribes? Where are any of our thinkers today? Do you see now how God has shown up the foolishness of human wisdom? If it was Gods wisdom that human wisdom should not know God, it was because God wanted to save those who have faith through the foolishness of the message that we preach.

1Corinthians:1:25 ‘‘For Gods foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.’’

If I was a Christian trying to prove the folliness of those who think they know how the world began, I’d use these qoutes,… on the other hand, if I was an evolutionist trying to understand how Eve came from adam and how creation began, I’d have to ignore these scriptural qoutes in order to continue my investigation.

Wisdom:8-9 ‘‘Even so, they are not to be excused: if they are capable of aquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master?’’:dancing::ehh:

 

[reggieM]

These are three of my favorite quotes on this topic (thanks to James Larson for referencing them):

“Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God: When a man hath done, then shall he begin: and when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss.” (Ecclus 28:5-6).

“And I understood that man can find no reason of all those works of God that are done under the sun: and the more he shall labor to seek, so much the less shall he find: yea, though the wise man shall say, that he knoweth it, he shall not be able to find it.” (Eccl 8:17).

“For the works of the Highest only are wonderful, and his works are glorious, secret, and hidden.” (Ecclus 11:4).

---

God’s works are secret and hidden. The more a person thinks he knows and labors to seek the mysteries of God, the less he will find. It is not possible to find out the glorious works of God - - when a man tries he will be a loss.

 

[geoformeo]

All,

Sorry I’ve been away a few days–glad to see the thread is still going. I don’t have much time to write tonight, but I must make a few comments with regard to the previous few posts.

Cassini, I appreciate your passion for the faith, but I must admonish you as a brother in the faith that I find your lack of faith in the Catechism of the Catholic Church extremely disturbing. Of all the books/magazines/writings that are garbage and deserve to be placed in the wastebasket, you chose to lump the CCC with them? That my friend, is borderline heresy–much more so than the theological musings of us theistic evolutionists.

Alacoque, I do hope that you continue to post on this thread. Your knowledge of the faith and inherent gentle Christian attitude is telling, and we need more of posters like you in this topic where passions can become enraged.

reggieM and Stephenlig, welcome to the thread. However, I must draw a hard line in disagreement with the belief that God’s works are ultimately hidden and that seeking them out is fruitless.

Are we God? No. Can we even come close to understanding the mind of God? No. But is our benevolent Creator, our Father, going to leave us completely in the dark about who He is and how He works? Absolutely not! I do not hesitate to share my knowledge of the physical world with my children when they ask me about it. How much more, then, is our heavenly Father going to reveal Himself to us through His physical creation?

I have never understood the blind faith rationale. Jesus taught in parables so that those who wanted to have true understanding would actually contemplate and seek out the deeper meaning to the stories. When man was commanded to fill the Earth and subdue it, did God mean we weren’t supposed to understand what we were subduing?

God is not a liar. Could He have made the universe in 6 24-hour days? Of course He could, He is God. But is God restrained by time? Who are we to tell Him that He couldn’t make the universe over a span of 13.7 billion years? Or that He can’t develop life through the naturalistic process of evolution by natural selection? The truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God. Therefore, the evidence that supports an old Earth and Universe and evolution cannot be rejected on the grounds that it does just that. Unless, of course, you believe in a God who is a trickster and deceiver.

Pure submission to God without any understanding of Him is more of an Islamic philosophy than a Christian one. Are you to tell the philosophers and theologians to stop thinking about the nature of God? Yet you mock scientists who reveal God’s workings in nature as a futile effort to understand Him. Yes, ultimately it is a futile effort, as we will never know everything. But should we not want to seek out our God? Are we to refrain from trying to be perfect, even though we know we are not and never will
be?

In the end, if God really didn’t want us to know anything about Himself or His actions, would He have really sent His son to teach, correct, show how to love, and ultimately die for us? Truth is truth, whether that be spiritual, physical, or mathematical, and Jesus is the Truth.

God bless you all and may His grace, love, and understanding shine down on all of you.

 

[cassini]

Cassini, Thanks for your reply - the problems you mention are important. Here’s how I would deal with them.
First, if the 1616, 1633 and 1820 papal decrees are infallible dogma, then we have to assent to them and any attempts to reverse or contradict them would be heretical. I agree with that. But I can’t see that those decrees are ex cathedra or even infallible by means of the ordinary magisterium.
First, we could say that those decrees simply represent the traditional teaching, handed down unchanged. That seems true – thus, it’s sacred tradition and infallible.
But the problem I see here is that Catholic teaching is only infallible in matters of revealed faith and morals.
So, if we said that the papal decrees regarding the sun’s movement were revealed matters of Faith, then there would be no reason to argue about the science. Secular science could say whatever it wants. We would merely say that the Church revealed the way the sun moves, and that’s it. Our argument would point to sacred teaching – just like we do with the doctrine of the Trinity. The scientific aspect would be irrelevant, for the most part. Personally, I can’t see that kind of thing being a matter of faith, although it does have theological consequences.

