So...Rome believes in Evolution

[AVBunyan]

I quote from CNN.com - regarding experts enlisting the aid of the clergy in the support of evolution.

CNN reported....

Catholic experts have also joined the movement. (below quote was made by Catholic clergy)

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer," said Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne, an astrophysicist who is also ordained. "The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."

Mercy...anything to get along with the world :o :o :o

 

[phatcatholic]

do you have a link to this, or is it second-hand information?

 

[AVBunyan]

do you have a link to this, or is it second-hand information?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20 ... index.html

 

[phatcatholic]

well, while i suppose Coyne is the only one who truly knows what he meant and the point he is trying to convey, i can give you my impression of it. it appears that what he is saying is that, in defending Intelligent Design we have to be careful not to attribute to God a mere mathematical or calculated relation to us in which he sat down, worked out a formula for how all creation would be made, set it into motion and now wants nothing more to do with us. Coyne pits "design" against "love" b/c he has in mind the connotations of "design" as an objective scientific endeavor w/o invested feeling, an organizing of "things" instead of an act of love, which is more relational. i doubt he's really trying to say that God isn't the Creator.

afterall, any Catholic w/ a brain knows that the Lord designed the world. however, lest it be seen that we deny this in an attempt to "get along with the world," note the clear teaching of the Church:

• CCC 325 The Apostles' Creed professes that God is "creator of heaven and earth". The Nicene Creed makes it explicit that this profession includes "all that is, seen and unseen".
  
  326 The Scriptural expression "heaven and earth" means all that exists, creation in its entirety. It also indicates the bond, deep within creation, that both unites heaven and earth and distinguishes the one from the other: "the earth" is the world of men, while "heaven" or "the heavens" can designate both the firmament and God's own "place" - "our Father in heaven" and consequently the "heaven" too which is eschatological glory. Finally, "heaven" refers to the saints and the "place" of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God.186
  
  327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187
  
  Footnotes:
  186 Ps 115:16; 19:2; Mt 5:16.
  187 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800; cf. DS 3002 and Paul VI, CPG § 8.

i hope that clears things up

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[AVBunyan]

well, while i suppose Coyne is the only one who truly knows what he meant and the point he is trying to convey,

Sounds like he believes just what he said and he said what he meant. It appears he might believe that God created it all but then science steps in and takes over. He believes in evolution regardless of how he believes it all started..

Later

 

[CatholicXian]

There is also a difference between macro/micro evolution. Things have changed and "evolved" over time... but not morphed into new species, etc. Man did not come from apes or whathaveyou. There is a kind of Christian anthropology which sees God as Creator and sustainer... Father of all.

There is a problem with intelligent design in that it makes the Designer (namely, God) out to be cold and calculatory... something of a Deist perspective on things (i.e., they claim God is merely like a clock-maker and has left the world to tick away). This is cold-hearted. God has not left us. God is Creator, Father, Redeemer, Sustainer, Sanctifier, etc. He has allowed creation to grow, but never outside of His loving plan.

 

[AVBunyan]

There is also a difference between macro/micro evolution..

Dress it up all you want - it is still evolution.

God bless

 

[Simple Mind]

There is also a difference between macro/micro evolution. Things have changed and "evolved" over time... but not morphed into new species, etc. Man did not come from apes or whathaveyou. There is a kind of Christian anthropology which sees God as Creator and sustainer... Father of all.

There is a problem with intelligent design in that it makes the Designer (namely, God) out to be cold and calculatory... something of a Deist perspective on things (i.e., they claim God is merely like a clock-maker and has left the world to tick away). This is cold-hearted. God has not left us. God is Creator, Father, Redeemer, Sustainer, Sanctifier, etc. He has allowed creation to grow, but never outside of His loving plan.

What is clear is that the public will almost certainly interpret the article and Coyne as referring to macroevolution. Most of the public think macro when they hear evolution. At the very least, Coyne has made the IMPRESSION that his belief is against the Catholic doctrine on this. I don't know what Coyne's intentions were, but the outcome may not be what he intended. I hope he will step forward and clarify his message and theology.

The implications that this action has upon the faith of those the clergy are supposed to care for cannot be ignored. I'm far more concerned about the danger of leading people (erroneously) away from God than the danger of having people think of God as their Creator. As far as I can see, there is nothing about an Intelligent Designer that excludes that same Designer to be loving, sustaining, etc. But the danger of sending the erroneous message that the Bible is nothing more than myths is far greater IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I have no trouble defending Creationism scientifically (my background is science). Though neither can be really proven through scientific methods, I have a much easier time defending Intelligent Design than Evolution in the face of the scientific evidence. But it's not a matter of science, it has become a matter of the politics of science. For believers though, the science is important, but far more important is whether our theology and beliefs are leading people closer to God or further away.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[Simple Mind]

afterall, any Catholic w/ a brain knows that the Lord designed the world.

Then you may be surprised how many Catholics and Protestants I have run into who are not clear on this point at all. Many simply don't know it, and for those who "know", there is a difference between knowing and trusting that knowledge.

Peace of the Lord be with you all,
Lou

 

[phatcatholic]

Peace of the Lord be with you all,
Lou

and also with you!!

"let's offer one another a sign of Christ's peace"

--shakes Lou's hand

"peace be with you"

:D

 

[Simple Mind]

Peace of the Lord be with you all,
Lou

and also with you!!

