Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[JReducation]

The Catholic Church has a very long tradition in teaching about God’s creation, going back to the Fathers of the Church (and before that to the Jewish Prophets) as well.

This is what makes the Catholic Church so unique. She uses reason to help our understanding of faith. Hence the ancient definition of theology: faith seeking understanding.

I feel very postive about this gathering, because it reflects the tradition of the Church concerning science. The Church has always proceeded cautiously on this terrain, but has never shied away from it either. Some of the world’s greatest scientific minds were monks.

On modern scientist and mystic was the Franciscan Friar, St. Maximilian Kolbe. Another great rational mind of the modern Church was the Carmelite mystic and nun, St. Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein).

It is exciting to see the Church involved in the world of scientific dialogue. She has a place there, a definite voice and something to add.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[StAnastasia]

The Catholic Church has a very long tradition in teaching about God’s creation, going back to the Fathers of the Church (and before that to the Jewish Prophets) as well.

Are there books on this tradition that you can recommend?

 

[StAnastasia]

I feel very postive about this gathering, because it reflects the tradition of the Church concerning science. The Church has always proceeded cautiously on this terrain, but has never shied away from it either. Some of the world’s greatest scientific minds were monks.

On modern scientist and mystic was the Franciscan Friar, St. Maximilian Kolbe. Another great rational mind of the modern Church was the Carmelite mystic and nun, St. Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein). Fraternally,
JR

Did Fr. Kolbe reject modern science? I ask because I ran across a website called the “Kolbe Center,” which is all about Catholic Young Earthism. They even have some staff members who reject not only Darwin but Copernicus – they laugh at heliocentrism, if you can believe that! How did poor Fr. Kolbe get implicated in this?

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

• they laugh at heliocentrism,

StAnastasia

It is true that the math works for both systems and one cannot be proven true. There have been a number of threads on this.

 

[redneck22]

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.

Charles Darwin “Descent of Man”

" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

I suppose that excludes him from super duper person category, and as for Grand scientist, his observation of finches reproducing finches with different beak lengths is no help to his theory of evolution, since finches reproducing finches only supports the Genesis account of reproduction after their kind. In fact his book “On the origin of species…” doesn’t explain the origin of anything.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is true that the math works for both systems and one cannot be proven true. There have been a number of threads on this.

How can you explain stellar parallax on a geocentric model?

How strong would the force of gravity have to be to hold together a universe revolving around the earth at billions of miles per hour?

Moreover, why would a Catholic even want to forward such a position, when it would be laughed out of court at the American Geophysical Society? After all, even Pope John Paul II eventually apologized for the Galileo debacle, albeit 400 years later!

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

How can you explain stellar parallax on a geocentric model?

How strong would the force of gravity have to be to hold together a universe revolving around the earth at billions of miles per hour?

Moreover, why would a Catholic even want to forward such a position, when it would be laughed out of court at the American Geophysical Society? After all, even Pope John Paul II eventually apologized for the Galileo debacle, albeit 400 years later!

StAnastasia

Oh Boy - this will take some time.

It isn’t laughed out at all.

http://catholicintl.com/products/books/frontcoverv2_10cent.JPG

Check it out

 

[gjbrunning]

Re Post 91
This is what I was trying to say several posts back. But the Cardinal has said it much better. Most, if not all, evolution “science” is really ideology in that it starts with the premise that there is no God (or if there is one, He did not do any creating).

Just as an aside, I raise goats. My study of and experience with, goats convinces me not only of God’s intelligent design but also of His sense of humor. A sense of humor is one thing which is lacking, I think, among those who think we and everything else are accidental beings (certainly not creatures). To have a sense of humor one must recognize incongruities. What could be more incongruous than eons of accidents resulting in a goat, a human, or a “scientist” who cannot recognize the hand of God in, dare I use the word?, creation?

I thank everyone, even those with whom I disagree, for their posts as I find this discussion entertaining and enlightening. I repeat, the conference needs the Intelligent Designers

 

[edwest2]

How can you explain stellar parallax on a geocentric model?

How strong would the force of gravity have to be to hold together a universe revolving around the earth at billions of miles per hour?

Moreover, why would a Catholic even want to forward such a position, when it would be laughed out of court at the American Geophysical Society? After all, even Pope John Paul II eventually apologized for the Galileo debacle, albeit 400 years later!

StAnastasia

Galileo did not come in conflict with the Church regarding his theory but in the fact that he wanted to force it as being proven prior to more research being done.

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

It isn’t laughed out at all.]

I too could self-publish a book arguing (and “documenting”) that the moon is made of green cheese , or that the moon landings were part of an elaborate NASA hoax. But that self-publishing would not likely get me a spot on the program of the American Astronomical Society, and it would be silly of me to insist that I be given such a platform to argue for it. After all, I could equally reasonably argue that objects fall off tables not because of some invisible “force of gravity,” but because God wills it to be so.