.

Reggie, it is a pleasure to debate with you. I have searched far and wide for a hearing and you have given me one with careful, logical and Catholic thinking. I should however, like to comment on that part I reproduce above. Your thinking on the evolution question I could not improve on it.

First of all I said that the Church in 1633 and 1820 stated clearly that the 1616 decree was papal and thus irreversable. To question them on the grounds of their not being infallible confirmations could - if the same criterion is used - dismiss 99% of all Catholic theology as being next to useless.

It is MIND-BOGGLING that anyone could DARE contradict the above, but they did, they do (John Paul II being the only pope in history to actually say it in public in 1992 to the PAS.

So, who or what brought about this rare if not unique contradiction in history? The ‘what’ is just as important as the who. It was ‘SCIENCE’ that led the attack on the authority of the 1616 decree - the claims and assertions by astronomers, physicists and philosophers that the sun moves around a fixed sun.

So, under the auspices of SCIENCE Churchmen began the long and most infamous U-turn on its own decrees in the history of the Church.
There were many inventions used to convince all that in this case the 1616 decree of the holy office was nonsense and could be IGNORED, not ABROGATED but ignored.

1. It was not signed by Pope Paul v … answer, popes never signed their decrees in those days
2. It was disciplinary…answer, proved wrong when the popes allowed access to the minutes
3. Decrees of the Holy Office are not teachings of the Magisterium. answer,
   The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition i.e., the Holy Office:

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.
If such decrees are of no consequence why then are many of them reproduced in the likes of Denzinger’s THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA?

1. It was not a matter of faith… answer, Cardinal Bellarmine spelled out in 1615 that it was because it is revealed in the Scriptures. Pope PaulV and Urban VIII and Alexander VIII confirmed this in many ways.
2. Matters of science are not the Bible’s purpose - answer: The most recent and accurate reiteration on this very point is to be found in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, where he declares:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’

continued next post:

 

[reggieM]

Geoformeo,

Thanks for your reply. I want to point out that you moved the arguments to the most extreme position and then objected to that. But nobody proposed this extreme view. As below.

All,
However, I must draw a hard line in disagreement with the belief that God’s works are ultimately hidden and that seeking them out is fruitless.

The point is, *some *of God’s works are and always will be hidden. Not all.

Are we God? No. Can we even come close to understanding the mind of God? No.

Here you are rightly affirming that there is certainly some part of God that we cannot know or pretend to know. Actually, to claim to know such things would be sinful.

But is our benevolent Creator, our Father, going to leave us completely in the dark about who He is and how He works? Absolutely not!

I don’t think anyone said that we’d be completely in the dark.

How much more, then, is our heavenly Father going to reveal Himself to us through His physical creation?

Within limits. As you said, can we even come close to knowing the mind of God?

I have never understood the blind faith rationale.

I think you’re confusing things. You accept by blind faith that you cannot know the mind of God.

The truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God.

That is a statement of blind faith.

Therefore, the evidence that supports an old Earth and Universe and evolution cannot be rejected on the grounds that it does just that. Unless, of course, you believe in a God who is a trickster and deceiver.

God made it appear as if the universe, earth and mankind was designed for a purpose. Therefore, if it was actually produced by blind, unintelligent natural laws, God would be a trickster and deceiver.

Pure submission to God **without any understanding of Him **is more of an Islamic philosophy than a Christian one.

Nobody argued that point.

Yet you mock scientists who reveal God’s workings in nature as a futile effort to understand Him.

Atheistic scientists (70% of all scientists) who claim to know the mind of God and that science proves that God does not exist, should be mocked for that arrogance.

Yes, ultimately it is a futile effort, as we will never know everything. But should we not want to seek out our God?

Now you’re on the right track. It is futile because we cannot know. Jesus did not deem equality with God as something to be grasped at. Is our desire to make claims about the origin of the universe and life based on knowing God? Or is it based on the desire for fame, money or just idle curiosity? The motive makes a big difference here. Arrogance is claiming that we can know the mind of God – and moreso, that we can prove that God did not have an influence in the development of nature (that’s the evolutionist position).

Are we to refrain from trying to be perfect, even though we know we are not and never will
be?

The path of perfection requires humility and prudence – seeing the truth about God, and definitely not seeking to exault oneself above God.

In the end, **if God really didn’t want us to know anything about Himself **or His actions, would He have really sent His son to teach, correct, show how to love, and ultimately die for us?