"let's offer one another a sign of Christ's peace"

--shakes Lou's hand

"peace be with you"

:D

LOL ... Koinonia - that is so phat! (I hope I'm using the term properly. )

 

[HGPgal]

I'd like to enter the conversation with some questions about ID. While some of the ideas from the ID movement help support a creationist view, they fall short.

· ID claims that only certain features are designed and evolutionary processes are not ruled out.

· Does not oppose an old earth idea.

· Because it doesn't acknowldge God as Redeemer, there's no final solution for the evil in the world.

· ID is careful not to associate itself with X'y (or any religion) so as not to violate "separation of church and state".

This divorce of Creator from creation is the central problem of the theory.

Whaddya think?

 

[Rick W]

ID doesn't support christian doctrines anyway. Maybe better suited for deism?
Thanks HGPgal for pointing that out. You saved me the trouble :smt023

 

[Rick W]

There is also a difference between macro/micro evolution..

Dress it up all you want - it is still evolution.

God bless

Well, "evolutionist" covers a few present day faiths anyway. There's the abiogenesist and the panspermist, the two most popular ones. Maybe something else will come along to either combine the two or something totally different. Plain vanilla "evolution" is getting a face-lift from multiple camps these days or evolution is evolving into two different types right before our eyes. An evolving evolution... or evolutions... interesting.
Anyway, NASA supports and strives to prove panspermia (Deep Impact) while other scientists claim the faith of abogenesism.

 

[cubedbee]

There is also a difference between macro/micro evolution..

Dress it up all you want - it is still evolution.

God bless

Well, "evolutionist" covers a few present day faiths anyway. There's the abiogenesist and the panspermist, the two most popular ones. Maybe something else will come along to either combine the two or something totally different. Plain vanilla "evolution" is getting a face-lift from multiple camps these days or evolution is evolving into two different types right before our eyes. An evolving evolution... or evolutions... interesting.
Anyway, NASA supports and strives to prove panspermia (Deep Impact) while other scientists claim the faith of abogenesism.

The ignorance of those who speak out against evolution always astounds me. Aviogenesis and panspermia are not types of evolution, they aren't contradictory, and no fact regarding either in any way affects the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a theory about how the diversity of living organisms developed from a common ancestorâ€â€it does not address, nor does it need to, where the first organism came fromâ€â€the theory is self-contained and can be true regardless of which theory of origin is true.

Abiogenesis is any hypothosis about the origin of life. It is true that many who accept evolution also believe in some sort of hypothesis of abiogenesis (a hypothesis is weaker than a theory, and unlike evolution, there are no theories of origin, just hypotheses), but it is also true that some evolutionists reject all scientific theories and instead believe that God created the cell out of nothing. That’s what I believe, and it’s perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution,.

Panspermia is a specific hypothesis about the origin of life on Earthâ€â€namely that it came from space. It does not address the development of life, like evolution, nor does it address the origin of life, like abiogenesis. It simply pushes the question of abiogenesis of the surface of the Earth, and onto the surface of some other planet.

 

[Rick W]

Without an origin evolution is without purpose in the first place.
Which do you believe?
1) Spontaneous life from chemicals.
2) Life seeded from "out there".
3) Neither or both. I won't commit.

 

[cubedbee]

Without an origin evolution is without purpose in the first place.

No, the purpose of the theory evolution is to explain the diversity of life, which it does admirably. The purpose of evolution is not to answer the question of how life started, regardless of any misunderstandings that YECs propogate.

Which do you believe?
1) Spontaneous life from chemicals.
2) Life seeded from "out there".
3) Neither or both. I won't commit.

I believe neither. Others believe both. Others believe one or the other. As I said, these aren't contradictory, and none of them have to do with my belief in evolution.

 

[Rick W]

The purpose of evolution is not to answer the question of how life started...

Sounds like theistic evolution.
So did God design life in the first place so evolution could get it's start?

 

[HGPgal]

The ignorance of those who speak out against evolution always astounds me. Aviogenesis and panspermia are not types of evolution, they aren't contradictory, and no fact regarding either in any way affects the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a theory about how the diversity of living organisms developed from a common ancestorâ€â€it does not address, nor does it need to, where the first organism came fromâ€â€the theory is self-contained and can be true regardless of which theory of origin is true.

Well=== you must be astounded quite often since no (that would be NO, nada, neine, nyet...) evolutionary theory has been proven by objective science. Being self-contained, in this case, is decidedly round (as in circular) logic. The theory can also be false, no matter what you may want.

Just because some terms may be misused, the "big so what" at the end of the day is that there is more evidence FOR Creation in a literal six days than there is for any evolutionary theory.

It appears that them apples has worms in them...

 

[Imagican]

God certainly created life. ALL OF IT. Some has been altered through time and elements, (evolution), but as stated previous, nothing has EVER been altered into SOMETHING else entirely. Evolution seems to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many. Evolution is a fact. The world in which we live has NEVER been static. EVERYIHING in it is making minute changes all the time. It takes thousands or even tens of thousands of years for many of these changes to be observed, but change IS taking place and whatever name you give it, evolution is as good as any other.

I have NOT offered that all the 'teachings' of the science of evolution are correct, just that there have been and are changes that have taken place that have altered the physical characteristics of EVERYTHING alive on this planet. And this understanding in NO way refutes a single word of the Bible. My gosh folks, the earth itself has evolved and is evolving into something other than that which was 'first' created. The Bible itself 'states' this. Remember? In the beginning the earth was........................