Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[reggieM]

So why do such scientists not start their own discipline? Why continue to work for institutions that disregard their criticisms?

StAnastasia

They shouldn’t be driven out of those institutions especially since those institutions claim to be open to the truth of things.

 

[reggieM]

Why Why do you and other Young Earthers sit around criticizing evolutionary biology rather than doing something to promote your own view?

I criticize evolutionary biology because I can see where it is false and I can also see the tremendous harm it does to society and individuals. I think it’s important to expose the errors that are passed off as science.

 

[reggieM]

In the United States, during the decades I was growing up, scientists were relied upon by the public to provide information, observations and commentary on scientific subjects. Their word was trusted and they were regarded as positive role models for young people. Today, they have taken up a cause. As Nature magazine tells us, most leading scientists reject God.

That was a very good comment. Scientists have abused the trust that was given to them. As Nature magazine showed, about 70% of scientists reject belief in the existence of God. The most prominent defenders of evolutionary theory are atheistic scientists – and they are supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, even by scientists who claim to be Catholic or theists.

Dawkins, Dennett, Myers & Harris represent mainstream evolutionism as well as the millitant edge of atheism. They promote atheism through science in a manner that is unopposed in the scientific community. Theistic evolutionists are in full agreement with the atheistic worldview except that the theists assert that there is a God whose presence, effects and influence are impossible to detect since there is supposedly no evidence of intelligence at work in nature or the universe.

 

[reggieM]

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.”
*-- Pope Benedict, Sunday, 24 April 2005 *

The Catholic Church … proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
… Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
– Cardinal Schönborn, July 7, 2005, NY Times

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, #36 (quoting Vatican Council 1).

But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of.
– Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger)
“In the Beginning…” : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995)

“the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”
– CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

“the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
– Pope John Paul II
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION, 1996

“When one examines many New Age traditions, it soon becomes clear that there is, in fact, little in the New Age that is new. The name seems to have gained currency through **Rosicrucianism **and Freemasonry, at the time of the French and American Revolutions, but the reality it denotes is a contemporary variant of Western esotericism. This dates back to **Gnostic **groups which grew up in the early days of Christianity, and gained momentum at the time of the Reformation in Europe. It has grown in parallel with scientific world-views, and acquired a rational justification through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It has involved a progressive rejection of a personal God and a focus on other entities which would often figure as intermediaries between God and humanity in traditional Christianity, with more and more original adaptations of these or additional ones. A powerful trend in modern Western culture which has given space to New Age ideas is the general acceptance of Darwinist evolutionary theory; this, alongside a focus on hidden spiritual powers or forces in nature, has been the backbone of much of what is now recognised as New Age theory.”
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE

“As to the theory of evolutionism, you will not consider it acceptable if it is not clearly in agreement with the immediate creation of human souls by God and does not regard the disobedience of Adam, the first universal parent, as of decisive importance for the destiny of mankind.”
– Pope Paul VI, Address to Theologians at the Symposium on Original Sin, 1966

“[Darwinism is] A system which is repugnant at once to history, to the tradition of all peoples, to exact science, to observed facts, and even to Reason herself, [Darwinism] would seem to need no refutation, did not alienation from God and the leaning toward materialism due to depravity, eagerly seek a support in all this tissue of fables… And, in fact,… after rejecting the Creator of all things and proclaiming man independent, wishing him to be his own king, his own priest, and his own God, pride goes so far as to degrade man himself to the level of the unreasoning brutes, perhaps even of lifeless matter, thus unconsciously confirming the Divine declaration, when pride cometh, then cometh shame. But the corruption of this age, the machinations of the perverse, the danger of the simple, demand that such fancies, altogether absurd though they are, should — since they borrow the mask of science — be refuted by true science.”
– Pope Pius IX, Letter to Dr. Constantin James, 1877

 

[Wirraway]

“… — be refuted by true science.”
– Pope Pius IX, Letter to Dr. Constantin James, 1877

ooooh, 1877.

 

[ricmat]

Theistic evolutionists are in full agreement with the atheistic worldview except that the theists assert that there is a God whose presence, effects and influence are impossible to detect since there is supposedly no evidence of intelligence at work in nature or the universe.