Again, nobody said that. The point was in having limits built on reverence for the power of God and the mind of God. Those who lack reverence for God, make claims about how the universe was born and how man emerged from unintelligent processes. The Bible warns against this.

 

[cassini]

1. Unless it was ex cathedra it had no binding and immutable authority:

But there is also an ‘ordinary’ infallibility of the Church, not defined explicitly at Vatican I, but clarified in a way that could certainly be applied to the popes’ decisions of 1616 and 1633.

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the conditions of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied [the Holy Office?], have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.’

‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’

Who could read the above passage carefully and deny their tenets applied to the 1616 decree defining the geocentric interpretation of Scripture and declaring heliocentricism formal heresy? The answer of course is that the Copernicans could, had to, and did, for they have no choice, so the denial went on.

In the dogmatic constitution on Faith and Faith and Reason, the Vatican Council of 1870 taught foremost that as God is Author of all means of knowledge ‘no true dissension can ever exist.’

‘And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illuminated by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge…. The Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called [COPERNICANISM in 1616]” *, “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” [cf. Col. 2:8; can.2].’ — Vatican I (Den. 1799)

Alas, in practice however, Churchmen had already compromised this wisdom by reneging on the proscription of Copernicanism, even when Albert Pike was spelling out how the Illuminati were achieving their aims: ‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succumbs to reasoning.’ The new doctrine of Copernicanism was however only the beginning, for other systems were then being adopted into Catholicism that would further compromise the faith.*

 

[cassini]

The exchange between Reggie and geoformeo above is brilliant, the best I have ever read on this forum. (My thread remember - so I claim a right to comment). I particularly love this one

Quote:
Yet you mock scientists who reveal God’s workings in nature as a futile effort to understand Him.

Atheistic scientists (70% of all scientists) who claim to know the mind of God and that science proves that God does not exist, should be mocked for that arrogance.

Hereunder, while showing reggie is absolutely spot on, takes this point into the relationship between so called science and faith as is currently the position.

The Copernican revolution then, while classed as a scientific revolution, was first and foremost an ideological or anti-religious revolution, for it is near impossible to separate astronomy and cosmology from theology as the disciplines do incorporate the question of the divine. This can be demonstrated adequately from the utterances of bygone astronomers. Why, even today, in their chaotic version of the cosmos, Carl Sagan draws our attention to this point in Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time:

‘This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God.’

‘HAWKING AND THE MIND OF GOD. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God…his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest.’–Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.-

And that is exactly what this book is questioning, precisely what this revolution was really about, God or no God, and if God, what kind of God, God as Person or God as principle or force.

‘From such beginnings [the Copernican revolution], an alternative explanation of the universe came into being [evolutionism]. It didn’t involve gods, at least directly, so it didn’t much favour with the priestly class. Some of their descendants are still trying to stamp it out, even today. The traditional priesthoods eventually worked out an accommodation with this godless way of thinking, but it’s still not popular with creationists, tabloid astrologers, postmodernists and others who prefer the answers you can make up at home.’ — Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press/Random House, 1999, p.31.

‘It was Freud who observed that after Copernicus, belief in God who had created the world and kept it in his care was no longer tenable. Although four-and-a-half centuries after the great astronomer’s death, there are millions who have still not heard the bad news.’ — John Banville: Irish Times, December 31, 1999.

So reggie, you are correct the likes of Hawking (who is a member of the PAS by the way) and others shown here -‘should be mocked for that arrogance.’

And finally:

The question that could be asked here is how can the likes of a Hawking or a Banville get away without the need to justify their assertions? Well, the fact is that they don’t have to prove or vindicate anything, for they are no longer writing for thinking man, homo sapiens, who might want some qualifications before considering books such as theirs to be of some real worth in our understanding of knowledge. No, Gaarder, Bryson etc., write for that ‘new species’, the one that emerged out of the Copernican revolution, homo consensus, programmed man, those who just follow the tantra that now reigns supreme. The fact is that for centuries now, the human race has been indoctrinated, nay brainwashed, infused as if by magic with a whole new creed, a materialist cosmology, using the intellectual elite, the ‘experts’, the scholars and authors who tell us that ‘science’ tells us this and ‘science’ tells us that, and to challenge these ‘facts’ is to proclaim one’s ignorance. The truth of course is another thing, and an honest summation of this brainwashing is rare to find.

‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers.’— Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen, The Science of Discworld, p.39.

 

[edwest2]

Right now, thanks to a pervasive media that operates 24/7, certain ideas are popularized. Look at this article:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?pagewanted=print

Read it. Notice that the Cardinal tells us that when Pope John Paul II used the word evolution, that it was a term that he did not define in context.

And quit playing the stupid, media inspired, Muslim/Islam fear card.

The only reason this topic is brought up so often for “debate” is so that the atheists/freethinkers/secular humanists/brights/anarchists/communists can have an ideological leg to stand on.

