R
reggieM
Guest
True. The current science is based on philosophical materialism. The current belief is that everything in nature can be explained by science.
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
- Status
T
tonyl
Guest
Well, I now see where our disconnect is, and I doubt the gap is easily surmountable. You seem to be claiming that if we find a natural explanation for something, that means God had no hand in it’s action. Thus, if we can explain the process through which things we see around us were created, you feel this negates the need for God. I don’t share this philosophy.
The process through which I came to be born is (more or less) fully explainable through science, yet I believe that my natural abilities are a gift from God that should be used in his service. I thank God for my family and my health even though there were no obvious miracles that led me to my wife and kids, nor was I the recipient of any miraculous healing. Now, scientifically, there is no need for me to think God had a role in my abilities, family, or health, since they can all be explained through natural processes or standard human interaction; but science is a tool to teach us how things work, not an overarching philosophy through which to base our lives. Just because God’s hand is not always obvious and necessary, does not mean that it is not present.
Several of you have made comments that since science is silent on the existence of God, it rejects god, but that is not a logically sound statement. Science can only be used to study that which is detectable and predictable. That’s it. It is silent on God because it cannot detect and see God in a consistent repeatable manner. For that, we must rely on faith and scripture. Through faith we can view science as a tool to study his creation and see how it operates. Through scripture we can learn about God through his past interactions with people and prophets, and learn his teachings directly through his own words as recorded in the Gospels.
The process through which I came to be born is (more or less) fully explainable through science, yet I believe that my natural abilities are a gift from God that should be used in his service. I thank God for my family and my health even though there were no obvious miracles that led me to my wife and kids, nor was I the recipient of any miraculous healing. Now, scientifically, there is no need for me to think God had a role in my abilities, family, or health, since they can all be explained through natural processes or standard human interaction; but science is a tool to teach us how things work, not an overarching philosophy through which to base our lives. Just because God’s hand is not always obvious and necessary, does not mean that it is not present.
Several of you have made comments that since science is silent on the existence of God, it rejects god, but that is not a logically sound statement. Science can only be used to study that which is detectable and predictable. That’s it. It is silent on God because it cannot detect and see God in a consistent repeatable manner. For that, we must rely on faith and scripture. Through faith we can view science as a tool to study his creation and see how it operates. Through scripture we can learn about God through his past interactions with people and prophets, and learn his teachings directly through his own words as recorded in the Gospels.
J
JReducation
Guest
I would add to this that it is not the role of science to discuss God. God is part of another discipline, theology. Science tells us how things happen. Theology tells us why things happen and about the agent behind the events that science measures, oserves and explains.
Einstein said it best, “I don’t want to compete with God. I just want to know how he did it.”
Science is concerned with the how, not the who or why.
When we say that evolution is a natural process, it does not deny God. On the contrary it begs the question, “Who created the laws of nature and why?” This is where theology enters in to the dialogue.
Fraternally,
JR
C
Cuddy_Duck
Guest
:clapping: Bravo bravo!I would add to this that it is not the role of science to discuss God. God is part of another discipline, theology. Science tells us how things happen. Theology tells us why things happen and about the agent behind the events that science measures, oserves and explains.
Einstein said it best, “I don’t want to compete with God. I just want to know how he did it.”
Science is concerned with the how, not the who or why.
When we say that evolution is a natural process, it does not deny God. On the contrary it begs the question, “Who created the laws of nature and why?” This is where theology enters in to the dialogue.
Fraternally,
JR
You live up to your name.
G
gjbrunning
Guest
Theology which denies proven (not speculative) science is simplistic and deficient. “Science” which takes as its premise that theology (i.e. God) is irrelevant, is bogus.
Both theology and science are attempts to come to a knowledge of things previously unknown or not understood fully. Neither should deny the role of the other. But the Darwinian type scientists tend to atheism and by excluding God from their speculations they insure failure/false conclusions. Intelligent designers, on the other hand, seek to come to a knowledge of how things work in the framework of respecting and acknowledging an intelligence greater than their own which planned things out which they are now only beginning to understand.
Intelligent design scientists deserve to be, need to be, at the conference.
Both theology and science are attempts to come to a knowledge of things previously unknown or not understood fully. Neither should deny the role of the other. But the Darwinian type scientists tend to atheism and by excluding God from their speculations they insure failure/false conclusions. Intelligent designers, on the other hand, seek to come to a knowledge of how things work in the framework of respecting and acknowledging an intelligence greater than their own which planned things out which they are now only beginning to understand.
