 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 07:13 pm |
|
This topic has a history for me.
See, I was raised a strict young earth six day creationist. Being raised essentially Baptist in theology, I was taught that all of God's word, including Genesis, must be taken literally, or we lose our faith. I was also taught that the evidence in our world supports a young earth six day creation. As I was homeschooled, I heard nothing to the contrary, and was one of those ardent creationists out there to take anyone on.
Then I arrived at university. I soon found that the evidence does not all, as I was taught, back up a young earth literal six day creation. In fact, it actually contradicts it. I'm not saying God couldn't have done it that way, but the evidence doesn't point to that, and would he really have created misleading evidence? I soon found that I couldn't believe, simply couldn't believe, in a young earth six day creation. The rock layers simply do not appear to be laid down by a worldwide flood, and the earth appears to be much older than six thousand years. I also found, as I researched, that many of my objections to evolution stemmed from my not having a complete understanding of it. As I began to understand the theory, and see the evidence and what the claims of evolution are, it began to make more sense. In fact, I began to see, as Rick pointed out, the beauty of God creating that way. Now, I'm not saying here that the evidence for evolution is 100% sound, only that the evidence does not appear to support a young earth six day creation and evolution isn't as bunk as Creationists make it out to be.
I'm not being intolerant here, I think. I have no problem with someone believing in a literal six day creation six thousand years ago if they like. There was something I soon had a problem with. After a few years of university, my parents found out that I was no longer a young earth six day creationist. They lost it. My dad wondered where he had gone wrong and mom said I was calling God a liar, and rejecting my faith. This was so far from the truth! It has now been several months since this, and my parents are laying every guilt trip possible on me. My mother still tears up all the time over this issue. It's like it's the end of the world for them. I have, they say, rejected the Bible.
Now that part is interesting. See, my research into evolution began about the time that I began to feel drawn to Catholicism. When I lost the literality of the Bible, which I had been taught was crucial, critical to faith, well, I was confused. Just what did I believe about the Bible? And so my research began, looking into the Bible, how it was formed, and why I believed what I believed. I found that it was fundamentalists like my parents who generally demanded the literality of the Bible, while others, like the Catholic Church, took a more open to the influence of history, situation, and culture approach. I also soon found I had a problem. Through my research, I totally lost my grip on sola scriptura. It was, quite simply, gone. I freaked out - if sola scriptura was wrong, then - !? I had attended an Easter Vigil Mass shortly before this and absolutely loved it. I was confused. I had been taught Catholicism was wrong, but now that I was losing my grips on the "truth" taught by the reformers... Research, research, research...and I found the Church, in all it's beauty and magisty. And here I am, about to start RCIA classes.
Another note on Genesis 1, though. When you cease to see it as literal, its beauty becomes unleashed. To see what I mean, visit http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332.
Another thing I would like to stress is that we must not put God in a box, and limiting him to our own individual interpretations of Gensis 1 does that.
Once again, I'm not trying to offend anyone. If you are a young earth six day creationist, I have no problem with that. I used to believe that myself, and there is nothing wrong with believing it, if you so choose. The problem is when you try to force everyone else to believe it, as my parents are doing.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:20 pm |
|
Sorry, duplicate post.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:28 pm by Juan
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:27 pm |
|
Bro Carlo,
I hope you don't take this the wrong way. Although I agree with the rest of your post. I don't agree with this.
Creationism and its weak sister, "intelligent design," ALWAYS start from the assumption that honest scientific investigation must be trumped by literal interpretations of the Old Testament.
Apparently, you don't understand "Intelligent Design". If you did, I don't know why you, as a Christian, would say that it isn't science. Or, did you, as a scientist, find a way of eliminating God from existence? If not, how do you discount the fact that this Creation must have a Creator and therefore an Intelligent Designer?
While this opinion is fine--everyone is entitled to his opinion--it's not science!
I beg to differ.
1. Theology, whether it be Bible hermeneutics or another form of the study of the Word of God, is in fact the first and most important science.