Wisdom 13 speaks about these people, it seems to me. Looks to me like we are supposed to look for our Creator in nature, and actually find him there.

NAB

13:1 For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

NJB

Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer.

Oh bad! If God is insulted (as some think) by being called a designer (as Isaiah calls him), then think how mad he is being called an artisan! Or an artificer.

Another clear reference to finding evidence for God in nature also from Wisdom:

NAB

13:9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD?

NJB

if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master?

Verses 2-8 are also good

 

[reggieM]

ooooh, 1877.

The sources of Catholic doctrine are much older than that.

 

[reggieM]

NAB NJB Oh bad! If God is insulted (as some think) by being called a designer (as Isaiah calls him), then think how mad he is being called an artisan! Or an artificer.

Some people misunderstand the term “designer”, thinking it means only the blueprint-maker. But in the Scriptural use of that term, “design” is like “plan” in the sense that God planned the creation of the world and of all life.

The term “artificer” is even more descriptive because it indicates a “hands on” approach to creation – a full involvement by God in the shaping of nature and life and species.

This is much different than just “letting the natural laws do it”.

 

[edwest2]

Amazing that time, once again, becomes the magic by which change occurs. Statements have been made on this forum that given 10 or 20 years, this or that will become a reality.

On this subject, given millions of years, anything is possible, or so we are told.

Yet even those who profess to be rational and intelligent will not follow the evidence when it leads in a direction they do not want to go. Such is the case with author Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).

In an article in the October 5, 2008 issue of The National Catholic Register, he exalts knowing:

“Hitchens said religion has as its main advantage that it came before science. ‘If we knew what we now know, would we have ever become religious?’ he asked.”

Followed by:

“Hitchens said that even a miracle would not convince him of the existance of a Christian God. ‘If I saw a miracle, I would be inclined to doubt the evidence of my own eyes,’ he said.”

And I would like to add that the exaltation of human knowledge does not lead to utopias since human beings, whether 2,000 years ago or today, remain human beings.

A suggested book title:

Wall Street Is Not Great: How Greed In International Banking Poisons Everything.

So even if God was taken out of the picture tomorrow, the core of who man truly is will remain.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

They shouldn’t be driven out of those institutions especially since those institutions claim to be open to the truth of things.

Nobody is being driven out. Universities have a right to vet the qualifications of professors. Would you consider it fair for an astrologer to demand membership in an astronomy department? Or a numerologist in a mathematics department?

 

[StAnastasia]

I criticize evolutionary biology because I can see where it is false and I can also see the tremendous harm it does to society and individuals. I think it’s important to expose the errors that are passed off as science.

Why do you alone see it as false, when the 100,000 biologists who work with evolution – incdluign Catholic priests – do not see this?

 

[edwest2]

“biologists who work with evolution”? How do they work with it? On a macro level?

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

“biologists who work with evolution”? How do they work with it? On a macro level?Peace,Ed

Yes.

 

[jdnation]

jdnation, you raise many points. Some corrections:

(1) the distinction between “operations science” and “origins science” is bogus.

Please elaborate.

(2) Evolution is taught because it works. It explains biological diversity and is being observed.

Again, no. Only micro evolution explains diversity through the process of ‘natural selection’ which is a creationist concept that evolutionists have stolen. Only micro evolution has been observed. The process of simple organisms gaining genetic information to eventually become more complex from simple organisms to amphibians to mammals to human beings has never been observed. Even by evolutionists own assumptions it is impossible for us to have observed it as such process take millions of years and evolutionary concepts have only existed since the time of ancient Greece to our modern day.

(3) Ken Ham has no credibility with scientists because he is not a scientist.

True, but there are plenty of other credentialed scientists who are creationists who can speak for the scientific community but will not be tolerated. Some of these creationist men have contributed well to scientific research. From men as old and brilliant as Isaac Newton who discovered many of the scientific laws we recognize and confirm today, to Dr Raymond V. Damadian who developed and invented MRI imaging technology and scanners now used in hospitals all over the world to treat millions of people today. There are plenty of others too that you’d be surprised to discover! Would you say they have zero credibility? Or are you just buying into the belief that scientists who choose to reject evolution are not scientists? Who decided that?

