Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would certainly like to hear your explaination about:
  1. What God created
  2. How God’s power has influenced nature and evolution
Personally, I don’t think we should ridicule people for their language dialect, or call them names like “hillbilly”. We may well find such people attaining a greater degree of glory than many who think they have a sophisticated understanding of God’s ways.
  1. God is creator of the entire universe.
  2. God’s power has influenced nature and evolution through attraction. God is luring the world forward; God is the world’s future. God is outside time, the alpha and the omega.
We observe God’s creative power in the equations that set the parameters of the cosmos, measured by cosmologists, physicists and astronomers. We observe God’s wisdom in the evolution of species through natural selection, observed by paleontologists and biologists. We observe it in the evolution of religious consciousness on the part of humans over tens of thousands of years.

That’s all for now – I’m off to the airport in a few hours to fly out to Pasadena for a science-and-religion event at Caltech. Atheist Victor Stenger will be debating Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross – a heavy-weight matchup! Back on-line Sunday afternoon.

StAnastasia
 
God is outside time, the alpha and the omega.
Hi Anastasia 🙂 I haven’t been keeping up on this topic. Perhaps later I will, but I can’t honestly say that I agree with all that you have written in your post though I do wish to comment on that which I have selected regarding “the alpha and the omega”. Pope John Paul II wrote JESUS SENT BY THE FATHER FOR THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD:

*5. I would like to conclude with a wonderful passage from the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, by St Louis de Montfort, which proclaims the Christological faith of the Church: "Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of everything… He is the only teacher from whom we must learn; the only Lord on whom we should depend; the only Head to whom we should be united and the only model that we should imitate. He is the only Physician that can heal us; the only Shepherd that can feed us; the only Way that can lead us; the only Truth that we can believe; the only Life that can animate us. He alone is everything to us and he alone can satisfy all our desires… Each one of the faithful who is not united to him is like a branch broken from the stem of the vine. It falls and withers and is fit only to be burnt. If we live in Jesus and Jesus lives in us, we need not fear damnation. Neither angels in heaven nor men on earth, nor devils in hell, no creature whatever can harm us, for no creature can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.

Through him, with him and in him we can do all things and render all honour and glory to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit; we can become perfect and be for our neighbour a fragrance of eternal life" (n. 6 1).*
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01041998_p-24_en.html#top
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01041998_p-24_en.html#top

Jesus is present in my life. 🙂 He is always with me. I love him so very, very much.

Peace be with you. 🙂 May you have a safe journey.
 
We observe God’s wisdom in the evolution of species through natural selection, observed by paleontologists and biologists. We observe it in the evolution of religious consciousness on the part of humans over tens of thousands of years.

That’s all for now – I’m off to the airport in a few hours to fly out to Pasadena for a science-and-religion event at Caltech. Atheist Victor Stenger will be debating Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross – a heavy-weight matchup! Back on-line Sunday afternoon.

StAnastasia
All the science articles I’ve read on evolution clearly and unashamedly state that the process of evolution in humans brought about the concept of god and therefore man created god and not God created man. Anyone can see the evil in that. I worry for all the students studying this that go and reject their faith as a result of evolutionary false science.

Since God created Adam and Eve as intelligent human beings, then no evolution is required.

.
 
All the science articles I’ve read on evolution clearly and unashamedly state that the process of evolution in humans brought about the concept of god and therefore man created god and not God created man. Anyone can see the evil in that. I worry for all the students studying this that go and reject their faith as a result of evolutionary false science.

Since God created Adam and Eve as intelligent human beings, then no evolution is required.

.
The notion of the “evolution of religious consciousness” is very difficult to reconcile with the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. But beyond that, I wouldn’t say the science that proposes such things is built on a reliable foundation.
 
The notion of the “evolution of religious consciousness” is very difficult to reconcile with the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. But beyond that, I wouldn’t say the science that proposes such things is built on a reliable foundation.
Judging by what St Anastasia is saying " We observe it in the evolution of religious consciousness on the part of humans over tens of thousands of years" its an observation, so science isn’t even required, she says we can see it and it must be obvious (to her anyway).

.
 
The notion of the “evolution of religious consciousness” is very difficult to reconcile with the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. But beyond that, I wouldn’t say the science that proposes such things is built on a reliable foundation.
It’s not difficult at all.
 
Adam and Eve were real individuals. Their sin made it necessary for Jesus Christ to be born.

God bless,
Ed
 
What? Please clarify your request.
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996


Evolution and the Church’s Magisterium
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet”; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
**Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. **
**6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? **
 
cont’d

Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.
 
Judging by what St Anastasia is saying " We observe it in the evolution of religious consciousness on the part of humans over tens of thousands of years" its an observation, so science isn’t even required, she says we can see it and it must be obvious (to her anyway)…
Excuse me, but what do you not understand about how science works?:confused: Observations are crucial to the scientific heuristic. Scientists develop explanations to account for the facts they observe.

