The origin of life

[reggieM]

What I am really looking for is an ID scientist who accepts the reality of two sole parents of the human species and is able to defend that position.

I think it will be very difficult to find a Catholic scientist who takes that position. There should be many, but (from what I can see) there are not. I don’t think that the problem is with the ID concept, but with Catholics. First, most Catholic scientists are not interested in ID. I have my own opinion on why that is true, but I’ll just leave it at that.

Many Catholics today are not interested in defined, sacred teaching of the Magisterium of the Church either. For example, I don’t think we should view the (admirable) fidelity of Catholics we see on CAF as being the general norm. On the contrary, “dissent” is not something limited to a few liberal theologians in Catholic universities. One might consider the open dissent against the Holy See’s teaching in Humanae Vitate (what, 80% of American Catholics reject that infallible teaching?) and then try to imagine how many scientists are going to care about Pope Pius XII’s encyclical condemning polygenism.

Have we not seen a number of Catholics here on CAF (especially when evolution was an open topic) who simply rejected the sacred doctrine of the Church on this issue?

With that the obvious case, there are very few scientists, in general, who support ID. Of those who do, the greatest number are non-Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

There are many references in the New Testament. You could check out St. John Chrysostom’s sermon on Our Lord’s words in Luke 12:27 – that’s basically the ID argument, the observation of design in nature. St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:19-20 is a foundational text on the concept of Intelligent Design in nature – that’s where the Catholic teaching starts (actually, it goes back to the Old Testament, through the Gospels – St. Paul just re-affirms it).

I learned Catholic doctrine straight up without references to Scripture or the early Church fathers. What Scripture I did learn was by ear at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before the three-year cycle which is probably why I have difficulty with Scripture citations out of context. Nonetheless, thank you for the above but I believe that the context I am looking for is an address given by Paul on one of his missionary journeys. No matter. The next time I see it, I will note it on the inside of my bible’s cover.

First of all, ID is not a theology or a religious dogma. It’s both a scientific and philosophical position which recognizes the presence of intelligent design in nature. It is not intended to explain every aspect of Catholic theology (for example, it can say nothing about the procession of the Holy Spirit or the nature of the Trinity).

ID has been a fundamental part of Catholic apologetics in providing a basis for belief in God.

Apparently, I have an entirely different idea of what apologetics should be in this century.

I wouldn’t say it’s ignored at all. You might try William Dembski’s article “Converting Matter into Mind” which gives an extensive ID argument for the irreducible nature of the human soul. Mr. Dembski is not a Catholic, but his argument is the same as what the Catholic ID argument would be (with some minor exceptions). ID arguments about the irreducible nature of human consciousness are the same kind of thing (consciousness is a component of the soul).

I skimmed the article with a bias because referring to the irreducible nature of the human soul is not what I consider the proper exhibit of human nature. No matter. I’ve been reading some interesting attempts at researching the brain and I will read this article in connection with that.

As to the rest of your post, I am sure that ID has its place in the grand scheme of things. And I have learned quite a bit of valuable information from ID which does help with defending Adam and Eve. Thank you. I guess I have to admit that I was wrong when I thought an ID scientist could help defend Adam and Eve. No matter. At least now I understand that I have to look further than the pro-ID theory position. This does not mean I am against ID theory. It only means that I accept its limitations.

You might try Fr. Thomas Dubay’s book, On the Evidential Power of Beauty for a Catholic, pro-ID theory position.

Years ago, I was on a retreat given by Father Dubay. Excellent. I sincerely recommend him.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[reggieM]

I guess I have to admit that I was wrong when I thought an ID scientist could help defend Adam and Eve.

Hi Granny. I think just an ordinary Catholic scientist (call them pro-ID or not, it’s irrelevant) would be fine for this task.

 

[BostonSteamer]

Creation of life in the scientific laboratory will demonstrate one thing only:* that life was created by intelligent design.*

Wrong. It demonstrates that there are conditions under which life can form in our universe.

 

[BostonSteamer]

Made in the image and likeness of God, man has divine powers. He is part angel and part ape. His better self is the angel. When he lowers himself entirely to the ape, he is just another ape.