(4) NCSE has a Catholic theologian on staff, directing their Faith Project.

So what? As I explained, Eugene Scott who heads the NCSE is an atheist who actively promotes the idea to other atheist circles about using religious people to back them up and make them seem credible.

(5) Evolution is compatible with religion, just as gravity is. Evolution is religiously neutral, however much the evangelical atheists want to twist it their way.

Macro-evolution is not compatabile with Christianity. Macro evolution requires one to believe that God is the author of death and suffering and used it as a process for creating the world over millions and millions of years. Therefore it is God who is responsible for death and not sin in total contradiction of Christian dogma. It completely undermines the doctrine of original sin and marriage, and the reason for Christ’s crucifixion. Evolution began on atheistic, materialist and naturalistic principles. It is not religiously neutral! It requires Christians to alter their beliefs and compromise on articles of faith and dogma to be in accord with the ‘scientific’ story of evolution as promoted by the consensus of scientists. The atheists are right in this regard!

“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.” (Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Lane Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996).

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution” American Atheist, February 1978, pp. 19. 30.

Evolution is not neutral, it is only neutral in the sense that it doesn’t favor any particular religion, it is a religion in itself that equally wishes to eradicate and replace all other faiths.

(6) Separation of church and state is a good idea, or we would end up like Saudi Arabia and other countries under shariah.

Separation of Church and State* (which originally was that the government would favor no religion and allow all to equally be practiced and inclusive for consideration in society, not cut off altogether from society and law)* is also leading to promotion of homosexuality, moral relativism and abortion upon the nation and persecuting Christians and anyone else from speaking out against such evils and censoring any and all religious significance in holidays, traditions, schools, courts and public institutions and impressing these secular humanist ideals upon our children. It may not be Sharia Law, but it’s just as bad. And need I remind you that Christ did not come to bring peace, but a sword that will divide people. You are either for Him or against Him. You either sow or you help scatter.

 

[jdnation]

You are not describing the theory of evolution, but only an ignorant parody of it. No biologist has ever claimed that a reptile laid an egg that hatched as a bird. You need to study Biology 101. Enroll at your local college!

Yes I am mocking it by exaggerating. But I recommend you look up and learn about Stephen Jay Gould’s evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equlibria. A theory he developed because the gradualist theory for evolution didn’t match what the fossil evidence indicated. It’s pretty much the same absurd idea where evolution didn’t involve gradual changes in species bit by bit over long periods of time until they transitioned slowly into a new creature, but that there was a sudden jump in the number of supposed mutational changes all at once so the new offspring was on a vastly different plane of transition alltogether. The gradualist school of thought which knows how unlikely the odds are of this happening find what he proposes impossible. I say they are both right, in that they are both wrong.

jdnation, perhaps you are not jealous, but you do complain about all the people – including many Catholics – who accept evolution as a valid and logical explanation for biological diversity. Incidentally, there are numerous Catholic priests among these biologists, who – without conflict – practice both their priesthood and their science.

I complain mostly because I was once like these people. I understand that there are many Catholics who believe in evolution and I do not deny that they can be faithful and wonderful people who are scientifically minded. But I cannot ignore belief in evolution as being a weakness that can be exploited by atheists to undermine our faith and I firmly believe that it does. The only reason many of them like I used to believe it’s not in conflict is because we were never made fully aware of just how much it actually does conflict with our faith. In other words they are largely unaware of this problem. Of course many can remain unaware of certain things in their faith and continue to live good Catholic lives and go to heaven, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who are aware of certain things should remain silent and not tackle these issues. Certainly you would also agree that if people studied apologetics and the history and philosophies and intricacies of their faith it wouold benefit them. For example take a look at a mocking documentary out now called ‘Ridigulous’ by that nut Maher. He preys on religious people’s ignorance about their own faith in order to promote the idea that religion is ridiculous. In other words he exploited a weakness throguh ignorance or through things that appear as contradictions on the surface. These are exploits that can undermine the faith of a person and those of other potential people to whom the gospel can be preached to. I believe evolution does this and so I fight it. Belief in evolution and other anti-Catholic teachings that I was unaware of at the time only led me to question the Church on some issues and justify some immoral things that I did even if I went to Church every Sunday.