Intelligent design scientists deserve to be, need to be, at the conference.
J
JReducation
Guest
My guess that the Holy Father does not want Intelligent Design or Creationist supporters at the conference stems from his own studies of theology. His experience is very simple, but at the same time very complex. You prove or demonstrate Divine Truth through reason. If you can use reason to prove the wonders of evolution, then you have unbiased substance to support what the scriptures say about the awesome and tremendous Creator.
This is what the Church is looking for, to allow non believers the space to prove that the universe is not an accident. If you bring the Creationists and the Intelligent Design people to the table, you’re still debating the point from faith. Take away any statement of reason and arrive at faith and you have something that is irrefutable.
JR
E
edwest2
Guest
To JR -
There are political Creationists and IDers and there are those who are not.
As I’ve pointed out before, the definition of the Catholic Church and its role regarding science hinges on two definitions.
Science, through Evolutionary Psychology, is doing all it can to give a natural reason why. Our genes are god. Our genes, not us, choose. Religion was just a genetic pair of crutches to allow us to survive, nothing more. Now that we have successfully made it to “modern” times, our genes have given us the intelligence to modify ourselves. Pretty clever, eh? We have been randomly mutated and naturally selected to this point by an undirected, unwilled and unintelligent process that created us in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. “Genetics and environment, what else is there?”
As Pope Benedict tells us, we are not haphazard mistakes.
Instead of rejecting Creationist and Intelligent Design claims out of hand, why not examine them? Why just assume there’s nothing there? The current evolutionist orthodoxy prohibits this but what is stopping anyone from examining their claims? I think both have raised worthwhile points, but Pope Benedict has already stated that “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory,” so I’m sure some of those other issues will be raised.
Peace,
Ed
There are political Creationists and IDers and there are those who are not.
As I’ve pointed out before, the definition of the Catholic Church and its role regarding science hinges on two definitions.
- When it speaks against evolution, it knows nothing and is only about faith, morals and theology.
- When it speaks for evolution (as Pope John Paul II sort of did), suddenly the Church obviously knows what it is talking about and the Church’s leaders are hailed as scholars and gentlemen.
Science, through Evolutionary Psychology, is doing all it can to give a natural reason why. Our genes are god. Our genes, not us, choose. Religion was just a genetic pair of crutches to allow us to survive, nothing more. Now that we have successfully made it to “modern” times, our genes have given us the intelligence to modify ourselves. Pretty clever, eh? We have been randomly mutated and naturally selected to this point by an undirected, unwilled and unintelligent process that created us in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. “Genetics and environment, what else is there?”
As Pope Benedict tells us, we are not haphazard mistakes.
Instead of rejecting Creationist and Intelligent Design claims out of hand, why not examine them? Why just assume there’s nothing there? The current evolutionist orthodoxy prohibits this but what is stopping anyone from examining their claims? I think both have raised worthwhile points, but Pope Benedict has already stated that “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory,” so I’m sure some of those other issues will be raised.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
In the public mind, the moment a scientist walks into the lab, his personality and personal beliefs disappear and he does “science.” This arcane art can never detect God we are told. The moment he steps out of the lab, he becomes a complete human being again, able to contemplate everything
He can learn about God through scripture. The Church tells us that each one of us can discover God through natural reason, whether we work as scientists or trash collectors. That is where the disconnect occurs.
Here, Nature magazine tells us that most leading scientists reject God:
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
The view that science is the only way to perceive and study reality is false. As Pope Benedict has stated, science is too narrow. There are other areas of reason we still need. But when scientists use their science and credentials to argue against God, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and people believe them because of it, what do you call that?
When Richard Dawkins establishes a foundation and writes aanother book telling parents how to raise their children without God, what do you call that?
Promoting atheism through science is the goal. Just look up PZ Myers on you tube. He decided to put a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and throw it in the trash, and was not censured by his place of employment.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
This was a good post and I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
I wouldn’t say that “God had no hand in the action”. But I would say that since we can explain it by natural law, we can’t readily see God’s hand. In other cases, though, we can see God’s hand in developing, shaping and creating nature.
One example I could give is in seeing God’s work in someone. We could see a man who is a bad sinner who turns to God, and then becomes a different person – charitable, courageous, peaceful, forgiving, strong in virtue, etc.
This is evidence of God’s work in “nature” – in this case, God “developing” the person in ways that nature alone (evolution or natural laws) cannot do.
