Posted on 08/22/2006 9:00:30 AM PDT by NYer
My point was that Evolution has no facts to back it up. I suppose Biblical Creationism doesn't either though it is somewhat reflective of the development of the fossil record.
My point was that Evolution has no facts to back it up. I suppose Biblical Creationism doesn't either though it is somewhat reflective of the development of the fossil record.
An alternative to both of them might be quantum physics, which has just as much evidence as creationism.
Evolution actually may have happened - but it didn't happen on this planet or in a timeframe capatible with this planet's existence. A predecessor life form and civilization may have actually come into being elsewhere and 'seeded' this planet for development and re-integration when it was appropriate for 'harvesting' to assist them in some kind of intergallactic conflict.
You mean like the diagrams in my HS bio text book (1994) showing humans embryos with gills?
Or the Pelt Down man?
Or the Java Ape-Man?
Or the Nebraska Man?
You mean fabrications like those?
Or how about the theory of puntuated equalibrium that reads like a pulpy science fiction novel?
Evolutionary theories per se do not pose a theological problem to Catholic Faith; for instance, God could have designed a mutation/selection process to develop new life forms. St. Augustine speculated 15 centuries ago about whether God made Adam immediately or over a long period of time. Pope Pius XII made substantially the same comments in Humani Generis 50 years ago. Catholics have felt themselves quite free to speculate on this and thousand other questions since the founding of the Church, for they have always understood that strictly scientific questions are a matter of liberty, not dogma.
What does Catholic religious teaching entail?
(1) We acknowledge that created things--- however they were developed to their present forms --- show forth the intelligence and providental goodness of the Supreme Being: God the creator.
(2) We insist on monogenism, which (as opposed to polygenism) holds that all people now in existence have the same human inheritance. That means that a single couple became the ancestors of the entire human race.
(3) We know that human beings have a spiritual soul which is not the inevitable product of material forces. That means that human beings are not "programmed" by a strict materialistic determinism, but have an element of personal freedom.
(4) We hold human nature is seriously flawed by the inheritable effects of a primordial catastrophe ("the Fall") which our first ancestors brought upon themselves by their own actions (sin), and passed on to all their descendants.
None of these religious truths contradict the findings of scientific investigation. We are free to entertain any scientific theory, but not to embrace the assumptions of dogmatic philosophical materialism.
go stuff it, you making smart ass remarks without looking at the context. it's talking about people.
"And yet it still moves." - Galileo Galilei
That business with Galileo would seem to indicate that "always" may not be entirely accurate.
(1) St. Augustine did not speculate that God could have created Adam "over a long period of time." I could be wrong - St. Augustine wrote about forty volumes of material and I haven't read it all, but I'm not buying this claim without specific citation.
(2) There is no such thing as a strictly scientific question, and the Church has indeed taught the faithful definitively on monogenism.
There are scientists who support polygenism and it is indeed a scientific question.
Before the defend-Darwin-and-his-theory-at-all-costs gang goes completely apenuts, let it be known that the key word here is "unplanned."
It is not a good idea for a Catholic, especially a Jesuit Priest, to declare that God did not have a role in the creation of the universe.
As far as I am concerned, this particular issue isn't really a debate on evolution.
For your future reference, biology is not a subset of physics, cosmology or IT, Theseus.
It's also pretty hypocritical to take a literal interpretation of some parts of the book and then not so literal of others.
But I presume this kind of comment will only inflame you (and others?) and I highly doubt your view will change based on a comment by someone on the internet whom you probably think is going to hell (Papist). No problem.
Well, you'll get no argument from me about these religious tenents...an Episcopalian, I share much of the same belief as my "Roman" (vice catholic) betheren. I do, however, point out that theological stalwarts such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and other thinkers had a rough time initially with the church in getting their thoughts accepted. And, I trust, you also have to admit that the apology that Pope John-Paul II issued to the late Copernicus, (who incidentally was a Polish bishop just like the apologetic pope), came a tad late.
On the flip side, the Church actually apologized for this - something you almost never see other such organized religions doing. I think the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for racism at one point. Anyway, being wrong is one thing but being able to admit it, rectify it, and recognize you are a religion of sinners is another.
IIRC, Galileo wasn't simply "jailed briefly", but forced to publicly recant his own theories under threat of excommunication. I fully appreciate that the Church realized it's mistake and tried to make it right. I just don't care for what appears to be revisionist "spin" that seems intent on leaving the impression that such things have simply never happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.