Evolution, so-called, is the current weapon of choice. I hope the Christians here understand that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[geoformeo]

reggieM,

A few clarifications:

I want to point out that you moved the arguments to the most extreme position and then objected to that. But nobody proposed this extreme view.

Really? Isn’t that what cassini has been arguing for all along? And if you are not of the same mind, at what point do you draw the line between the authority of science and the authority of the Church?

The point is, *some *of God’s works are and always will be hidden. Not all.

That was precisely my point.

How much more, then, is our heavenly Father going to reveal Himself to us through His physical creation?

Within limits. As you said, can we even come close to knowing the mind of God?

Within limits? Do you mean that only some of science reveals to us the nature of God? If so, then you are setting nature and the natural laws apart from God as its own independent entity, making it a god. How can anything exist independent of God? Sure, God is not nature, but God encompasses nature, and the truths contained therein (all physical, natural truths) are a part of God. How, then, can any part of nature as revealed by science not reveal God?

I think you’re confusing things. You accept by blind faith that you cannot know the mind of God.

Actually, by blind faith I mean those who neglect the findings of modern science when they directly apply to particular aspects of the faith (i.e. an old Earth, evolution, the Earth going around the Sun, etc.). Many of my fellow scientists are non-believers because this mentality requires them to shut their minds off when it pertains to religious belief.

The truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God.

That is a statement of blind faith.

Actually, it’s not. It is a statement of rational theological reasoning. God is the source of ultimate Truth. Truth cannot contradict truth. Modern science reveals natural truth. Therefore, natural truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God.

God made it appear as if the universe, earth and mankind was designed for a purpose.

I agree that the universe looks and is designed by God (including evolution by natural selection).

Therefore, if it was actually produced by blind, unintelligent natural laws, God would be a trickster and deceiver.

Actually no, it would make God non-existent. Again, how can anything exist completely independent of God? God would be a trickster by making the Earth look old and evolution appear to be factual if the Earth is really young and evolution does not happen.

Atheistic scientists (70% of all scientists) who claim to know the mind of God and that science proves that God does not exist, should be mocked for that arrogance.

How could atheistic scientists claim to know the mind of someone they don’t believe exists? Theistic scientists, however, do make that claim, because they know that their science reveals (at least a fraction of) God. I agree that atheistic scientists who argue that science proves God does not exist should be mocked for that arrogance. And there are many theistic scientists who do just that.

Is our desire to make claims about the origin of the universe and life based on knowing God? Or is it based on the desire for fame, money or just idle curiosity? The motive makes a big difference here.

I wholeheartedly agree. But you must understand that the “motive” is a human attribute, brought about by the human involved in the investigation. The natural truth revealed by the science has no “motive” whatsoever. You must understand that theistic scientists and atheistic scientists arrive at different philosophical conclusions using the same scientific data. See the explanation below.

Arrogance is claiming that we can know the mind of God – and moreso, that we can prove that God did not have an influence in the development of nature (that’s the evolutionist position).

I (and other theistic scientists) do not claim that we can know the entirety of the mind of God, but we don’t pretend that we can’t understand any of it either. You confuse arrogance with a desire to know God. And no, the evolutionist position is not that God did not have any influence in the development of nature. That is just one position of many different philosophical, positions based upon scientific data. Some evolutionists claim this point. I argue exactly the opposite, that evolution proves God’s existence. But both positions are based upon the same scientific evidence (which makes no claim either way, it is just simple natural truth).

The path of perfection requires humility and prudence – seeing the truth about God, and definitely not seeking to exault oneself above God.

Who is trying to exalt himself above God? The goal of the theistic scientist is to see the truth about God in nature.

I’m afraid that it appears that you do not know or have not read any books by theistic scientists. Please correct me if I am wrong here. The claims you make here pertain to atheistic scientists, not theistic scientists. A few good books to get you going is Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller (a Catholic), The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (a non-denominational Christian), and The Mind of God, by Gerald Schroeder (a Jew). Happy reading!

 

[cassini]

Right now, thanks to a pervasive media that operates 24/7, certain ideas are popularized. Look at this article:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?pagewanted=print

Read it. Notice that the Cardinal tells us that when Pope John Paul II used the word evolution, that it was a term that he did not define in context.

The only reason this topic is brought up so often for “debate” is so that the atheists/freethinkers/secular humanists/brights/anarchists/communists can have an ideological leg to stand on.

Evolution, so-called, is the current weapon of choice. I hope the Christians here understand that.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, be aware that what the Cardinal was defending was the BARE MINIMUM, that God is Creator. He, JP2, BXVI and the CCC have no problem with theistic evolutionism, the equilibrium that has no coherent or traditional Catholic theology to it. It is MAKEY-UPY protestant theology.