Lets compare which is more scientific. Science as practiced by modern scientists is the body of knowledge which is found using the scientific method, is it not?
A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.
http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html
How exactly do we test this data? Do you reproduce it in the laboratory? Lets see, you find bones and other artifacts in the ground and make assumptions based on the world as it is today. You compare what God put in the ground for you to find and compare it to what God has provided for you to see around you.
And yet, scientiests make mistakes. Even with this system, all they can do is make assumptions. According to this system, animals with sharp teeth, such as Tyranosaurus Rex, eats flesh. Yet, the Panda, a current animal with sharp teeth, eats bamboo. So much for assumptions. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that T-Rexes eat flesh.
Look at the evolution science of yesterday and look at the evolutionary science of today. Does anyone still consider the eohippus to horse model valid? No. Its been debunked by scientists themselves.
Now, lets look at Catholic doctrine. Is Catholic doctrine based on modern science. No. It is based upon Theology. The study of God's word in Tradition and in the Word of God.
Has Her Science ever erred? NO.
Which is superior? That based on human science or that based on God's science.
2. Both the Creation understanding literally taken from the Bible and Intelligent design are superior to Darwin's evolutionary model. Why? Because both take God into account. Darwin did not.
3. There only one science. One body of knowledge. It is the Word of God. Every body of knowledge brings you back to God. God is in the details. Scientists will do much better when they humble themselves to that fact.
COLOSSIANS 1:15-18 NKJ
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
JOHN 1:1-3,10 NKJ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
EVERY branch of Science is a branch of Theology. Because every branch of science studies God's creation.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:29 pm by Juan
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:38 pm |
|
God's peace. Juan, I am referring to the "scientific intelligent design theory" that is advanced by Michael Behe et al.--NOT the Church's theological explanation of God's intelligent design of all things.
My objection to ID is that it is nothing more than old William Paley's "natural theology" writ large. Just because we may have difficulty understanding how a structure or chemical pathway came into existence by evolution working through natural selection is no proof that it did not happen that way, although Behe and others seem to think so. Those evolutionary sequences which are essentially proven through massive fossil evidence and comparative anatomy (such as the evolution of the whales from four-footed, wolflike predecessors) are every bit as incredible as those which we haven't solved (the evolution of bats, for example).
Darwin was keenly aware of the difficulty of explaining how such integrated structures as the vertebrate eye might have evolved, and he said so in print. He was also masterful in his pointing the way to future research that might shed light on these problems, and in most cases his insights have proved useful if not right. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 09:07 pm |
|
While my mind screams objections to evolution, at the same time, if you can provide one PROOF of its validity and truth, I will throw in my Rosary beads and start sleeping in on Sunday mornings.
Keep your beads and don't sleep in. NO ONE can prove evolution. Neither has the Church accepted evolution as a fact.
The reason is simple and is better illustrated by this famous joke about the scientist who created life in the laboratory. He boasted and challenged God to a duel to see who could create life better. God accepted the challenge. So the scientist went to get some dirt. God stopped him, "Hey, get your own dirt."
Creation, for me, is what keeps me Christian. When Jesus' death and resurrection, when the idea of redemption is stared at for so long that it begins to seem unreal, I look around me at the tangible evidence of 'creation' and am assured that there is a God. If 'the creation' is truly 'the evolution,' then I will eat, drink, and be merry, for what else is the point?
In fact, it was something like that which brought me back as well. When I thought about the incarnation and birth of my daughter. Who else could do that? Certainly, I participated in her creation, by the grace of God. But God did everything else.
How could DNA have assembled itself (along with RNA, ribosomes, polymerase, amino acids, etc.) in the case of the first living thing?
It can't. It reminds me of the Nature Channel commentaries, when they try to explain the cricket that is frozen and comes back to life, one of them said, "the cricket decided long ago that it would sleep through this frozen state" WHAT? "the bat long ago grew wings". Did the bats convene and decide to do that?
If there were no "first Adam," then how can Jesus be the "new Adam"? Ditto for Eve/Mary.
