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

[Wozza]

This sounds like something I wrote and got blasted for some five years back, that atheism is an act of saying no to the idea of God. Maybe it isn’t as you say, an idea as much as it is an act of will, not so much rejecting God Himself, but rather the probability of God, and for sure other people’s words as they are understood. I’m sure the next atheist I encounter will have a different version of what the label means to them.

The is no single idea of God. So ‘saying no to the idea of God’ makes no sense. As I have said, your idea of God is different to many others. Tell me what it is and I will tell you if I agree with it or not. Any atheist can only respond to what you tell him or her.

If you say that your God controls and oversees natural processes then I’ll say: OK, He may exist. If you say He created all creatures just as they are now, supernaturally, then I will say: Sorry buddy. There ain’t no such entity.

 

[Aloysium]

The is no single idea of God. So ‘saying no to the idea of God’ makes no sense. As I have said, your idea of God is different to many others. Tell me what it is and I will tell you if I agree with it or not. Any atheist can only respond to what you tell him or her.

If you say that your God controls and oversees natural processes then I’ll say: OK, He may exist. If you say He created all creatures just as they are now, supernaturally, then I will say: Sorry buddy. There ain’t no such entity.

God is not an idea but rather a relationship, perfect in Himself eternally, and with us, His creation, whom He loves as Father, and became one of us In through the incarnation of the Son, giving us life and guiding us through His Holy Spirit. Existence itself, God brings forth everything that is, all time and space, the universal symphony that spans eons from its beginnings to the end.

The division between the natural and supernatural, for me is artificial in that He gives being to the events that make up reality, be they the basic building blocks of matter or living beings, one in themselves, existing in relation to the environment, the system of which they are constituent participants. Beyond that there are the heavens and hells.

I wouldn’t disagree with the statement that you are created supernaturally, although, since your body consists of every burger and fries, along with everything else you’ve eaten in the last number of decades, the matter gets complicated real fast.

God reveals Himself to us individually and collectively, predominantly from my experience through our participation in His Holy Church, extending out to all faiths, with the grace of the Holy Spirit. From that point on as with any other meaningful relationship, actually being the most important of them all, it is a matter of trust and faith.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The is no single idea of God. So ‘saying no to the idea of God’ makes no sense. As I have said, your idea of God is different to many others. Tell me what it is and I will tell you if I agree with it or not. Any atheist can only respond to what you tell him or her.

If you say that your God controls and oversees natural processes then I’ll say: OK, He may exist. If you say He created all creatures just as they are now, supernaturally, then I will say: Sorry buddy. There ain’t no such entity.

God is not an idea but rather a relationship, perfect in Himself eternally, and with us, His creation, whom He loves as Father, and became one of us In through the incarnation of the Son, giving us life and guiding us through His Holy Spirit. Existence itself, God brings forth everything that is, all time and space, the universal symphony that spans eons from its beginnings to the end.

The division between the natural and supernatural, for me is artificial in that He gives being to the events that make up reality, be they the basic building blocks of matter or living beings, one in themselves, existing in relation to the environment, the system of which they are constituent participants. Beyond that there are the heavens and hells.

I wouldn’t disagree with the statement that you are created supernaturally, although, since your body consists of every burger and fries, along with everything else you’ve eaten in the last number of decades, the matter gets complicated real fast.

God reveals Himself to us individually and collectively, predominantly from my experience through our participation in His Holy Church, extending out to all faiths, with the grace of the Holy Spirit. From that point on as with any other meaningful relationship, actually being the most important of them all, it is a matter of trust and faith.

You tell me He is not an idea then tell me what you think He is. Which, I have to say, is nothing more than an idea which is so ephemeral as to be meaningless. Apart from some nonsensical science, you put nothing forward of substance with which I could disagree.

But I’m sure that you think that what you write is deep and meaningful.

 

[Aloysium]

If anything God is the Thinker and I am the idea. I am a creature He brings into existence, and everything I have is what He has given me, to pass on to others.

The worth of these words to others extends only to the degree to which they point them to the truth, beauty and joy that is to be found in God. I can’t lie, it is a tough journey, as we divest ourselves of everything that is not love; the symbol for Christian transcendence after all, is the cross.

Rather than willfully rejecting what others say, why not see for yourself. There’s no time like the present to take that first step.