Geocentrism, Nasa hoaxes, Holocaust denial, Young Earth Creationism, Numerology, Witchcraft, Voodoo, Intelligent Falling – these are all beliefs that have been advocated, tested, found vacuous, and then discarded. It behooves us Catholic scientists, historians, mathematicians, theologians, and philosophers to demonstrate and proclaim that our religious belief is compatible with standard science, not with that of the loony fringe. Of course we believe that “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made.” But God also gave us science to brains to invent science for investigating how all things were made.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Galileo did not come in conflict with the Church regarding his theory but in the fact that he wanted to force it as being proven prior to more research being done.Peace,Ed

Can you explain stellar parallax on a geocentric model?

Can you estimate how strong the force of gravity would have to be to hold together the whole universe revolving around the earth at billions of miles per hour?

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

I too could self-publish a book arguing (and “documenting”) that the moon is made of green cheese , or that the moon landings were part of an elaborate NASA hoax. But that self-publishing would not likely get me a spot on the program of the American Astronomical Society, and it would be silly of me to insist that I be given such a platform to argue for it. After all, I could equally reasonably argue that objects fall off tables not because of some invisible “force of gravity,” but because God wills it to be so.

Geocentrism, Nasa hoaxes, Holocaust denial, Young Earth Creationism, Numerology, Witchcraft, Voodoo, Intelligent Falling – these are all beliefs that have been advocated, tested, found vacuous, and then discarded. It behooves us Catholic scientists, historians, mathematicians, theologians, and philosophers to demonstrate and proclaim that our religious belief is compatible with standard science, not with that of the loony fringe. Of course we believe that “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made.” But God also gave us science to brains to invent science for investigating how all things were made.

StAnastasia

I am not going to debate geocentrism. You can do this directly yourself here

and here

 

[JReducation]

Did Fr. Kolbe reject modern science? I ask because I ran across a website called the “Kolbe Center,” which is all about Catholic Young Earthism. They even have some staff members who reject not only Darwin but Copernicus – they laugh at heliocentrism, if you can believe that! How did poor Fr. Kolbe get implicated in this?

StAnastasia

I have no idea how Friar Maximilian got pulled into this. Nothing can be further from the truth. Friar Max was a great scholar. Prior to being ordained the major superior permitted Friar Maximilian to earn degrees in philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics. He was a PhD in Physical Philosophy a branch of philosophy that brings reason to the study of the natural physical phenomenon. He wrote extensive articles in the sciences.

Friar Maximilian opposed the Modernist movement of his time that subscribed to the notion that all physcial (included biological) phenomena was accidental. He used philosophy to prove that it was part of a Divine plan and mathematics to support that the plan was logical, sequential, organized and on-going.

Friar Maximilian wrote:

**Everything that exists, outside of God himself, since it is from God and depends upon him in every way, bears within itself some semblance to its Creator . . . because every created thing is an effect of the Primal Cause. It is true that the words we use to speak of created realities express the divine perfections only in a halting, limited and analogical manner. They are only a more or less distant echo — as are created realities that they signify — of the properties of God himself. **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6547&CFID=12939674&CFTOKEN=65716016

He understood that there is a primal cause for everything, which he adopted from the writings of Aristotle. He also admits that the words we use can barely explain the reality of created things, because everything that is created reflects God and God can barely be explained in human language.

In 1907, Raymond (Max) and his elder brother entered a junior Franciscan seminary in Lwow. Here he excelled in mathematics and physics and his teachers predicted a brilliant future for him in science.

catholic-pages.com/saints/st_maximilian.asp

I’m not sure where people get some of their information. But if we look at the chronicles of our Franciscan family, Friar Maximilian or Father Maximilian as he is called outside of the Franciscan Order, was far from being antagonistic toward science. He was antagonist toward ignorance, especially ignorance of reason. That’s why pursued several doctorate degrees. He spent many years forming young minds through teaching and journalism.

I hope this clears up any misconsception.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[StAnastasia]

I am not going to debate geocentrism. You can do this directly yourself ]

I’d sooner debate the exact dimensions of the Yellow Brick Road in Oz.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have no idea how Friar Maximilian got pulled into this. Nothing can be further from the truth. Friar Max was a great scholar.

He was antagonist toward ignorance, especially ignorance of reason. That’s why pursued several doctorate degrees. He spent many years forming young minds through teaching and journalism.I hope this clears up any misconsception. Fraternally, JR

Thank you, JR. What you write is precisely what I’ve thought about Fr. Kolbe. So is the Kolbe Center’s hijacking of his name premeditatedly dishonest? Or do they sincerely believe they are honouring him?

StAnastasia

 

[JReducation]

Thank you, JR. What you write is precisely what I’ve thought about Fr. Kolbe. So is the Kolbe Center’s hijacking of his name premeditatedly dishonest? Or do they sincerely believe they are honouring him?