There was and still is a first Adam. And Jesus is the "New Adam."
Was there a savior for 100,000 years ago when "man" was not man as we know it now? 500,000 years ago? A million years from now? Why did Jesus come at this stage of human evolution and not earlier, or later??
God's time.
How can anyone look at the incredible complexity of even the "simplest" living thing and believe that it happened by chance? GOD did this?? Why? If He can cure a withered hand instantly, why would He put us together piece by piece and at what point did He decide to make us "man," in His image?
Amen!
If mutations are, at best, neutral and often lethal, how could mutation be the mechanism to improve all the thousands of species on the earth?
Nothing happens without God's knowing. It is because God is in charge.
Matt 6:
26 Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? 28 And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. 29 But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. 30 And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith?
Luke 12:
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God. 22 And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on. 23 The life is more than the meat, and the body is more than the raiment. 24 Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? 25 And which of you, by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit? 26 If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. 28 Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more you, O ye of little faith? 29 And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. 30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.
31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.
Luke 12:
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 Yea, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows.
If this science is true, I'm sorry, but to my mind, the Bible becomes one big allegory. All is randomness.
What if the Bible IS one big allegory? What does that matter to you? Just believe the allegory and go on. If God wishes to communicate in allegory, so be it. Its not all about you and what you prefer.
In fact, the Church teaches much of the Bible is allegory. Why should that trouble you or any of us. Much of what God is and does is beyond human capacity to describe in speech. All we can say is "He is like unto".
I'd still like to see one PROOF, incontrovertible proof, that man has not always been man as we are today, that those ancient fossils are definitely our ancestors.
It isn't possible.
However, it isn't possible for you to discount it either. Do animals wear clothes and jewelry? Who clothed the first man? There is evidence that these first fossils of man were found with articles of clothing such as shoes and with jewelry nearby.
And while you're at it, explain the evolutionary pathway of the metamorphosis of the butterfly.
Only God can do that. Man can only produce conjecture.
If all we were talking about were the evolution/creation of the human species, I guess I would not have a hard time believing either one. But when the basis of my faith rests at least in part on the understanding of "sin" and the Fall and the existence of perfect people, Adam and Eve, who brought all that into our world, and the necessity of Someone coming to make things right, then science/evolution do create an insoluble conflict in my heart.
How and why should these create an indisoluble problem? Adam and Eve sinned and brought death into the world. But not into the animal kingdom. That already had death in it. Obviously, when animals ate grass, the grass died. And all flesh is grass, therefore, when animals ate each other, they killed each other. So animal death already existed.
Adam and Eve brought the sin into their souls and their souls died. They committed the first mortal sin because they separated themselves from God and therefore, by definition, their souls died. And as a result, they lost that perfect harmony called original justice and their bodies could now also die.
The story becomes mush. If you know how to clarify the mush, if, that is, you understand what I'm saying by "mush," please do!
Explain what you mean by mush and I'll give it a shot.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Thu Aug 9th, 2007 09:08 pm by Juan
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 09:51 pm |
|
God's peace.
To you also brother.
Juan, I am referring to the "scientific intelligent design theory" that is advanced by Michael Behe et al.--NOT the Church's theological explanation of God's intelligent design of all things.
Thanks for the clarification.
My objection to ID is that it is nothing more than old William Paley's "natural theology" writ large.
Brother, I think you'll find that on this forum, those who are passionately Catholic will object to a casual remark of something called "natural selection". Perhaps you have been desensitized to that terminology. But, I'm sure Father Francis himself would tell you that there is NO SUCH THING. It is all, Supernatural Selection.
Just because we may have difficulty understanding how a structure or chemical pathway came into existence by evolution working through natural selection is no proof that it did not happen that way,
Nor is it proof that it did. It is all conjecture. But these so called objective scientists that get on TV explaining this stuff all act as though it is fact. Yet it is all assumption.
although Behe and others seem to think so. Those evolutionary sequences which are essentially proven
Proven? No. Which you have accepted. They are not proven nor can they be proved.
through massive fossil evidence and comparative anatomy (such as the evolution of the whales from four-footed, wolflike predecessors)
You see brother, you find the fossil of a wolf like creature and say it is the ancestor of the whale because some part of it resembles the whale. That isn't fact. That is conjecture of the tallest order. It is akin to a "tall tale".