Ah, the argument to wishful thinking. I don’t want to be just simply an animal, therefore I am not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggie

*Have we not seen a number of Catholics here on CAF (especially when evolution was an open topic) who simply rejected the sacred doctrine of the Church on this issue? *

Yes, they have bought into pure scientism, as if evolution could be directed by the laws of chance rather than God’s ID.

Let’s face it … the scientific community is fundamentally atheistic. It fought (and is still resisting) the Big Bang without ultimate success, and I suspect will lose the argument against ID sooner or later, probably in this century.

That will be the death knell for atheism.

 

[grannymh]

reggie

*Have we not seen a number of Catholics here on CAF (especially when evolution was an open topic) who simply rejected the sacred doctrine of the Church on this issue? *

Yes, they have bought into pure scientism, as if evolution could be directed by the laws of chance rather than God’s ID.

Let’s face it … the scientific community is fundamentally atheistic. It fought (and is still resisting) the Big Bang without ultimate success, and I suspect will lose the argument against ID sooner or later, probably in this century.

That will be the death knell for atheism.

The more I learn about ID’s battlefield, the more I realize that it is important, but it is not the main, essential one which is the origin of human nature itself. No matter. That is a personal disappointment.

I am not referring to the brain or even the soul as objects worth studying. I am referring to actual human nature which we inherited from two sole parents, aka Adam and Eve. The human nature which enables us to walk in friendship with God. This battlefield needs a creative rebel scientist, geneticist or mathematician

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This battlefield needs a creative rebel scientist, geneticist or mathematician.

Have you read Gerard Schroeder’s The Science of God?

He has come as close as anyone I know to finding parallels between science and Genesis.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Science “has” discovered GOD. And this discovery is moving heretofore atheistic scientists to confess to the undeniable existance of a “First Cause” which 99% of the world calls, “GOD”.

This discovery of GOD rests in two independent studies, i.e. The Big Bang and DNA.

The Big Bang is now recognized as “the creation moment” when all matter came into existance. Nothing exists, then the Big Bang, and matter is everywhere. How? From What?

Secondly, DNA. So complex and complicated and shared between living and vegtable that it is beyond the wildest calculation of probability of being an accident.

This History Chanel (suprisingly) recently had a show wherein it provided 1950-60 era video of a Profess ( forgot his name ) claiming the atheistic point of view of science in several discussions or presentation. And then today, the same scientist, now 80’s, watching himself in the video and countering what he said with the new evidence and the inability to explain the Big Bang and DNA without an intelligent First Cause.

Really? Now this…yeah. I need to see this, I watch the History Channel a lot, and I missed this;0(

See, this makes me think…I’m wrong. You all are right, there is a god…somehow, somewhere…yeah, studying DNA in anatomy and physiology…you have to think, it’s so complex, the genetic code is so amazing…how could it be random?
One simple mutation can cause such devastating effects…
Ask someone with CF or SMA…

But, then, perhaps there are patterns that are working in such a fashion as to APPEAR planned…hum.

 

[grannymh]

This battlefield needs a creative rebel scientist, geneticist or mathematician.

Have you read Gerard Schroeder’s The Science of God?

He has come as close as anyone I know to finding parallels between science and Genesis.

Pardon me. I am not looking for parallels, I am looking for a real person who can analyze actual published research regarding specifically the origin of the human species. Thank you for your recommendation.

I have not read The Science of God but I did send an e-mail inquiry to either a creationist or ID website – my apology but I sometimes confuse sites*. *I asked about the contents of another book I thought would be helpful. The response indicated that there was not much regarding Adam and Eve.

I have my sling handy. All I need is a few stones.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Really? Now this…yeah. I need to see this, I watch the History Channel a lot, and I missed this;0(

See, this makes me think…I’m wrong. You all are right, there is a god…somehow, somewhere…yeah, studying DNA in anatomy and physiology…you have to think, it’s so complex, the genetic code is so amazing…how could it be random?
One simple mutation can cause such devastating effects…
Ask someone with CF or SMA…

But, then, perhaps there are patterns that are working in such a fashion as to APPEAR planned…hum.