 

[cassini]

reggieM,

A few clarifications:

Actually, by blind faith I mean those who neglect the findings of modern science when they directly apply to particular aspects of the faith (i.e. an old Earth, evolution, the Earth going around the Sun, etc.). Many of my fellow scientists are non-believers because this mentality requires them to shut their minds off when it pertains to religious belief.

The truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God.

I agree that the universe looks and is designed by God (including evolution by natural selection).

Who is trying to exalt himself above God? The goal of the theistic scientist is to see the truth about God in nature.
!

geoformeo, two points made above need comment. As I have said I am, as you are, as reg is, as all others are, thanks be to God’s infusing a human soul into us, intelligent human beings. I do not deny America exists, that whales live in the ocean, that the Gulf Stream exists and effects climate in europe, that planes fly using speed in the air to keep them up, that men reached the moon, that medical science has conquered many illnesses and diseases, how the combustion engine works, and I watch Discovery and things that technology has done for man and I marvel at it all.

Unlike most other people however, I have studied the so-called proofs and evidence for heliocentricism and evolutionism.as a heliocentricist and evolutionist. My intelligence showed me that there are no definitive proofs for heliocentricism or the emergence of life from non life, or for the upward evolution of an early life form that evolved into the eco-system that is the world of today. Why as an intelligent human being I find the IDEA so absurd that I cringe at the way I accepted it without question when being educated so. (all education for 50 years is now one-sided evolutionist ) The idea that life popped out of inorganic matter is a proven scientific fallacy. So, from its beginning, evolutionism is SCIENTIFIC FICTION. After that the story becomes so absurd I now find it hard to believe any intelligent person could believe in it. A cell (as complicated as a city’s electrical system) became two, then four, then the blob of cellks went on to evolve digestive systems, vascular systems ect., ect., God the thing is beyond belief. And the whole world believes the likes of you. You evolutionists are playing GOD. As a Catholic I had an alternative belief system that came from revelation and I found that it was far more convincing with the world I see in nature. Given that all nature has not produced one new kind in the life of man on earth, evolutionism is in my book a belief system that is every much a religion as a religious faith.

What gets my goat up is the arrogant way you people with your belief system take the high point of intelligence. You ‘scientists’ smack of superiority and have done for a long time. Yet for me, I cannot understand how intelligent men and women can defend what is on logical grounds an imbibilic theory without any definitive evidence that cannot be interpreted in one way or the other. But more than that, for theistic evolutionists give credibility to the agnostic and atheistic interpretation of nature also.

‘The agnostic scientist, always referred to as “that eminent man of science,” was for world-minded people the supreme pontiff of all knowledge worth knowing. In pity for generations whose “intelligence was limited and whose mind was warped by old superstitions that were said to be revealed because they could not be proved,” he undertook to explain the universe on a rational and scientific basis. A tone of superiority and secure self-confidence marked all his pronouncements. His style was magisterial. The crowd liked that. It is imposing. Here are men, they say, who make you feel they are sure of what they teach; let us listen to them; and they listened. The disciples of science were many and credulous. The output of the press proved it. Great books full of the new knowledge went through large editions. Popular science lectures were established in all the great centres. The men of agnostic science went on tour. They had crowded and enthusiastic audiences. Their novel theories and speculations became the fashion of the hour in universities, in drawing rooms, and in working men’s unions. Not to be able to talk [science] was to be very uninformed and not to have at least dipped into the hard and ponderous meditations [of the rationalists] was to be incompletely educated.’ —Rev. W. Madden: Reaction From Agnostic Science, Herder, USA, 1899, p.10.

“I agree that the universe looks and is designed by God (including evolution by natural selection).” you say.

And here is another contradiction. The universe does not LOOK heliocentric, it LOOKS geocentric. Tell us, how does the world LOOK evolutionist?
"

 

[Stephentlig]

Are we God? No. Can we even come close to understanding the mind of God? No. But is our benevolent Creator, our Father, going to leave us completely in the dark about who He is and how He works? Absolutely not! I do not hesitate to share my knowledge of the physical world with my children when they ask me about it. How much more, then, is our heavenly Father going to reveal Himself to us through His physical creation?