Here are the facts in this case. Someone found the skeleton of a wolf like creature.
The rest is conjecture.
Lets consider those who say that the hyrax and the elephant are related. Why? Because some of the hyrax's molars are similar to those of the elephant? Because they have similar dna? Yet I don't believe one bit of it. The hyrax appears more closely related to a rat. The same goes with the wolf like creature. It is probably more closely related to a wolf. But some claim it evolved into a whale. By what stretch of the imagination? I'll tell you by what stretch. To get more grant funds from the secular dummies who give out our good tax dollars for this type of nonsense which passes for science.
are every bit as incredible as those which we haven't solved (the evolution of bats, for example).
What is incredible about the existence of bats? What if they didn't evolve? What if God made them just the way they are? Are you, a son of St. Francis going to say that it is impossible for God because according to you it isn't scientific for God to do so?
Darwin was keenly aware of the difficulty of explaining how such integrated structures as the vertebrate eye might have evolved, and he said so in print. He was also masterful in his pointing the way to future research that might shed light on these problems, and in most cases his insights have proved useful if not right. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Useful for what? For the development of more conjecture?
Scientists should take a course in forensics. They need to learn to distinguish fact from opinion.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 11:47 pm |
|
God's peace. Juan wrote: "Brother, I think you'll find that on this forum, those who are passionately Catholic will object to a casual remark of something called "natural selection". Perhaps you have been desensitized to that terminology. But, I'm sure Father Francis himself would tell you that there is NO SUCH THING. It is all, Supernatural Selection."
Juan, I doubt that even Br. Francis would object to calling something by a term which best suits it. Natural selection refers to a law of nature, which (for a Catholic) is nothing more than the Providence of God. Darwin coined this term--a very apt one, in the opinion of myself and most scientists--to explain differences in reproduction caused by natural circumstances that lead to shifts in the heritable makeup of populations (as opposed to the directed manipulations of characteristics in domesticated organisms through selective breeding, called "artificial selection.") At the present time, natural selection is the best scientific explanation we have for the large demonstrable changes we can read in the fossil record, as well as for the small changes we can measure directly in the lab and in the field.
What's "natural?" Anything that follows the regular, ordered laws of God. Atheists and other scoffers refuse to attribute the workings of a purposeful Creator to nature; that's their problem, not mine. But their science is not automatically bad because of their failure to attribute God's Providence to the nature they study.
This is not a debate center, and I'm not going to engage anyone any further about "proofs" of evolution. I've already cited an excellent resource for the truly curious. But Juan, your insistence that evolution is mere conjecture bothers me. The last two popes didn't think so, and I don't, either. I suspect that you are a bit weak on the nature of scientific proof and the relationship between hypothesis and theory. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Thu Aug 9th, 2007 11:48 pm by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 12:39 am |
|
I'm not stepping into the debate here by any means, I just wanted to point out a few things and give a few words of caution.
I have seen this issue tear believers appart. I have seen it in my own family. I am not going to say that evolution is a perfect theory, but I believe that the physical evidence we see indicates quite clearly that God did not create in a literal six days six thousand years ago (please don't try to debate me on this, I'm not looking to argue - and notice the preface "I believe"). My parents believe that you have to believe that God created in six days six thousand years ago, and that everyone needs to believe that. I don't, and that has caused a lot of tension. Actually, my parents have two problems with my current boyfriend - he's Catholic and he isn't a literal six day young earth creationist. I guess my caution is that the popes have made it clear that it is up to the individual what to believe here. We don't need to go around condemning or belittling people (I'm not saying you're doing this, just cautioning you) based on which they believe. The important things are that God created and there was a literal fall. And here, we all believe that.