Here is a proposal: rather than complaining about evolution, why not start your own movement to build a network of non-evolutionary biologists? Rather than being irritated at universities and colleges and professional societies who won’t give your scientific ideas a hearing, why not start your own universities and colleges and professional societies? Seek your own funding for biology research programs on non-evolutionary principles. Hold your own conferences and publish your own journals. Then you won’t have to endure painful rejections when you seek validation by submitting articles to “Nature” and “Science.” The AiG museum in Cincinnati has a good start already, and could serve as a nucleus for this movement…

It might work!

I agree, and as you no doubt know the museum is a good start. Creationists have also begun their own peer review system for developing origins scientific theories and explanations from a biblical worldview and there have also been conferences for the longest time. Organizations like AIG have long been saying to give up trying to get the secular universities and institutions and public schools to be tolerant of creationism and start doing things ourselves.

If I may impress on you personally as to why I am so invigorated by this subject it is because since discovering the many wonderful things about the majesty of the Bible, from it’s accurate prophecies about future events and the intricate ways it prophecizes Christ’s coming and all the marvelous things contained within it from it’s laws, instructions, historical reliability, typologies, intimate details and geography and many magnificient wonders that I am absolutely convinced that it is the Word of God and that only He could inspire its original writers to record what He willed, and then to lead the Church to compile it; that it will absolutely stand up to scrutiny right from the very first verse in Genesis. I find the creationist worldview able to account for everything we experience in our world and the whole Gospel message, events and moral teachings all make sense in light of what happened at the beginning. The history of Genesis is foundational to our faith and by trusting it we can expose every false philosophy and defend our faith to perfection. It has been instrumental in changing me from who I once was and I believe it to be the most valuable apologetic tool for converting others and strengthening anyone’s faith. God is perfect and I believe in Him and how He says He created the world over the speculations of men who were not there and do not wish to retain God in their knowledge no matter what they endeavor to do, scientific or otherwise…

 

[gjbrunning]

The following was emailed to me by a friend, not involved in this thread, a PhD in electrical engineering. Several swipes have been made at the Kolbe Center during this discussion. Here is something from the Kolbe Center itself, announcing another conference in Rome in which the Kolbe Center is participating.

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

952 Kelly Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842

Tel: 540-856-8453 E-Mail: howen@shentel.net

For me You have created the skies scattered with stars . . . and all the beautiful things on earth

(St. Maximilian Kolbe)

kolbecenter.org

Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,

Pax Christi!

Thanks to your prayers and sacrifices, our colleagues in the French Association pour la Connaisance de la Science have completed final plans for an historic conference at La Sapienza University in Rome on the feast of St. Martin de Porres, November 3, 2008. This marks the first time that a group of distinguished Catholic scientists will present the scientific evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis at a major Catholic University. It is urgent that this information be published far and wide in the Catholic and secular media. You can help with this project by writing letters to the editors of your local Catholic and secular newspapers and by asking others to do the same. Here is a model letter that you can modify according to your own inspiration.

Dear Editor,

I am writing to urge you to cover one of the most important events in the Catholic Church in modern times. On November 3, 2008, a group of top notch Catholic scientists from all over the world will hold a conference entitled “A Scientific Critique of Evolution” at La Sapienza University in Rome. In 1950 in his encyclical Humani generis Pope Pius XII asked that Catholic scholars examine the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis, but the conference on November 3 marks the first time that the scientific evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis has been presented by an international gathering of distinguished Catholic scientists.

The scientists, who hail from France, Poland, and Australia, will present evidence showing that the evolutionary hypothesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and that the latest findings in the fields of molecular biology, genetics, sedimentology, and radiometric dating contradict the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life and for the variety of living things. The conference program, the qualifications of the participating scientists, and the abstracts of their papers are available at the conference website sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/

It is high time that Catholic (and secular) media covered both sides of the evolution debate!