I believe the same thing can be evidenced in nature. The natural laws are limited and can only produce certain things. For the diversity and splendor of nature to come into existence, something more than the natural laws themselves was required.
I fully agree with how you view the gift of life, but I don’t really follow it from an evolutionist’s perspective.
Yes, but wouldn’t you pray to God for health for you and your family? We ask God to give us “our daily bread” and part of that is asking for His protection. As I see it, we’re asking for God’s protection against the raw powers of nature, which lead to death (and sickness and disorder). When the grace of God is brought into nature (we pray for His grace) – then nature is “tamed” – or at least, we thank God for mercifully granting us health and peace.
From an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn’t be necessary to pray to God to ask for His help because evolution (then natural laws) produce all the good things in nature on their own. After all, they created humanity, intelligence and all the beauty of the earth just by acting as natural laws.
But again, I see our prayers *against random mutations *(sickness) as our refutation of evolution. We could say that “only God evolves us”, not nature. God makes us stronger and we can “see the Light” – through Christ who is the light.
Without Christ (as He teaches) there is darkness.
That is the darkness of nature without grace. That’s the evolutionary mechanism – natural laws alone.
The natural law does provide some good – but we can’t depend on them alone. We need the grace of God to rise above nature.
I fully agree with that and I didn’t mean to give the impression that God is not present where it is not obviously seen.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe these are all valid statements. That being said, I also feel strongly that we have to trust the Church. If the Church did not invite the Creationists and the ID people to the congress, there is a reason. Let’s wait and see what happens.
In any case, whatever they come up with will not change the doctrine about the Creator and his creation. It may shed some light on the process, but not the reality.
JR
In any case, whatever they come up with will not change the doctrine about the Creator and his creation. It may shed some light on the process, but not the reality.
JR
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Thanks Maranatha
The following comment (Italic) from the article **EVOLUTION-CONGRESS **Sep-16-2008 - **Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design **by Carol Glatz of Catholic News Service (1)pretty much sums it up for me since I am not, as a Roman Catholic woman, a creationist nor a proponent of Intelligent Design:
"Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed* rational **philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.
He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of creationism and intelligent design. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm*"
to Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc! 
Thank you! You’re voice is a breath of fresh air based on logic admist a sea of speculation by some members posting to this topic. 
I spoke several times earlier about George V. Coyne, J.S. and will continue to do so by stating he is also President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation (1) and Editor of the Vatican Observatory Newsletter. I encourage everyone to read the newsletter. Love you dearly Father George and thank you for the Spring 2008 Newsletter! Wow! You are awesome!
Fundraising! Yippee!
E
edwest2
Guest
“based on logic” What logic?
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
All Catholics must be creationists and must accept intelligent design. This puts you in a difficult position since, apparently, you’re denying a point of the Creed: We believe in God, creator of heaven and earth. And in all things seen and unseen."
Even Fr. Coyne states that he is “radically creationist”.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I’m sorry people, but after reading what ReggieM just wrote and now looking at his msg. 73, I can’t really trust anything Reggie M has said about Father George Coyne or myself on this topic. He has insulted again George Coyne, J.S. and me. Best for me to just wish him the best and say good-bye. By the way, if you go to the Vatican:Holy See website located in the upper right hand corner and type the word “creationist” into the search engine, nothing shows up. (1) I think it proves my point that we aren’t supposed to be creationists besides the fact that none of the Roman Catholics that I know have ever been taught to be creationists nor are the children in Catholic Schools taught to be creationists. Also, the article of the topic presented by the OP, EVOLUTION-CONGRESS Sep-16-2008 - **Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design **by Carol Glatz of Catholic News Service discusses the Pontifical Council for Culture (2) and the involvement of the Lateran University whom Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc(msg. 71) is Academic Director. Born in Etterbeek, Brussels (Belgium), February 18, 1950. PhD in Science (Molecular Biology) from The Free University of Brussels. Entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) on October 2, 1977. PhD in Philosophy from the Catholic University of Louvain, 1990.
I’ll end on this note, God is love and I believe in God-The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I can’t begin to express in mere mortal words my love for Jesus. I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for him. My love for him gives me the strength to continue on. Of course, I get a nudge from the HOLY SPIRIT!