I'd also like to caution everyone from putting God in a box based on your own interpretations of scripture or science. God doesn't fit in a box, it just doesn't work. So you may look at the first chapter of Genesis and say, there, that says he did it in six days! And look at the geneologies and say, there, that says it happened six thousand years ago! But that is putting God in a box. That is limiting him to our conceptions and our interpretations. Similarly, no one who believes evolution is valid should claim to know exactly how God worked our evolution, or exactly how it looked or happened. We have a limited amount of evidence to search through, and God is so much bigger than that. He simply won't fit into anyone's box.
I guess I'm saying first, we agree on the essentials so let's not make this issue divide us, and second, realized that God is WAY bigger than us and our conceptions.
Thanks, and I hope it doesn't sound like I've been preaching. I guess I'm just trying to share some things experience has taught me. But what do I know, I'm only twenty.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 02:04 am |
|
OK, time for me to step in here as moderator. The participants in this discussion are not operating on a "level playing field".
Br. Carlo is using the term "Intelligent Design". He is referring to a specific theory advanced by certan evangelicals and fundamentalists who reject scientific evidence that living beings have evolved from one form to another. For example, there is a lot of scientific evidence (although, in my opinion, not conclusive proof) that dinosaurs were ancestors of today's birds, that whales once lived on land, etc. He is not saying that God (as the "Intelligent Designer") had no place in the creation of the planet and the life forms upon it. ID is a minor variation from another fundamentalist theory known as "Creationism" which has been largely rejected by the educational, scientific, and judicial community.
Again, these are specific theories that are highly detailed, and I don't believe any of us know enough about these theories to defend them. (Many of you are from evangelical and fundamentalist backgrounds, so I may be wrong in this assumptionm, which I am basing on the posts in this thread.) So let's all agree that we will use the term "Creationism" (with a capital C) to refer specifically to that theory, and "creationism" (lower case C) if we're generically referring to the creation narrative in Genesis. We will use the term "Intelligent Design" to refer to that specific theory, and use lower case letters if we're referring to the fact that God as an "intelligent designer" who guided creation.
Those who speak of "evolution" are again not referring to the accidental formation of the planet and all life upon it, but to the evidence which indicates that the period from the beginning of the first light to the steps of the first man on earth was longer than six 24-hour periods, and much more likely billions of years. and to the evidence which indicates that some current living things are descended from living things that were fundamentally different (dinosaurs and birds, for example).
I don't believe those who are using the term "creation" are referring to a literal period of six days from the existence of the first light to the time when the first man walked on the earth. If you accept that the process of creation may have taken longer than six revolutions of the earth, then you have already deviated from the creation narrative in Genesis, and you do not accept Genesis 1.1-2.3 as literal truth.
Our Church teaches us that God is responsible for creation, and guided the process at every step of the way. It is within the teaching of the Church to believe that God literally "created" each and every individual species exactly as they are today. However, this also requires belief that God created a false fossil record, and God is not a God of deception but of Truth. To my knowledge, no one who believes in the literal six-day creation has been able to explain the existence of the fossil record. Even our Holy Father has written and spoken of the preponderance of evidence that the earth was created billions of years ago, and that species naturally evolved (under God's loving guidance, of course).
This does not mean that man evolved from apes. Our Church teaches us that God created humans directly (perhaps through the infusion of an immortal soul), and that we are all descended from a single pair of "first parents" who for convenience are called Adam and Eve. Scientific evidence indicates that we share common ancestry with other primate species
So before we proceed, let us all understand that we accept the following:
God is responsible for creation. Everything that exists was created by God and without God was made nothing that has been made. No one in this thread even suggests that any part of creation has taken place without the direct guidance of God, whether we choose to use the term God the Father, Yahweh, Creator, or "intelligent designer".
I believe the terms "creation" and "intelligent design" are being used in this thread by those who do not share a common understanding of those terms. Some of the contention that has occurred in this thread has been caused by differing interpretations of these terms. So let's accept that no one is saying creation happened by accident, and let the discussion continue.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 02:14 am |
|
God's peace.