He has not left us in the dark about his works, thats why he gave us an exact account of how he created us in the book of Genesis, He has not hidden anything from us, but we do not need to seek anymore in regards to how creation began. this is why he knew that in a few thousand years that atheistic scientists would come up with these garbage theorys, so to cancel out any confusion anyone would of had, he gave us an exact account of how he made everything in the book of Genesis, and neither you, nor me, nor anyone on planet earth has the authority to go any further than that, this is why I shall be teaching my children to ‘‘seek him in simplicity of heart’’ and shall be giving them the account thats in Genesis, not the account of Cain, who is of the world, and whom the world listens to and always had. ( atheistic scientists ).
(1John:3:12 4:5 )

God is not a liar. Could He have made the universe in 6 24-hour days? Of course He could, He is God. But is God restrained by time? Who are we to tell Him that He couldn’t make the universe over a span of 13.7 billion years? Or that He can’t develop life through the naturalistic process of evolution by natural selection? The truth revealed by modern science cannot contradict God. Therefore, the evidence that supports an old Earth and Universe and evolution cannot be rejected on the grounds that it does just that. Unless, of course, you believe in a God who is a trickster and deceiver.

we have no authority to tell God that he couldnt make the universe over a span of 13.7billion years, but we he quite cleary hasnt as the book of Genesis quite clearly states he didnt

where is this truth of modern science? they have no evidence, natural selection is still a theory and theories can be proven true or false. but in the book of Genesis we dont have theories we have the truth.

Evolutionists teach that the earth is millions of years old. However, if the Scriptures are interpreted literally, they teach that the earth is only about 6170 years old (the precise date will depend upon which translation one uses: the Masoretic, the Septuagint, or the Samaritan Pentateuch). The following analysis of the detailed genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 (based on the Masoretic text), coupled with other biblical facts explained below, demonstrates that God created the world in 4165 B.C. That means in the year 2005, A.D., the world was 6170 years old. In the year 2010, A.D., the world will be 6175 years old (and so forth and so on).

6170 years (thus, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old).

Note: The Douay-Rheims Historical and Chronological Index to the Old Testament has Abram’s birth in 2008 B.C. (versus our 2214 B.C. date) and creation at 3934 B.C. (versus our 4165 B.C. date). That means it has Abram being born 206 years closer to Christ (2214-2008) and creation occuring 231 years sooner (4165-3934). The primary reason why other chronologies are shorter than the foregoing chronology is that they do not allow the full 430 years of the Exodus. Our chronology includes the full 430 years and appears to be the most faithul to the biblical and extrabiblical evidence.

should we not want to seek out our God? Are we to refrain from trying to be perfect, even though we know we are not and never will
be?

if you wish to seek God, ‘seek him in simplicity of heart’, and through his commanmants, Love and Adoring him in his creation, Yes science is nice, and studying plants and whatever is all ( as del boy would say ) ‘‘Luvverly jubberly’’ but placing yourself in his throne and deciding how creation was made, is not your job, but Gods, and he has quite clearly already done that for us in the ‘‘SIMPLE’’ account of Genesis

God bless and take care.
Stephentlig <3

 

[StAnastasia]

He has not hidden anything from us, but we do not need to seek anymore in regards to how creation began. this is why he knew that in a few thousand years that atheistic scientists would come up with these garbage theorys, so to cancel out any confusion anyone would of had, he gave us an exact account of how he made everything in the book of Genesis, and neither you, nor me, nor anyone on planet earth has the authority to go any further than that

Stephenlig, have you considered proposing a paper on this topic to the AAAS? Evidently the world’s biologists, geologists, paleontologists and geneticists disagree with you; if you have something to teach them about how to interpret scientific evidence, perhaps you should do so.

StAnastasia

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephenlig, have you considered proposing a paper on this topic to the AAAS? Evidently the world’s biologists, geologists, paleontologists and geneticists disagree with you; if you have something to teach them about how to interpret scientific evidence, perhaps you should do so.

StAnastasia

Its not me they are disagreeing with.
Evidently the Bible and the Church disagrees with them in regards to how creation began.
Evidently science will remain the worlds favorite weapon against the Lord, Science is a gift from the Lord, but as were the gun can be used to hunt deer for the provision of my family, it can also be used for the slaughter of my fellow brother. The same with science, it can be used for mans greater good, ( and in the past has been ) or it can be used to try and push St.Peter off his chair, which is whats happening in these last days.
If creation would of begun the way these scientists said so, then he would of told us through his church, not from a source outside his church, to dicate to the Catholic church how creation began is to dictate to Jesus Christ how his creation began.

scientists have been able to put a leaf under a microscope and look at it from a different angle, create a lap top out of something that was already there, its not a new finding, but something thats always been there, just not seen by them in such a way. This is proof God hides nothing from us, he allows us to study him in any which way we please, and to build whatever we want ( provided its used for good and his glory ) but to decide how that leaf was created and how we were created? its not their Job.

Jesus Christ through Sacred Scripture and Tradition has already done that for us.

When Jesus told St.Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church, he was protecting St.Peter from ever making error on faith and morals.

so you can continue to debate these ‘‘Rubbish’’ theories all you want, but I assure you they do not come from Inside our Lords church, but from outside it.

anything other than Jesus is rubbish, and these theories are rubbish.