Archaeologists have shown that religious consciousness evolved in early humans at least thirty-five thousand years ago, if not considerably earlier. Gradually this religious consciousness evolved through the neolithic period and the bronze and iron ages, until it reached a substantial flowering in the axial age. This is the period identified by Karl Jaspers (1883-1959) as the period between 800 BCE and 650 CE. This time saw an explosion of religious consciousness around the world, expressed through the Upanishads, Lao Tzu, Homer, Socrates, Parmenides, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Heraclitus, Thucydides, Archimedes, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Jesus, and Muhammad.

Clearly then, religious consciousness has evolved along with the increasing neural complexity of the human brain.👍

God bless,
St. Anastasia
 
This is an anti-theistic concept of religion. It simply states that evolving genes evolved the mind/neural connections which meant humans went through a -my-genes-told-me-to-invent-god-and-religion phase as a purely mechanical step on the road to some unwilled, undefined and unintelligently directed “higher” function that led to current modern, modern man. Modern, modern man is so evolved he no longer needs religion.

Jesus is God, not your genes. This idea reduces human beings to biological mechanisms with only two functions:

Reproduce successfully.

Perform adaptive functions guided by your genes and nothing else.

This is a clear example of Scientific Atheism.

Peace,
Ed
 
This is an anti-theistic concept of religion. It simply states that evolving genes evolved the mind/neural connections which meant humans went through a -my-genes-told-me-to-invent-god-and-religion phase as a purely mechanical step on the road to some unwilled, undefined and unintelligently directed “higher” function that led to current modern, modern man. Modern, modern man is so evolved he no longer needs religion.

This is a clear example of Scientific Atheism.Peace,Ed
Ed, how is this an anti-theistic concept of religion? And can you show me where I said that “modern man is so evolved he no longer needs religion”? You just made that up, didn’t you?:mad: When I signed on I assumed that misrepresenting or lying about what another poster has said would not be allowed on this forum, as Catholics oppose lying. Am I somehow mistaken in this assumption?:eek:

God bless,
StAnastasia
 
“religious consciousness” is not a Catholic concept. Assigning brain development to the genes denies God and imparts to the genes, intelliegence, guidance and direction. It is against Catholic teaching to attribute the mind of man to purely material forces. This is Evolutionary Psychology.

By removing divine providence from the equation, as the biology textbook does, too many people are led to believe that evolution negates a role for God. In fact, both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn have had to deal with exactly that claim coming from the scientific community.

“religious consciousness” also clearly implies a link between all religions and philosophies/philosophers that does not exist in a Christian context. It reduces religious thought to gene expression, nothing more.

Peace,
Ed
 
By removing divine providence from the equation, as the biology textbook does, too many people are led to believe that evolution negates a role for God.
By the same token, removing divine providence from the equation, as the geology textbook does, would lead too many people to believe that continental drift is accounted for by seafloor spreading rather than by the hand of God moving the continents about. Plate tectonics and the theory of gravity negate a role for God as much as you apparently think evolution does.

StAnastasia
 
“religious consciousness” is not a Catholic concept. Peace,Ed
Yes, “religious consciousness” is a Catholic concept. Catholics think and write about it, so it is as much a “Catholic concept” as are Newton’s gravity, Galileo’s acceleration, psychology’s unconscious, and indeed, “science” itself. Do you know that Catholics have been involved with science – under the term “natural philosophy” since the earliest days of the Church?

StAnastasia
 
All religions and philosophies are not equal. Catholics belong to the one, true Apostolic Church.

Peace,
Ed
 
By the same token, removing divine providence from the equation, as the geology textbook does, would lead too many people to believe that continental drift is accounted for by seafloor spreading rather than by the hand of God moving the continents about. Plate tectonics and the theory of gravity negate a role for God as much as you apparently think evolution does.

StAnastasia
Science has become contaminated by ideology. It is being used to confuse people.

“Scientism - by which I mean the philosophy (usually implicit and unrecognized) that modern science is the only way of gaining objective knowledge of reality - must be overcome.”

Cardinal Schoenborn:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5464

As Pope Benedict has said, science and faith are complementary. It is incorrect to think that science alone provides factual information. Divine revelation must be added or people will tend to think that all things occur by themselves or through natural forces that are, for some, explained in a manner that totally excludes supernatural forces. This explanation is perfectly suitable to the atheist. It is severely lacking vital information for the Christian. It is this lack of divine revelation and the recognition of the work of divine providence as fact, where there is a supposed debate. The Christian automatically knows that God, the living God, is not a bystander, is not a myth, and is in an active relationship with His people. Science will always be incomplete. The Church exists to complete the picture of reality.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top