L
larkin31
Guest
Why do you care, really, what one professor in one school states about God? I don’t see why fools or professors talking off their subjects should have much bearing either way.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Randomness exists in every act of human copulation, unless you believe that God guides each individual sperm to its intended target egg.
L
larkin31
Guest
Since this (the bold) has not been determined empirically and is not part of any scientific theory (with tests and predictions, etc)–this is why it is not a part of formal biology or science curricula.
And no texts are “complete.” That is the nature of a “text” which is a sort of instructional summary of an academic field and not a collection of ALL that is examined under the subject.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Just a reminder: It’s not an either/or situation.
“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.”
Excerpt from In the Beginning…": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger.
“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.”
Excerpt from In the Beginning…": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I
itinerant1
Guest
That statement provides an incomplete picture. Ultimate causes do not preclude proximate causes.
God also works “indirectly” through the instrumentality of matter and organisms while maintaining everything in existence.
R
ricmat
Guest
God sometimes intervenes in the world.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
How would you determine the extent of that intervention in the case of copulation?
E
edwest2
Guest
“Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.”
Taken from here:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
I agree with the Pope.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
R
ricmat
Guest
You seem extremely interested in this subject (copulation). Is that interest related to your disillusionment with “celibate, old, toothless, white males” who run the Church?
But let me return to the subject at hand before you diverted onto the copulation subject.
If your question actually is “If God actually does intervene in the world, how would you determine the extent of that intervention?” my answer would be “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” But as a Catholic I believe that God intervenes in the world.
You seem to be of the persuasion that unless Science can prove that God intervenes in the world (as determined by some ‘extent of intervention’ measurement, then “God intervening in the world” cannot be Truth.
E
edwest2
Guest
With reference to what Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, which is quoted in Communion and Stewardship, God works infallibly as a direct causal agent in contingent and necessary causes. This makes certain statements false beyond any doubt, such as a speculative comment made by Father Coyne, who attributed to God a lack of knowledge regarding the appearance of man, and Stephen Jay Gould who wrote that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.
Evolution is certainly not capable of being personified and is not goal oriented. The Church assures us through divine revelation that man was willed.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s not a diversion at all. You objected to randomness. I ask you whether conception through copulation is a random process, or whether sperm and egg are guided to each other by God. You haven’t answered.
R
ricmat
Guest
I don’t object to randomness by itself. I object to the opposing idea that nothing is guided. With regard to your example, I’d have to guess that sometimes it’s random, and sometimes it’s guided.
My wife (who is a former Buddhist) tells me that we were “destined” for each other. Fate, and all that. So perhaps it’s not the particular sperm and egg that are guided, but individuals who end up getting married. That’s not a well developed theory of course, but just a related musing.
So please answer this question. Does God intervene to keep (or hold) the universe in existence?
P
Philipp
Guest
SPECIAL ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL THIS EVENING AT 9 PM EST
Let’s all take a break from bloviating on CA and watch this program entitled: ***“The Real Face of Chirst” ***There apparently is some new research on the Shroud of Turin. ABC news, that we were watching last night, announced it as they interviewed one of the participants. It’s a good time to show it as this is Holy Week for us Catholics.
God does indeed intervene and even shows an unimaginable love for the creatures He has created as well as performed his own bodily resurrection. 
L
larkin31
Guest
“proven” isn’t the issue with most science
and the Pope does not deny the evidence for common ancestry and evolution. He, in fact, has marveled at it!
The process (change in allele frequencies in a reproductive population) is observed every day in the laboratory
R
rossum
Guest
The origins of new species have been observed. Ring species and partially interfertile species are also evidence for macroevolution.
You should know by now that science does not do “proof” in the sense you seem to be using it. We have experimental evidence for random mutations in the Luria–Delbrück experiment and the Lederberg Experiment among others. I am not aware of any experimental evidence for non-random mutations. Given that we have experimental evidence for one option and zero evidence for the other then science will follow the option indicated by the evidence unless and until some countervailing evidence is produced. That is the way science works.
I am aware that you are neither a young earth creationist nor a theistic evolutionist. Perhaps more of a ‘Directed Evolutionist’?
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m seeing exactly what the Pope is seeing. That’s all that matters to me. What happens in the laboratory does not need anyone’s approval.
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
I seriously doubt that you agree with the pope since he is not a “creationist” and he does not endorse YEC by any means… Furthermore, the popular media article you have a penchant for quoting does not adequately reflect the pope’s thinking on evolution.
Furthermore, I am not certain that the quote is completely accurate since Pope Benedict has certainly shown himself as accepting of a conservative theory evolution as proven scientifically. That is why Pope Benedict has said that it is not a matter of “creation or evolution.”
I’m sure you don’t get it, but I’m very sorry to say, I am writing this not so much for you, but for those on CAF who have an open mind, are willing to learn, and can think objectively.
Also, Pope Benedict has been actively involved in promoting the natural sciences. It is only science by itself, to the exclusion of sound philosophy and theology that narrows one’s vision. That does not appear to be your attitude at all since you believe “creation science” is the true science, even though it is not science at all.
You have put your spin on this entire matter countless times. It does get tiresome for many of us on CAF to repeatedly read your illogical creationist canards.
On another note, your narrow view of God’s involvement with creation, reflected by your “unqualified” statement that “God acts directly” reveals an almost superstitious concept of God. Or, at best one can say that it is a Pat Robertson type of primitive view of the Creator.
If God “only” acts directly, that makes God out to be the cause of evil. And that is heresy. Pat Robertson said God caused the Haitian earthquake as a punishment to today’s Haitians for the the alleged “pact with the devil” that Haitians made an entire two centuries ago when they very brutally overthrew their French enslavers.
If God only acts directly in creation then He is responsible for causing hemophiliacs disease, immune system disorders, Down syndrome and a host of other evils. Such a view of God would have shocked Professor Jerome Lejune, the Catholic geneticist who discovered the genetic cause of Down syndrome.
Your particular conception of God is very much like that shared by ID theorists. If God directly designed IC and SCI systems then God is responsible for some poor designs as well as the failure of such systems in individuals suffering from blood clotting malfunctions, immune system disorders, and so on ad infinitum.
In sum, the God you are trying to defend is not the God of St. Thomas Aquinas or the God of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, you are not even defending the Bible. You are defending, rather, the creationist/fundamentalist skewed manner of interpreting the Bible.
Without doubt, materialist theories of evolution are wrong. But that does not mean your position is right. Somehow you seem to think that since materialism is wrong then you are right. That kind of thinking involves an egregious logical fallacy.
Fr. Stanley L. Jaki described this problem with exceptional accuracy when he said,
“The conflict [between science and religion] arises from the clash of two extremist camps, both dedicated to a noble aim and bringing alike discredit to it. The creationists aim at a restoration of the sense of [purposeful] existence through impregnating young people’s mind with the biblical creation story, which they expose to ridicule by taking literally all its statements. Their antagonists want to secure the sacred rights of scientific investigation, which they equate with materialism, a claim as ridiculous as it is erosive of all purpose.”
I have nothing more to add to Fr. Jaki’s most accurate characterization of the situation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just yes or no please:
- Is God allowed to act in Creation if He so desires?
- Has He ever done so?
- Is He allowed to do so again?
- Will He act in Creation in the future?
- Does ID the science claim God acts in Creation?
- Does ID the science claim God has created creatures at different points in time?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Very sorry to say, but I am not interested in your particular formulation or wording of the questions. Perhaps you would like to share your answers to your own questions.
B
buffalo
Guest
Big surprise.
- Status