And…sorry to add something so late, but, then there’s this.
If a creator, i.e., God…is in the details of DNA and the human genome, why the mutations? He wouldn’t let imperfections come about, would He? And if so, WHY?

 

[rvilbig]

And…sorry to add something so late, but, then there’s this.
If a creator, i.e., God…is in the details of DNA and the human genome, why the mutations? He wouldn’t let imperfections come about, would He? And if so, WHY?

God is immutable and is distinct from creation, so He is not in DNA. The changes (mutations) we observe in DNA are a reflection of the changes God is calling for in our own lives. Of this we read in Jeremiah: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23)

This is not to say that we will become holy if God mutates our genes in some future human species, for “what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.” (Jn 3:6). However, the material world is left for us as a reflection of the spiritual world, as Saint Maximus the Confessor wrote: “The whole of the spiritual world appears mystically represented in symbolic forms in every part of the sensible world for those who are able to see” (Mystagogy, page 67).

So consider the plan of the material world, as described by Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then [the sixth day].” (STh I q.72 a 5). So likewise, in our spiritual lives, it is not incompatible with God’s plan that He should generate perfect things (holy Christians) from imperfect things (sinful humans).

Regarding “imperfections” in DNA or bad genes, we are to follow the lesson of Job: “We accept good things from God; and should we not accept evil?” You will only find meaning in suffering through the Cross of Christ.

Hope this helps,

Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[edwest2]

I think it will be very difficult to find a Catholic scientist who takes that position. There should be many, but (from what I can see) there are not. I don’t think that the problem is with the ID concept, but with Catholics. First, most Catholic scientists are not interested in ID. I have my own opinion on why that is true, but I’ll just leave it at that.

Many Catholics today are not interested in defined, sacred teaching of the Magisterium of the Church either. For example, I don’t think we should view the (admirable) fidelity of Catholics we see on CAF as being the general norm. On the contrary, “dissent” is not something limited to a few liberal theologians in Catholic universities. One might consider the open dissent against the Holy See’s teaching in Humanae Vitate (what, 80% of American Catholics reject that infallible teaching?) and then try to imagine how many scientists are going to care about Pope Pius XII’s encyclical condemning polygenism.

Have we not seen a number of Catholics here on CAF (especially when evolution was an open topic) who simply rejected the sacred doctrine of the Church on this issue?

With that the obvious case, there are very few scientists, in general, who support ID. Of those who do, the greatest number are non-Catholic.

Well, Reggie. That was the kickoff in 1968. Theologians took out a full page ad against Humanae Vitae in the New York Times.
1969 Hollywood gives us a movie about wife swapping.
1970 Time magazine cover story about why priests and nuns are leaving the Catholic Church.
1973 Abortion legalized, Homosexuality disappears by non-scientific vote from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

I’m driving around and spot an Adult Bookstore and Topless Bars.

That time period - 1968 to 1973 - marked the full assault on the Catholic Church and individual Catholics. It should be known to all Catholics, that prior to 1968, most adults that I knew were trying to live by an appropriate fear of God, our Federal government made it a point to mention our Judeo-Christian Heritage and our struggle against Godless Communism. Going to Church on Sunday was an integral part of our lives.

After that, Reggie, I saw more people fall to illegal drugs, promiscuous behavior and the Hippie: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

All the hidden things involving perversion and sexual deviation are now on cable, performing on stage or on the internet. The media fell as well.

So, what do we do? Identify the fact that too many trusting and naive Catholics were convinced by people they should not have trusted in the 1960s to gradually, and in some cases, radically move in the wrong direction.

The primary issue is this: We Were Not Taught How To Lie To And Manipulate People. In the 1960s, American society was mostly reflective of Christian values.

It can be that way again but only if each one of us gives a clear witness of the truth and how we came to this point, so that the lies, manipulations and celebration of perverse and dysfunctional living are rejected.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well, Reggie. That was the kickoff in 1968. Theologians took out a full page ad against Humanae Vitae in the New York Times.
1969 Hollywood gives us a movie about wife swapping.
1970 Time magazine cover story about why priests and nuns are leaving the Catholic Church.
1973 Abortion legalized, Homosexuality disappears by non-scientific vote from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

I’m driving around and spot an Adult Bookstore and Topless Bars.

