Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Are there books on this tradition that you can recommend?
Click to expand...
There are several Catholic books that treat the long tradition of doctrine on creation, but none that I know of recent vintage, or which focus on that issue exclusively.
Basically, the Catholic teaching can be found synthesized best by St. Thomas Aquinas, who drew together the best arguments from the pre-Christian era and then through the Fathers.
A book like The Pocket Aquinas gives St. Thomas’ teaching on the creation of the universe, the human soul and of nature (he taught that God created the original matter and the form/substance of plants and animals (thus, the first lion, the first fish, the first bird, etc.)
I have an old collection, The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Hans Meyer, but there are many others.
Jurgens’ collection on the Fathers gives the ancient teaching. The Fathers are just about unanimous on God’s creative power as found in the book of Genesis.
 
reggieM said:
Jurgens’ collection on the Fathers gives the ancient teaching. The Fathers are just about unanimous on God’s creative power as found in the book of Genesis.
Click to expand...
I found in the college library some interesting books by Christians – including Catholics – who look at evolutionary theology:

The Sacred Cosmos, by Terence Nichols
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed. Keith Miller
Catholicism and Science, by Paul Allen and Peter Hess
Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion, by Fr. Michael Heller
God and Evolution, by Archbishop Josef Zcyincski,
Wayfarers in the Cosmos, by Fr. George Coyne
Evolution from Creation to New Creation, by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett

I’m looking forward to reviewing them.

StAnastasia
 
reggieM said:
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 …
Click to expand...
The point that St Anastasia brought to the table was that the Kolbe Centre rejects not only Darwinism, but also Copernicus and heliocentrism. My response was that this does not accurately portray Friar Maximilian. Friar Maximilian was mathematician, physicist and philosopher. He was not opposed to modern science.

He found scientific weaknesses in Darwin’s theories. And he responds using physical philosophy. He also opposed any scientific position that left everything to chance. This is not the same as opposing modern science. For example, he would not have been opposed to the discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine.

We also know that he used the laws of physics in his ministry when he built the seminary in Japan. He was told that the seminary had to be built elsewhere and he insisted that it be built on the side of a mountain. He drew up the plans himself and applied such mathematical and physical precision to the design that after the atom bomb fell on the other side of the mountain, the seminary was the only thing left standing.

As Franciscans we believe that the Holy Spirit guided him in the choice of sight and in his calculations, but we also accept that he used the gifts that God had given him in the areas of math and science. He was an example of a man who could bring together the spiritual and the scientific into one cohesive thought and application.

So, when someone says that his name is used to reject modern science it’s inconsistent with his life and work. He fought error, not science. The greatest error that he fought was atheism.

As to this congress, Friar Maximilian would certainly approve for two reasons. First and foremost, he was a Friar Minor. The Rule of the Friars Minor explicitly demands total obedience to the Pope and the Bishops without questioning. If this is the wish of the Church, to hold this congress with these specific guests, then the Friars Minor will support it, even if they have their own opinion on who should be included. According to the Rule of St. Francis, any Friar Minor who publicly expressed a conflicting opinion with that of the Church could be consequence and silenced by the Major Superior if he chose to do so. Friar Maximilian was one of the most humble men in Franciscan history.

Second, he had a keen interest in science and was a very curious fellow. He always wanted to know what science was thinking and saying, even if he later disagreed. He believed it was important to know. That’s why he read Darwin’s work so very carefully.

Hope this helps clarify the speculation concerning the allegations about the Kolbe Centre. Not knowing the Kolbe Centre, I cannot say if they truly say that Friar Maximilian was opposed to modern science or if this is a misunderstanding of what they are saying. I hope it is.

I’m going to see what I find out about the Kolbe Centre. If I find anything that can add to this thread, I’ll be sure to post it.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
He found scientific weaknesses in Darwin’s theories.
Click to expand...
I think you’re understating his opposition to Darwinism, but he did indeed find weaknesses in the theory. This is in striking opposition to the scientific consensus today which finds no such weaknesses (in fact, they won’t permit weakenesses of the theory to be discussed in schools).
He also opposed any scientific position that left everything to chance. This is not the same as opposing modern science.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you mean by “modern science”. I don’t think there’s much of a definition for that term. Supposedly, “science is science”, modern or not. Or one could say that the Kolbe Center is part of modern science itself.
I would be quite concerned that “modern science” is dominated by atheistic thought (considering 70% of modern scientists are atheists). I’m quite sure St. Maximillian would not be happy about that at all.
For example, he would not have been opposed to the discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine.
Click to expand...
I think you introduced the idea that the Kolbe Center claims that St. Maximillian opposes modern science. From what I read, that is not their position. For that matter, I don’t think the Kolbe Center itself rejects “modern science” since they believe that they are offering their own scientific views.
So, when someone says that his name is used to reject modern science it’s inconsistent with his life and work. He fought error, not science.
Click to expand...
Again, you introduced this notion. Nobody said that his name is used to reject modern science.
The greatest error that he fought was atheism.
Click to expand...
He would have quite a lot to fight among the Darwinists of today.
Not knowing the Kolbe Centre, I cannot say if they truly say that Friar Maximilian was opposed to modern science or if this is a misunderstanding of what they are saying.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. You’re arguing against a point that hasn’t been validated in the first place.
 