Thank you. May the light of God shine on everyone. Peace be with you.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Sorry, my error, it’s not the Latern University but the Gregorian University! (1)reggieM;4207660:
I’m sorry people, but after reading what ReggieM just wrote and now looking at his msg. 73, I can’t really trust anything Reggie M has said about Father George Coyne or myself on this topic. He has insulted again George Coyne, J.S. and me. Best for me to just wish him the best and say good-bye. By the way, if you go to the Vatican:Holy See website located in the upper right hand corner and type the word “creationist” into the search engine, nothing shows up. (1) I think it proves my point that we aren’t supposed to be creationists besides the fact that none of the Roman Catholics that I know have ever been taught to be creationists nor are the children in Catholic Schools taught to be creationists. Also, the article of the topic presented by the OP, EVOLUTION-CONGRESS Sep-16-2008 - **Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design **by Carol Glatz of Catholic News Service discusses the Pontifical Council for Culture (2) and the involvement of the Lateran University whom Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc(msg. 71) is Academic Director. Born in Etterbeek, Brussels (Belgium), February 18, 1950. PhD in Science (Molecular Biology) from The Free University of Brussels. Entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) on October 2, 1977. PhD in Philosophy from the Catholic University of Louvain, 1990.
I’ll end on this note, God is love and I believe in God-The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I can’t begin to express in mere mortal words my love for Jesus. I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for him. My love for him gives me the strength to continue on. Of course, I get a nudge from the HOLY SPIRIT!
R
reggieM
Guest
I find it unfortunate that you don’t even know what your hero, Fr. Coyne said about creationism …
So, while I didn’t intend to insult you or Fr. Coyne (although I recognize his false teaching), I’ll suggest that you’re insulting your own intelligence by denying creationism. Even Fr. Coyne supports it and says that Christianity is “radically creationist”.
Good-bye.
If you search the word “Darwinist” on the Vatican site, one finds only one mention – in the document condemning New Age practices.
So, Darwinist evolutionary theory is condemned here – as a means for ushering in false, New Age teaching.
So I’m glad you gave that idea. I learned that the Holy See is warning us here about the dangers of Darwinism.
J
JReducation
Guest
Darwinism, though it is the classical theory of evolution, is only one theory. I look at Darwinism as I look at Freaudian psychology. It had its solid points and its errors. Nonetheless, it was a start. Today we have many more solid developments in both fields: evolution and psychology.
I believe that the reason the congress is not inviting the creationists or the intelligent design people is because it wants to look at the middle ground and see what it has to say without the debates that often arise when you throw God into the equation.
I don’t believe for a second that the Vatican is going to rule God out of the equation. My belief, which can be wrong, is that they want to see how these other branches of evolutionary science speak about God, even when they do not mention God. That’s just a thought based on some comments that John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger made when they said that evolution and faith were not in conflict. It would seem that the Vatican is trying to prove the point by allowing science to speak without the voice of creationists and intelligent design theorists debate the role of God in the whole process.
If science can speak about evolution in a manner that is not in conflict with faith, then their point is proven. As Bendict XVI said, true reason leads to faith. Here is an opportunity for reason to speak freely.
This should be interesting and even supported by every Catholic. We should want reason to speak freely. If it is true reason, it will always point to God even when it does not mention him by name.
Fraternally,
JR
E
edwest2
Guest
“true reason leads to faith”? Faith cometh by hearing. Hearing the word of God. Jesus said that no man comes to Him unless the father draws him. Faith is a gift. A supernatural gift. Pure science, we are told, is unable to detect this.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Mention of Darwin now appears on this topic. There are speakers of the Vatican:Holy See’s Scientific Advisory Committee that will be waving their flags in honor of Charles Darwin at the THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Plenary Session on **SCIENTIFIC INSIGHTS INTO THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND OF LIFE **31 October-4 November 2008. (1)
For instance here is the ABSTRACT by MARTIN J. REES on
The Emergence of Complexity from ‘Simple’ Beginnings
*In 1859, Darwin proposed how ‘while this planet has been cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, forms most wonderful have been and are being evolved’. These are the famous closing words of his ‘Origin of Species’. Cosmologists aim to extend the evolutionary story back before Darwin’s simple beginning’ – indeed back to an epoch, long before there were any stars, when everything sprouted from an intensely hot ‘genesis event’, the so called Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years ago.