StAnastasia

I can’t speak to what’s on their mind or in their heart. I can only say that if they are reporting that Friar Maximilian was opposed to science, they are very mistaken. In fact, the proof is in the branch of the Friars Minor to which he belonged.

The Friars Minor (founded by St. Francis) have three branches within one order: Capuchins, Conventuals and Observants. Friar Maxmilian was a Conventual. The term comes from friars who live in convents. In these convents the friars have always had large libraries and research centres in many disciplines. It would make little sense for Friar Maximilian to belong to this branch of the Friars Minor if he felt any antagonism toward scholarship or science. He would have been better in a Capuchin friary where there are no great libraries and where the friars do not own books or technology and those who are interested in higher sciences go out to study. They don’t own great centres of learning as to other branches of the Franciscan Order. By the way, Capuchins do study, but at universities, not in-house.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[StAnastasia]

The Friars Minor (founded by St. Francis) have three branches within one order: Capuchins, Conventuals and Observants… It would make little sense for Friar Maximilian to belong to this branch of the Friars Minor if he felt any antagonism toward scholarship or science.Hope this helps.
Fraternally,JR

One of the most famous friar scientists – although not a Franciscan – was Marin Mersenne. It strikes me he an Maximillian Kolbe would have gotten on well together.

StAnastasia

 

[JReducation]

One of the most famous friar scientists – although not a Franciscan – was Marin Mersenne. It strikes me he an Maximillian Kolbe would have gotten on well together.

StAnastasia

I believe they would have too. Friar Maximilian was a gentle soul with the heart and mind of a warrior. Marin Mersenne was a fighter. He never gave up.

I can see how they would have gotten along well.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[reggieM]

Father Maximilian as he is called outside of the Franciscan Order, was far from being antagonistic toward science.

I don’t know who claimed that he was antagonistic towards science, but he certainly was antagonistic towards Darwinism and he defended the principles of Intelligent Design.

God made Himself known to human beings in two ways: naturally through human reason, and supernaturally through revelation. And, as we know, the concept of God exists among all peoples. There is not a corner of the earth where God is not known. Even among the most savage tribes there is a concept of a Higher Being.
It is difficult to conceive it any other way; we need only look about ourselves so as to come to the conclusion that God is in charge of everything, that He directs everything. Everything is directed to its appropriate and determined end; its very method of development is determined. On one and the same plant there grow leaves and buds, and the latter become lovely flowers. The structure of the flower is so mysteriously, so wondrously thought out; how exact it all is. Scientists are at a loss even to enter into the mystery, though they might spend a lifetime in observing just one such plant. Therefore, the words of Sacred Scripture are entirely correct: "The fool said in his heart: there is no God."
St. Maximilian Kolbe - Maria was His Middle Name, 1977 pg. 11

Or again as he refutes Darwinism …

“Sir, what would you think of a man who would describe his wristwatch as follows: ‘The metal covering the watch came out of the mine by accident; in some strange way it was molded and formed, cleansed and shaped into its present form by accident; the face of the wristwatch came to be written upon also by accident. In fact, the crystal was blown into its form by accident. The spring and mechanism came into being by accident; finally, all of the various parts of the wristwatch were assembled by accident, that is, without assistance of human thought or hand; in fact, the wristwatch gives the correct hour by accident.’ Now, what would you say of a person who, in all seriousness, were to be so convinced?”
“Perhaps that he has taken leave of his senses!” "In nature, too, we have organisms of incomparable complexity, mysteriously constituted. No doubt, sir, when you studied anatomy, you marveled at the structure of the human eye. You doubtless noted how many parts it has, how delicately and wonderfully they serve our vision. All nature is composed of millions and billions of living organisms that unfold and multiply. Is it possible, therefore, to assert that these wonders of nature are an accident?

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, JR. What you write is precisely what I’ve thought about Fr. Kolbe. So is the Kolbe Center’s hijacking of his name premeditatedly dishonest? Or do they sincerely believe they are honouring him?

You wonder why the Kolbe Center is working under this great Saint’s name. Perhaps the quotes I just offered give a clue.

This one might make it more clear …

I don’t believe that the universe arose and came into being of itself, for nothing has every arisen of itself, nor is it at all possible.

I don’t believe that the universe came into being accidentally from some kind of matter, for hitherto no mechanism has ever been built by itself or accidentally, nor has any mechanism created another mechanism like to itself, while living creatures, have originated for thousands of years from generation to generation.

I don’t believe that chimpanzees (or any other Darwinian ‘consolation’ like the monkey) can surpass us in the manufacture of aircraft or other inventions, for among these animals one does not witness progress or evolution; in fact, after all these centuries, they have not as yet succeeded in writing the most modest work in exposition of their primatial evolution.

St. Maximilian Kolbe - Maria Was His Middle Name, 1977 pg 9.