Yours in Christ,

X

I am sorry to say that the APCS conference is the only Catholic conference planned for the next 12 months where a scientific critique of evolution will be permitted. Three major Catholic conferences on evolution have been planned in Rome to “celebrate” the year of Darwin. None of these conferences has invited any Catholic scholars critical of evolution. Indeed, the organizers of these conferences are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Templeton Foundation, an organization dedicated to working with the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust) and similar organizations to build a New World Order with a New Age religion. According to statements by John Marks Templeton in the 1992 and 1996 issues of Who’s Who in Theology and Science:

. . . God is now providing new revelations in ways which go beyond any religion, to those who welcome the originality of the Creation and its continual surprises. For example, some theologians and scientists see tremendous possibilities for our future understanding of ourselves and our Creator through an integration of the discoveries of science with many religious traditions - a new “theology of science.” . . . old scriptures need new interpretations.

In contrast, the scientists participating in the APCS conference are devout Catholics who adhere to the orthodox Catholic faith and who are traveling to Rome at their own expense. We are using donations earmarked for the Rome conference to defray the cost of the conference. If you would able to contribute to this cause, please make donations payable to the Kolbe Center but indicate that they are for the APCS conference in Rome.

Thank you again for your prayers and sacrifices for this cause. Please continue to pray for the scientists who are exposing themselves to vicious persecution by revealing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary hypothesis. They are truly men of great faith, courage and integrity.

I will write to you again after the conference with a complete report.

In Domino,

Hugh Owen, Director

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

<<<<<<<<<
I find it interesting to learn who is the major funding sponsor of the “No ID conference.” It is cynical on my part to say “Follow the money,” ?

 

[edwest2]

It is interesting to note that the debate about this subject clearly goes beyond science. The result of believing in evolution today is part of the “change” so desperately desired by those who want to limit religion to private homes and church buildings and to eventually, eliminate it by imposing an Atheist Technocracy which will also be a dictatorship because “facts are not democratic.”

The fly in the ointment will be human nature. Just like on Wall Street, some expert or group of experts will make a “mistake,” we will find out later that some “facts” were not what they were, and, whoops, oh well. Sorry for all the dead people.

Once again, the goal is an Atheist Technocratic Dictatorship with manipulated facts. How will it be different from the former Atheist U.S.S.R.? New words will replace the old, but the rich will stay rich. (Stalin and the KGB in lab coats.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes I am mocking it by exaggerating. But I recommend you look up and learn about Stephen Jay Gould’s evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equlibria.

For example take a look at a mocking documentary out now called ‘Ridigulous’ by that nut Maher.

If I may impress on you personally as to why I am so invigorated by this subject it is because since discovering the many wonderful things about the majesty of the Bible, …

(1) I don’t know any scientists who distinguish between origins science and operations science. That’s why I contend it’s a bogus distinction.

(2) Punctuated equilibrium is a plausible explanation. I don’t follow the ins and outs of the paleontological debate,but I’ve spoken with Steven about it, and have yet to find a convincing refutation,

(3) I agree that Bill Maher is a nut. I suspect his antipathy to religion is provoked by extremists like Al Qaeda, Answers in Genesis, etc.

(4) Thank you for your personal testimony. As for me, while I was a Christian long before I learned about evolution (I became Catholic in the 1950s), I accept evolution precisely because of my Catholic faith. God’s majesty and mystery are evident to me in the wonderful fashion God has chosen to create the world.

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Yet no scientific paper, peer reviewed study or any science textbook acknowledges God’s role. Only natural events are given as the whole explanation. Which, by the way, is what you want to hear if you’re an atheist: No god needed!

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Yet no scientific paper, peer reviewed study or any science textbook acknowledges God’s role. Only natural events are given as the whole explanation. Which, by the way, is what you want to hear if you’re an atheist: No god needed!
Peace,Ed

Ed, a major rockfall in Yosemite Valley last week injured some park visitors. No newspaper account acknowledged God’s role in this event. Only natural events – heat and ice, weathering, gravity – were given as the whole explanation. Which, by the way, is what you want to hear if you’re an atheist: No god needed!

Peace,
StAnastasia