 

[Wozza]

If anything God is the Thinker and I am the idea. I am a creature He brings into existence, and everything I have is what He has given me, to pass on to others.

The worth of these words to others extends only to the degree to which they point them to the truth, beauty and joy that is to be found in God. I can’t lie, it is a tough journey, as we divest ourselves of everything that is not love; the symbol for Christian transcendence after all, is the cross.

Rather than willfully rejecting what others say, why not see for yourself. There’s no time like the present to take that first step.

You’re not listening. I think you should concentrate more on what others say and spend less time on the flowery prose.

To reject something one has to accept that it exists in the first place. That is not the situation with atheism. When a Christian says that he believes in God and X is what he considers God to be then I will gladly accept that his beliefs are true for him. But if he says that God created heaven and earth in literally 6 days or that He created ‘kinds’ and formed a man from dust (some of which you believe) then I’m going say that that God doesn’t exist.

That’s all this thread is about. People saying ‘this is the God in which I believe’ and the vast majority of posters saying ‘no, you are wrong’. At best, this tbread should have been a couple of dozen posts. Enough for everyone to have their say on that matter in the manner in which they’d like to say it.

What has dragged it on interminably are those who think they can PROVE they are right by using a very limited knowledge of science in ways that are demonstrably wrong. So this thread has turned into one where some people twist and bend genuine science to fit their argument and everyone else is pointing out their errors.

And it’s not likely to end because to do so, people like you are going to have to reject the God in which you believe. And what’s more likely? You doing that or you accpting basic scientific facts.

Feel free to miss the point entirely and post another piece about True Meaning or Existence or Being.

 

[IWantGod]

At best, this tbread should have been a couple of dozen posts.

True, but then i wouldn’t be famous for having one of the longest threads on Catholic Answers. Thank-you everyone for your contribution.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

At best, this tbread should have been a couple of dozen posts.

True, but then i wouldn’t be famous for having one of the longest threads on Catholic Answers. Thank-you everyone for your contribution.

I don’t know whether to congratulate you or castigate you.

There should be a rule. Those that start threads can end them.

 

[Aloysium]

famous

This brings to mind the human condition, and an opportunity to pontificate.

We all want to be loved, but we settle for fame where we can get it. The opposite would be infamy which amounts to pretty much the same thing, to be somebody. This when we are already somebody and loved. But it’s a symptom of our brokenness, inside ourselves and in our relationships with others. Alternating between narcissism and self-hate, we end up using others to stabilize our inner states, to make make ourselves real, to fill the void of love lost. Which brings us to the title of this thread, “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of the species is true”. I think a clue is provided here:

THIS IS AN EMBARRASMENT TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

It is embarrassing to be out of sync with the group, with what the greatest minds of the time believe is true. It is a question of faith, faith that we can figure out God, faith that without God, we can working together reach the heights, where we see reality spread before us. That is what we do when we cling to worldly interpretations, rather than putting God at the centre of our understanding. When the brightest minds collectively come up with evolution, we who are far less capable gain authority by repeating their views. It is only the simple, ignorant and uneducated, those others out there, not we ourselves who would think otherwise; how embarrassing to be them.

It is important to recall the message of the Tower of Babel.

Fact is that Jesus was born in a manger, He who wields infinite power, to bring this entire universe into being. And that is the truth of things, how the world is upside down to those who do not know Him, He who is love itself. The question is not Genesis vs science, but rather in whom do you place your trust and faith, the world or God.

Placing Jesus at the centre of one’s understanding, of one’s world, making Love primary, everything looks different, including the science.

 

[Aloysium]

You’re not listening.

As you are not interested in what I say, I am using your ideas to get mine across to others who may be. It is a sad situation, but life can be that way, even with those whom we thought were closest to us.

a very limited knowledge of science

That’s the reality of popularized science, the world of interpretations.

And it’s not likely to end because to do so, people like you are going to have to reject the God in which you believe. And what’s more likely? You doing that or you accpting basic scientific facts.

The scientific facts are better explained through creationism than evolution. This is because the former has a broader scope that includes the psychological and the spiritual. There exists no purely a material explanation for the origins of the universe, life and we ourselves. I order to formulate such explanations, philosophical concepts are required, a basic understanding of what reality is about and how we can come to know anything. This is unacknowledged in the concept of evolution and we therefore see a story misrepresented as scientific fact.