That time period - 1968 to 1973 - marked the full assault on the Catholic Church and individual Catholics. It should be known to all Catholics, that prior to 1968, most adults that I knew were trying to live by an appropriate fear of God, our Federal government made it a point to mention our Judeo-Christian Heritage and our struggle against Godless Communism. Going to Church on Sunday was an integral part of our lives.

After that, Reggie, I saw more people fall to illegal drugs, promiscuous behavior and the Hippie: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

All the hidden things involving perversion and sexual deviation are now on cable, performing on stage or on the internet. The media fell as well.

So, what do we do? Identify the fact that too many trusting and naive Catholics were convinced by people they should not have trusted in the 1960s to gradually, and in some cases, radically move in the wrong direction.

The primary issue is this: We Were Not Taught How To Lie To And Manipulate People. In the 1960s, American society was mostly reflective of Christian values.

It can be that way again but only if each one of us gives a clear witness of the truth and how we came to this point, so that the lies, manipulations and celebration of perverse and dysfunctional living are rejected.

God bless,
Ed

Hi Ed,

Can you link me to or tell me where you read that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was by an unscientific vote?

 

[edwest2]

Here is one:

narth.com/docs/annals.html

Please note the comments under the headings Aftermath and Summary

Here are more details about the vote aspect.

traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

reggie

*Have we not seen a number of Catholics here on CAF (especially when evolution was an open topic) who simply rejected the sacred doctrine of the Church on this issue? *

Yes, they have bought into pure scientism, as if evolution could be directed by the laws of chance rather than God’s ID.

Let’s face it … the scientific community is fundamentally atheistic. It fought (and is still resisting) the Big Bang without ultimate success, and I suspect will lose the argument against ID sooner or later, probably in this century.

That will be the death knell for atheism.

I agree with that. Of the 6 Catholic scientists I’ve met on CAF, all of them were willing to compromise the faith in favor of an atheistic interpretation of the data.

 

[reggieM]

Pardon me. I am not looking for parallels, I am looking for a real person who can analyze actual published research regarding specifically the origin of the human species. Thank you for your recommendation.

I have not read The Science of God but I did send an e-mail inquiry to either a creationist or ID website – my apology but I sometimes confuse sites*. *I asked about the contents of another book I thought would be helpful. The response indicated that there was not much regarding Adam and Eve.

I have my sling handy. All I need is a few stones.

I think it would be an interesting sociological study to find some Catholic scientists who are experts in the field and ask the question you’re seeking an answer to. Then briefly record their responses and label them as to the quality and consistency with the Catholic Faith that you find.

Out of 50 inquiries, could you find one Catholic scientst who would defend the teaching of the Church on this issue? I’d certainly hope it would be much higher than that.

But it’s not enough just to give lip-service to the belief. They should be able to deal with the data (which even as a non-scientist myself, I can see) and explore the real possibilities.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Shredderbeam

Here is an article that touches on your question.

majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/misology_in_america_part_3scientific_fraud_homosexuality/

I found this article to be of interest so far as the phony stats on homosexuality.

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggie

I agree with that. Of the 6 Catholic scientists I’ve met on CAF, all of them were willing to compromise the faith in favor of an atheistic interpretation of the data.

And its not unusual to find priests among them!

 

[grannymh]

I think it would be an interesting sociological study to find some Catholic scientists who are experts in the field and ask the question you’re seeking an answer to. Then briefly record their responses and label them as to the quality and consistency with the Catholic Faith that you find.

Out of 50 inquiries, could you find one Catholic scientst who would defend the teaching of the Church on this issue? I’d certainly hope it would be much higher than that.

But it’s not enough just to give lip-service to the belief. They should be able to deal with the data (which even as a non-scientist myself, I can see) and explore the real possibilities.

That is one interesting challenge!

If I can skip the sociological study part and form my own questions based on what I have recently learned, I’ll contact anyone. I may have to grant confidentiality…

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)