It would be valuable to point out that the word science is not equivalent to the word evolution. It is a sad and misleading fact that too many here say people are ignorant of science when all they care about is ‘science that supports evolutionary theory.’ This approach taints any supporting science with a - why is evolution the only science that appears to matter? For this reason alone, I think eveyone here should be wary.

As Cardinal Schoenborn has rightly pointed out, ideology has invaded science. It has become more important to advance science as the be all and end all. Claims that it is neutral are demonstrably false when scientists like PZ Myers or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins begin to speak. Their philosophies and judgements about reality are first and foremost based on science. Mr. Myers talks about science being corrosive to religious belief and firmly establishes an inseparable link between science and atheism.

To use a popular term, modern, or contemporary, science has been hijacked by advocates for atheism. After all, at the end of the day, someone pays the scientists for working in the lab. Their work is designed to produce results that are then sold in the marketplace. By marketing a product called atheism using scientists, it just makes it that much more palatable to the masses. Wouldn’t you buy scientific atheism from the nice man with the English accent?

The goal is a society based on the pronouncements of science. Unfortunately, as history has shown repeatedly, man, physically and mentally, is not reducible to only a set of formulas. I recommend everyone pick up a copy of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

God bless,
Ed
 
One of the most famous friar scientists – although not a Franciscan – was Marin Mersenne.
Click to expand...
The most famous one would be an Augustinian, Gregor Mendel. He founded the science of genetics, was interested in the various theories of evolution, and along with Charles Darwin, made biology what it is today.

He might not have gotten on so well with Kolbe, unless he would have been able to explain to him that evolution was not about pure chance.
 
JReducation said:
The point that St Anastasia brought to the table was that the Kolbe Centre rejects not only Darwinism, but also Copernicus and heliocentrism. My response was that this does not accurately portray Friar Maximilian.

Hope this helps clarify the speculation concerning the allegations about the Kolbe Centre. Not knowing the Kolbe Centre, I cannot say if they truly say that Friar Maximilian was opposed to modern science or if this is a misunderstanding of what they are saying. I hope it is.
Click to expand...
Thank you, JR! I have had some positive communication with the Kolbe Center, even if they steadfastly reject not only evolution, but the idea that the earth is ancient. And they have given me a ludicrous “scientific” justification of a global flood that flies in the face of all geological and hydrological evidence. It is for this reason, and the fact that the geocentrist Robert Sungenis sits on their board of “scientific” advisors, that I wonder about the Kolbe Center’s commitment to science, and whether they are not abusing the name of Saint Maximilian Kolbe.

I just don’t know how you can reject most of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, sedimentology, geology, and other sciences, and still claim that you are not anti-science. It is not some conspiracy against them that impels scientific organizations not to grant conference session time to Noah’s flood geology or young earth creationism. There is no conspiracy against Native Americans that leads the AAAS not to permit sessions discussing how the world sits on the back of a giant tortoise. It is simply because none of these beliefs are consonant with science as we know it!

StAnastasia
 
  1. No citation of these people. There are many people, including academics who would subscribe to those two views.
Click to expand...
Many academics subscribe to views that are repugnant or even hostile to Catholicism.
  1. Generalizing those people as being ALL of those who hold those views.
Click to expand...
I specifically did not say that.
To equate these people in analogy with the terrorist group Hamas is a little extreme and inappropriate for the context of this situation.
Click to expand...
Since for those people, it’s talk, not acts of terrorism, you might have a point there. But many of them condemn as damned to hell, those who believe as the Pope believes.
 
Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

…If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
“If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn’t be accelerating,” said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. “It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.”

…One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special.
When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science.
Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.
“This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,” Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.”
 
buffalo said:
Do you have any comments on the article?
Click to expand...
Can you offer us some context? Why did you post this article? What bearing does it have on the discussion at hand? You can’t just post a link and demand that people respond to it, context free.

StAnastasia
 
Wirraway said:
the Vatican recognizes the obvious: ID is theological creationism slightly masked in questionable science.
Click to expand...
Wirraway, you are right, but I’m still bothered that YECs have hijacked the beautiful Catholic doctrine of creation, which theologians (except for the Kolbe Centrics) now interpret in light of modern science. Instead, the YECs shoehorn this ancient doctrine into a pre-modern, geocentric world view, and expect to be welcomed at the table of discourse. You might as well expect the Royal Astronomical Society to sit humbly at the feet of Ptolemy and defer to his worldview!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Wirraway, you are right, but I’m still bothered that YECs have hijacked the beautiful Catholic doctrine of creation, which theologians (except for the Kolbe Centrics) now interpret in light of modern science. Instead, the YECs shoehorn this ancient doctrine into a pre-modern, geocentric world view, and expect to be welcomed at the table of discourse. You might as well expect the Royal Astronomical Society to sit humbly at the feet of Ptolemy and defer to his worldview!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The beautiful doctrine of creation, the constant teaching of the Church, has not been hijacked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top