Phillipians: "I look on everything as so much rubbish if only I can have Christ and be given a place in him.’’

And to the only way to get to Christ is through the Bible and his Church
''which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1(timothy) 3:15:thumbsup:

Our lives here are Momentary, as Our Lady said. and saint paul also said that we should be working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

so let us stop trying to be like gods, and let us enjoy our creator the way he would have us enjoy him, under the authority of the Church he gave us, which is that of the Catholic church, ‘‘the pillar and bulwark of truth’’.

 

[StAnastasia]

so you can continue to debate these ‘‘Rubbish’’ theories all you want, but I assure you they do not come from Inside our Lords church, but from outside it. anything other than Jesus is rubbish, and these theories are rubbish.

So what would you say to all the Catholic priests who are also scientists? What would you say to the priest who closes up his evolutionary biology lab for the day and then changes into vestments to celebrate the 5:30 mass with the parish? What would you say tot eh Vatican astronomer who tells us that his work with God’s evolving universe give him even more to pray about?

 

[Stephentlig]

So what would you say to all the Catholic priests who are also scientists? What would you say to the priest who closes up his evolutionary biology lab for the day and then changes into vestments to celebrate the 5:30 mass with the parish? What would you say tot eh Vatican astronomer who tells us that his work with God’s evolving universe give him even more to pray about?

I would tell them I love them and their science is alright, ‘‘lovely to look at stuff from a different angle isnt?’’ but if their scientific beliefs were at variance with faith and morals. I would tell them, I love them, but not their ideas
to the priest who closes up his evolutionary biology lab for the day I would say, ‘‘what a waste of your absolute time.’’

To the Vatican astronomer: I would say, ‘‘Bless the Lord, stars of heaven, Praise and glorify him forever!’’ Daniel:3:63

Just because a priest is Catholic and beleives in evolution does not mean its the truth St.Anatasia, as Jesus said about the pharisees, to obey them in everything but not what they do.

If a priest told me to not pray the rosary for a week, I would indeed not pray the rosary for a week, If he told me that beleif in Evolution is ok and that I must beleive in it, I am not to do so, for his belief contradicts church doctrine, and therefore full obedience must be shown to the divine Authority which is Jesus Christ. ( Acts:5:29 )

Science is a very smokie subject indeed, its like the bow and arrow, its used for both good and evil. mostly evil though, Science only ever figures out ways of how to stay in the world i.e cures for cancer, coming up with ways of how to attack astreiods if they ever hit the earth

The Christian seeks discomfort, works out his salvation and longs to leave this world. yet, science is always seeking ways to make life more comfortable, examples of this can be seen in little gadgets, toasters, kettles that boil faster, microwaves that cook your food in 30 seconds, no need to wait around any more for the pot to boil. cars, trains, buses choking space ships ( millions of dollars ) that go nowhere and accomplish nothing while little children who live below the poverty line are starving. whats the point of putting a rocket on the moon if we cannot live on the earth?

when are we ever gonna see the swing of the pendulum? when are we ever gonna wake up ding ding and recognise the spirit of falsehood?

1John 4: 6 ‘‘We are from God; whoever recognises God listens to us; anyone is not from God refuses to listen to us. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.’’

who is ‘‘us’’? The Lords church, which over 2000 years has not made error on its faith and morals. also the ‘‘us’’ are people of God, true disciples who have grounded themselves in the absolute truth.

whats happening now is what happened adam and eve, the devil is making the world think that they can become like gods and therefore not need God anymore. as this is also what St.Paul feared in his letters to the corinthians.
2 Corinthians 11:3 ‘‘But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ’’

The devil wants you to fall into the ‘‘theory’’ trap, he wants you to look at how God made the world in 6 days then he wants you to see it in a ‘‘complicated’’ manner, rather than a ‘‘simple’’ manner, which is quite simply that Jesus made the world in 6 days.

but you feel that with technology and in this age, that you have ‘‘evolved’’ and that your clever and you no longer see things in a simple manner but a complicated manner.
the theory trap has no evidence to support its contentions, thus by debating a theorie you might as well be punching thin air, nothing ever comes of it but arguements and wrangling of words, insteading of doing what you should be doing, which is studying what you have been given and coming to a better understanding of Jesus through prayer and adoration and to study him in the way he would have you study him, through the church he gave us, ‘‘which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’’

by debating the theory of evolution you are ( in my opinion ) leaving that church and falling into the smokescreen that satan has created.

‘‘Remain in my love’’

and that love is Jesus and his church.

God bless and take care.

