Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[edwest211]

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

Source: Catholic Answers

 

[Aloysium]

I’ll just assume that my argument stands and that you don’t have arguments against it or a different argument.

It sounds like you’ve won whatever game you are playing. Congratz.

To restate my position for those willing to listen and contemplate: Mankind is not a kind of animal.

 

[edwest211]

That is absolutely true. Science is missing critical information about the identity of human beings. The Church can tell us who we are, science cannot.

 

[buss0042]

Feel free to contemplate my argument, and either accept it or claim inconsistency.

Glad I’m not making the choice.

To clarify: man is not merely an animal, as squirrels and whales are. We are partially animal, insomuch as our physical bodies are concerned.

 

[buss0042]

I think you’re taking that excerpt a step beyond what it really means.

Try out https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

1. If something exists, then it must have some form that makes it what it is.
2. If something has a form, it must be comprised of more elementary forms.

3a. God exists.

How do your 1. and 2. apply to God? God exists so He has a form. What is the form of God? What are the more elementary forms that comprise God’s form?

rossum

God is transcendent, Existence itself and in His works we witness the glory that He, in His simplicity of being, creates. Think along the lines of Divine and eternal Mind, the supreme perfect Relationship and Act of Love, from which all being, relational in nature as a reflection of its Maker, is brought forth from nothing.

 

[Aloysium]

Who on earth claims that 3 is anywhere near being correct?

A random collection of subatomic particles, organized as molecules, spewing out a word salad, awaiting the ad hominem entree, that’s who.

 

[edwest211]

It means exactly what it means. Pope Pius XII warned about what I’m seeing here.

 

[buss0042]

I do have a response to your premise that I, probably too quickly and too harshly, called ridiculous.

It comes from Timothy Pawl, a leading philosophical expert about the incarnation.

He writes a paper that I’ll utilize, but can’t post because of copyright issues. But he speaks on predications (properties) that can and cannot be made of Christ, due to his having both human and divine natures. Boiling it down to its bare bones, anything that can be predicated of a human can also be predicated of Jesus, because he does, indeed, have the human nature. But the same can also be said the other way. Anything that can be predicated of God can also be predicated of Jesus, so that everything that is true for God is also true for Jesus. Having two natures doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t have the properties of the other nature.

The same is true for us normal humans - of our bodies and our souls. Predications coming from both our souls and our bodies are true, including the physical aspect of animalia.

 

[buss0042]

That was a fast reply for reading that whole link.

And fast for reading all those books I recommended a few days ago

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Who on earth claims that 3 is anywhere near being correct?

A random collection of subatomic particles, organized as molecules, spewing out a word salad, awaiting the ad hominem entree, that’s who.

If that refers to me then you are utterly wrong. In fact I have argued just the opposite to what you claim people are arguing. NO-ONE is taking that position. No-one at all.

Not only do you refuse to accept basic biological facts but you are also creating straw men so you can have something to tilt at.

 

[Metis1]

No, that is what I posted because when we’re dealing with entities like “spirits” and “conscious life in inanimate objects”, that is what one finds in theism.

 

[Metis1]

Not even close as religion is based on faith minus any requirement for objectively-derived evidence whereas science relies exclusively on it.

 

[Metis1]

Finally, The Church has the full, complete truth, not science.

Actually the Church has never claimed it’s inerrant-- just ask Galileo.

 

[rossum]

God is transcendent, Existence itself and in His works we witness the glory that He, in His simplicity of being, creates. Think along the lines of Divine and eternal Mind, the supreme perfect Relationship and Act of Love, from which all being, relational in nature as a reflection of its Maker, is brought forth from nothing.

So, are you telling me that your #1 was false, are you telling me that your #1 was true or are you just waffling?

You claimed:

If something exists, then it must have some form that makes it what it is.

Does that statement apply to God or not? If not, then your claim is false (assuming that God exists). If yes then we can explore the topic further.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Not even close as religion is based on faith minus any requirement for objectively-derived evidence whereas science relies exclusively on it.

My faith is based on logic, reason and evidence.

 

[Metis1]

Objectively-derived evidence? Please provide it.

I also have faith, but I don’t claim it’s “science” nor based on o-d e.

 

[edwest211]

Please don’t change the subject. I am only referring to the topic at hand. And I’ll rephrase: science is limited, it cannot include certain information about who human beings really are but the Church can include that critical information that every human being needs to know. Science can say what it wants but I defer to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

 

[Aloysium]

God is existence. He is not a created thing. Existence is relational and not something in isolation. God creates out of nothing, which means that He does not fashion things from His own being.

 

[WileyC1949]

With respect to the natural world, “guidance” does not reflect His being Creator. He did more that guide it. He brings it, the totality of all beings, what they are in what they do, how they relate within the whole, He brings all into existence.

Am I trying to down play the Bible or God’s creative act? NO WAY! I see Genesis 1 agreeing with 5 different modern scientific theories!

The Big Bang… “In the beginning…” It was not held by science that the universe had a beginning until the Big Bang theory became prominent.

Side note… how many of you from public schools were taught that Hubble was the one to come up with the “Big Bang Theory”? He did not. He confirmed that the universe was expanding as the theory speculates. I have heard that many science books never mention Georges Lemaitre as the originator of the theory (not its name). Usually the reason for this omission is the fact that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest!) Hubble is often given the credit.

A slowing forming Earth… “Now the Earth was a formless void” “there was darkness over the deep” (as it would be in a slowly settling dark dust and moisture cloud. There was no land, only water and nothing could be seen. “Let there be light…” As a kid I puzzled about this… how could there be light without the sun? Then I realized it was a matter of perception… you would not be able to see the light until enough dust had settled. You would not see the sun until “day” four. But the real question is how could anyone have written about this seeing that absolutely no one was there to observe it?

Super-continents like Pangea: “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”… If the water was in one place then so was the land.

Abiogenesis: A discounted scientific theory, but rather than an instantaneous creation the Bible twice says “Let the EARTH produce vegetation… " “Let the EARTH produce living things…” I realize that the first one could be considered normal… that is what the Earth does is produce vegetation. But living things, livestock?” I have never seen a herd of cattle sprout in a field.

Evolution: Notice the order of appearance of life. It matches an evolutionary development nicely. Including the “great sea monsters”… aka “dinosaurs”.

If a 2,000 year old document was seen to agree with just ONE modern scientific theory it would be a major news story. We have the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, not written down until about 4,000 years ago and existing as oral tradition for hundreds or thousands of years before that agreeing with five of them!

That should be major headlines!