Feel free to miss the point entirely and post another piece about True Meaning or Existence or Being.

It would take years to unravel how you came about to your understanding of existence, and I am not a mind-reader. Skepticism going only so far as debunking the ideas of others, you aren’t interested in seeing things in a different way. So, I will just continue as I have been.

 

[IWantGod]

This brings to mind the human condition, and an opportunity to pontificate.

We all want to be loved, but we settle for fame where we can get it. The opposite would be infamy which amounts to pretty much the same thing, to be somebody. This when we are already somebody and loved. But it’s a symptom of our brokenness, inside ourselves and in our relationships with others. Alternating between narcissism and self-hate, we end up using others to stabilize our inner states, to make make ourselves real, to fill the void of love lost. Which brings us to the title of this thread, “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of the species is true”. I think a clue is provided here:

I find your attitude really offensive. I can’t believe that you took what i said as an opportunity to launch an Ad hominem attack??? loooool

 

[Aloysium]

I truly wasn’t talking about you. The first line reads “the human condition”. This is us. But, if that’s the message you got, maybe you should listen to what you are feeling.

 

[IWantGod]

I truly wasn’t talking about you

Then what are you talking about, because at the end of the day you replied to me, and what you said has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. loool

You really need to calm yourself down.

 

[IWantGod]

Placing Jesus at the centre of one’s understanding, of one’s world, making Love primary, everything looks different, including the science.

Putting Jesus at the center of ones understanding has no relevance to whether or not evolution is true. And every Catholic, who accepts the theory of evolution, that reads your statement is going to be offended and for good reason.

Beyond your prose your arguments lacks substance and the wisdom to see a better understanding of scripture.

 

[rossum]

The scientific facts are better explained through creationism than evolution.

This is a problem for creationism. Given an omnipotent creator then all facts can be explained by creation. An omnipotent creator could have created the entire world, complete with the appearance of age, last Thursday.

Because creationism can explain everything, it actually explains nothing.

Why do we not see living pegasi? Science has an explanation. Creationism just says that God didn’t create them, but has no Biblical evidence to back that up. Creationism says things about God that have no direct Bible backing. Maybe God did create invisible intangible pegasi and we don’t realise it. An omnipotent God is perfectly capable of doing something like that.

By explaining everything, creationism fails as science. One of the strengths of science is that it knows its limits: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Beyond your prose your arguments lacks substance and the wisdom to see a better understanding of scripture.

Rather than simply claiming that an argument lacks substance, one ought to argue the point in question. I am left wondering what you mean.

God grant us all the wisdom and understanding to know the truth.

 

[Aloysium]

Putting Jesus at the center of ones understanding has no relevance to whether or not evolution is true.

I would think that the incarnation of the Word of God, the means by which this world was brought into existence, would be relevant. It seems no one wants to demonstrate where the the love is to be found in evolution.

It is all about creation and the focus, especially if one chooses to have an evolutionary perspective, would be to frame it as creation. I can try do it for you, but when I do it comes back to creation (God’s direct involvement in bringing all this into existence from nothing in a step-wise fashion) and design. No random self-organization of material substances to bring about living substance, and natural selection is merely the shadow of the fact that individual living beings are part of the greater whole that is their environment, also created.

 

[Aloysium]

One of the strengths of science is that it knows its limits

True science does that. The interpretation of the facts that is evolutionary theory breaches those boundaries. It is all conjecture based on a materialistic and utilitarian vision of the world that presents a distorted picture of how things unfolded at the beginnings of this universe.

 

[Aloysium]

You really need to calm yourself down.

You may wish to reflect on why you do that. This sort of comment is not only unproductive, but provocative, It comes across as attempt to evoke the response that the person is saying should be stopped.

 

[rossum]

True science does that.

That “True” is a sure sign of a dodgy argument: “True Christianity…”, “True Catholicism…”, “True science…” All dodgy.

Who gets to define what is “True X” and what is not? Where is your objective, independent definition of “True science”? It cannot be “The bits of science I personally do not disagree with.”

based on a materialistic … vision of the world

All science is materialistic. The planets more in their orbits under gravity, not because angels, or djinn, are pushing them round. Is gravity not part of your “true science” because it does not include the effects of djinn on planetary orbits?

You need to find a better argument here.

rossum

 

[edwest]

Last Thursday? I know a Last Tuesdayist.

Ed