 

[cassini]

Stephentlig said: “this is why he knew that in a few thousand years that atheistic scientists would come up with these garbage theorys,”

OTimothy, guard the truth and keep free from profane novelties in speech and the contradiction of so-called knowledge [science] , which some have professed and have fallen away from the faith. Grace be with you. I Tim 6:20

Stephentlig said: “if the Scriptures are interpreted literally, they teach that the earth is only about 6170 years old.”

Stephen, this might interest you:

   I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus teaching the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty-one years old.’  1/2

1. Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823), the Augustinian nun who bore the stigmata, received many visions of past events including the above. From her recall Mel Gibson acquired details used in his film The Passion of the Christ.
2. In the Scriptures and one finds the following: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950, Exodus 2540, birth of Jesus 3997, death of Jesus 4030, fall of Jerusalem 4070, the year 2000AD 5997 and so on. Douay Catholic Bible spot on with Emmerick’s recall.

Stephentlig said: “He has not left us in the dark about his works, thats why he gave us an exact account of how he created us in the book of Genesis, He has not hidden anything from us,…anyone on planet earth…”

Slight slip of the pen here steph, Earth is not a planet, -

The rest,

 

[StAnastasia]

If a priest told me to not pray the rosary for a week, I would indeed not pray the rosary for a week, If he told me that beleif in Evolution is ok and that I must beleive in it, I am not to do so, for his belief contradicts church doctrine, and therefore full obedience must be shown to the divine Authority which is Jesus Christ. ( Acts:5:29

Sorry, you’re mistaken. Evolution does not contradict church doctrine. If it did I’m sure Pope Benedict wouldn’t endorse it.

 

[geoformeo]

Unlike most other people however, I have studied the so-called proofs and evidence for heliocentricism and evolutionism.as a heliocentricist and evolutionist. My intelligence showed me that there are no definitive proofs for heliocentricism or the emergence of life from non life, or for the upward evolution of an early life form that evolved into the eco-system that is the world of today. Why as an intelligent human being I find the IDEA so absurd that I cringe at the way I accepted it without question when being educated so. (all education for 50 years is now one-sided evolutionist ) The idea that life popped out of inorganic matter is a proven scientific fallacy. So, from its beginning, evolutionism is SCIENTIFIC FICTION.
"

cassini, my friend, I’m afraid you are mistaken. In truth, if you have studied heliocentrism and evolution as much as you claim you have, then you would not make the claim that evolution explains the origins of life. In case you haven’t read it, Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species,” not life. Evolution by natural selection does not claim to explain the origin of life, just how one life form begets other life forms, and anyone who is well versed in the theory of evolution knows that. I suggest you go back to your studies before you make any more inaccurate claims.

A cell (as complicated as a city’s electrical system) became two, then four, then the blob of cellks went on to evolve digestive systems, vascular systems ect., ect., God the thing is beyond belief. And the whole world believes the likes of you. You evolutionists are playing GOD.
"

So, cassini, how did you develop? Unless you have been miraculously created whole, you developed through natural processes (mitosis and meiosis) from a single-celled human to a fully developed baby in less than 9 months time. The thing is beyond belief! Last I checked, nothing is impossible for God. Including the development of complex biological systems using a natural process like evolution. Is it we evolutionists who are playing God, or is it you fideists who are putting restraints on God and rejecting His revelation through the workings of the natural world?

What gets my goat up is the arrogant way you people with your belief system take the high point of intelligence. You ‘scientists’ smack of superiority and have done for a long time. Yet for me, I cannot understand how intelligent men and women can defend what is on logical grounds an imbibilic theory without any definitive evidence that cannot be interpreted in one way or the other. But more than that, for theistic evolutionists give credibility to the agnostic and atheistic interpretation of nature also.
"

Scientists “smack of superiority” when it comes to science, because it is our area of expertise. Just like lawyers know law, theologians know theology, physicians know medicine, artists know art, athletes know sports, and so on. As for the rest of that quote, you need to read my response to reggieM above.

And here is another contradiction. The universe does not LOOK heliocentric, it LOOKS geocentric. Tell us, how does the world LOOK evolutionist?
"

The world looks like God used evolution by natural selection to create the diversity of life on Earth (and anywhere else in the universe). Do yourself a favor and study the fossil record, it may help to clear things up for you. Does a fertilized human egg look like a human? No, but it is one. Does an apple seed look like something that can turn into an apple tree and bear fruit. No, but it can. Looks can be deceiving, my friend (as in the case with your geocentrism). But God not only gave us the capacity to believe by faith, but also through reason. In case you missed it, it was the Roman Catholic Church that developed the scientific method.

So let me get this straight, you claim that geocentrism is true because the world looks geocentric, but you reject evolution when the world looks evolutionary? I’m praying for you, my brother in Christ.

 

[StAnastasia]

Slight slip of the pen here steph, Earth is not a planet:

Of course it’s a planet – it’s the third one orbiting our star which we call the “sun.”