The first microsecond is shrouded in mystery but the emergence oof our complex cosmos from simple beginnings is the outcome
of processes that we can understand, even though the details
still elude us. By combining theories and observations, astrophysicists have begun to understand how the first stars
formed, how they assembled together to make galaxies, and how
simple atoms of hydrogen and helium gradually get transmuted
into carbon, oxygen, silicon, and iron, the building blocks
of planets and then of life. And how, on at least one planet around
at least one star, a biological process led to atoms assembling
into creatures like ourselves, able to ponder the wonder and the
mystery. The emergence of complexity depends crucially on the
role of gravity – the dominant force on large scales – and on the
apparent contingency that the laws of microphysics allow complex
chemistry. Indeed the very large and the very small – cosmos
and microworld – are two great frontiers of science; it is
a challenge for 21st century scientists to unify them. But there’s
a third frontier: the very complex. We can trace nearly 14 billion
years of cosmic history, and detect galaxies more than 10
billion lightyears away. But this immense domain of space and
time may be only a tine fraction of physical reality. The timespans
lying ahead may be even longer than those that have so
far elapsed. We humans are probably not the culmination of
evolution on Earth. Any creatures that witness the death of the
Sun six billion years hence, here on Earth or far beyond, will
surely not be human; they could be as different from us as we
are from bacteria. And ‘our’ cosmos, the aftermath of our big
bang – could extend vastly further than the domain accessible
to our telescopes (which is limited by how far light can travel
since the big bang). Moreover, ‘our’ big bang could itself be just
one of an infinite number. The laws of nature seem to prevail
uniformly throughout the domain we can observe, But they may
not be truly universal: in this hugely expanded cosmic perspective,
they could be just parochial by-laws, But what, then, would
be the universal laws?*
There are those who like to quote-mine. Peace and serenity be with you and those people that think Charles Darwin was a super, dupper grand scientist and person. Thank you and good day.
p.s. Be sure to read that pdf. It does have speakers opposing creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
For instance here is the ABSTRACT by MARTIN J. REES on
The Emergence of Complexity from ‘Simple’ Beginnings
*In 1859, Darwin proposed how ‘while this planet has been cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, forms most wonderful have been and are being evolved’. These are the famous closing words of his ‘Origin of Species’. Cosmologists aim to extend the evolutionary story back before Darwin’s simple beginning’ – indeed back to an epoch, long before there were any stars, when everything sprouted from an intensely hot ‘genesis event’, the so called Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years ago.
The first microsecond is shrouded in mystery but the emergence oof our complex cosmos from simple beginnings is the outcome
of processes that we can understand, even though the details
still elude us. By combining theories and observations, astrophysicists have begun to understand how the first stars
formed, how they assembled together to make galaxies, and how
simple atoms of hydrogen and helium gradually get transmuted
into carbon, oxygen, silicon, and iron, the building blocks
of planets and then of life. And how, on at least one planet around
at least one star, a biological process led to atoms assembling
into creatures like ourselves, able to ponder the wonder and the
mystery. The emergence of complexity depends crucially on the
role of gravity – the dominant force on large scales – and on the
apparent contingency that the laws of microphysics allow complex
chemistry. Indeed the very large and the very small – cosmos
and microworld – are two great frontiers of science; it is
a challenge for 21st century scientists to unify them. But there’s
a third frontier: the very complex. We can trace nearly 14 billion
years of cosmic history, and detect galaxies more than 10
billion lightyears away. But this immense domain of space and
time may be only a tine fraction of physical reality. The timespans
lying ahead may be even longer than those that have so
far elapsed. We humans are probably not the culmination of
evolution on Earth. Any creatures that witness the death of the
Sun six billion years hence, here on Earth or far beyond, will
surely not be human; they could be as different from us as we
are from bacteria. And ‘our’ cosmos, the aftermath of our big
bang – could extend vastly further than the domain accessible
to our telescopes (which is limited by how far light can travel
since the big bang). Moreover, ‘our’ big bang could itself be just
one of an infinite number. The laws of nature seem to prevail
uniformly throughout the domain we can observe, But they may
not be truly universal: in this hugely expanded cosmic perspective,
they could be just parochial by-laws, But what, then, would
be the universal laws?*
- vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_55.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_55.pdf
There are those who like to quote-mine. Peace and serenity be with you and those people that think Charles Darwin was a super, dupper grand scientist and person. Thank you and good day.p.s. Be sure to read that pdf. It does have speakers opposing creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
JR, I don’t agree with your statement. There aren’t any ‘creationists’ or ‘intelligent design people’ that are on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. I hope that helps you understand the why’s of it all. Please try and understand that the Vatican Scientists don’t support creationism or proponents of the Intelligent Design Movement and apparently neither does Pontifical Council for Culture. Makes perfect sense to me.
Take care and may God’s peace be with you.
- Status