God's peace.
This is not a debate center, and I'm not going to engage anyone any further about "proofs" of evolution.
I'm not debating. I'm simply asserting the opposite view. You claim there is proof for evolution, but the fact is there isn't and there can't be unless those dinosaurs come back to life as they did in that famous movie and even then, you couldn't be sure that they behaved the same as they did back then.
Juan wrote: "Brother, I think you'll find that on this forum, those who are passionately Catholic will object to a casual remark of something called "natural selection". Perhaps you have been desensitized to that terminology. But, I'm sure Father Francis himself would tell you that there is NO SUCH THING. It is all, Supernatural Selection."
Juan, I doubt that even Br. Francis
Brother Francis is the Father of your order, is he not?
Franciscan Order of the Divine Compassion CollectsThe Franciscan Collect. O God, who opened the eyes of our holy Father St. Francis to ... grant grace to the members of the Franciscan Order of the Divine ...http://www.fodc.net/Collects.html
would object to calling something by a term which best suits it. Natural selection
Not when used in its proper context. In this discussion about evolution, "natural" means "existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So, if you understand that "nature" is God's Creation and that "natural" means that created by God through His laws of nature, then that is well and good. But in most discussions of science versus faith, the "natural" is opposed to God.
refers to a law of nature, which (for a Catholic) is nothing more than the Providence of God. Darwin coined this term--a very apt one, in the opinion of myself and most scientists--to explain differences in reproduction caused by natural circumstances that lead to shifts in the heritable makeup of populations (as opposed to the directed manipulations of characteristics in domesticated organisms through selective breeding, called "artificial selection.") At the present time, natural selection is the best scientific explanation we have for the large demonstrable changes we can read in the fossil record, as well as for the small changes we can measure directly in the lab and in the field.
I agree and that's great when you're talking to scientists. But you must measure the weight of your words in a discussion in a discussion with laypeople in which you are mingling science and Theology. At least, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't know what you meant expecially when you belittled Intelligent Design and Creationism.
What's "natural?" Anything that follows the regular, ordered laws of God.
Wonderful! That I agree with completely.
Atheists and other scoffers refuse to attribute the workings of a purposeful Creator to nature; that's their problem, not mine.
Excellent! That is what I wanted to hear. Too many scientists think they have two hats to wear. A Christian is always a Christian.
But their science is not automatically bad because of their failure to attribute God's Providence to the nature they study.
Yes. It is. Anytime the premise is false, the conclusions are flawed.
This is not a debate center, and I'm not going to engage anyone any further about "proofs" of evolution. I've already cited an excellent resource for the truly curious. But Juan, your insistence that evolution is mere conjecture bothers me.
Please quote where I said that evolution was mere conjecture. I said that the conclusion that a whale was evolved from a wolf like creature is pure conjecture. Worse, in my opinion, it is complete fabrication.
Notice, I used the word "opinion" to describe my position. I'm not under the delusion that I have the facts of the matter either.
The last two popes didn't think so,
I agree wholeheartedly with the last two popes. Please read what they said carefully.
and I don't, either. I suspect that you are a bit weak on the nature of scientific proof and the relationship between hypothesis and theory. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
I suspect you are a bit "star struck" by so called experts and scientists. Just because experts and scientists say something doesn't make it true. When I was a child, science asserted that coffee was bad for you. Now they claim that coffee cures cancer. Scientists invented white bread and white sugar. Now those products are being linked to diabetes and cancer.
So, again, I beg to differ. I believe I'm quite strong on the nature of scientific proof. I've noticed that scientists are naturall mensubject to pride and error and I've noticed they tend to defend their conclusions right or wrong, whether they harm people or not. Especially if they can make money in the process.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 08:58 am |
|
| God's peace. I'm not going to contribute to this thread any more, but Juan, just a small and unrelated point: although I began my Franciscan journey in the Anglican FODC, I am Catholic now and belong to the Secular Franciscan Order, or SFO--the original, founded by St. Francis himself. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Current time is 03:30 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
