Posted on 05/21/2009 6:05:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.
Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
I never said all Evos are atheists. There are all kinds of Christians who have been soiled by derwood’s pondscum who remain (albeit compromised) Christians. It would be much more accurate to say virtually all atheists are Evos.
>>LOL. You’re projecting again. Can you feel the Dark Side tugging at your soul? Trust me, that’s not Catholicism doing the tugging!
That;s all you have “I know you are but what am I”
And you still haven’t answered the dilemma I proposed. Catholics understand TToE and it is part of Catholic Doctrine. Catholics are not like Protestants in that they are not allowed to deviate from Doctrine (which, as I said, shows yet another subject on which you are ignorant).
So what is it? Are Catholics atheists?
As far as the Dark Side tugging, Satan is the father of lies and your attempt to sway people from solid, understood science is the biggest lie of all. Given that, who do you serve?
Painted yourself into quite the little corner there, sonny boy.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
RM, I didn’t realize we had drifted to the Religion forum.
Please accept my humblest apologies.
And, I assume your admonishment goes to all on the thread equally.
I ask again.
What is your perspective on Catholics?
A) By doctrine the RCC understands and endorses TToE.
B) You are on record as saying anyone who understands and endorses TToE is an atheist.
Please note this is 100% objective.
Please explain how A) does not lead to B)
Thanks for the ping!
>>If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
Thanks, RM.
It is always difficult when these things come over here. This properly belongs in Chat.
Here in Religion, I prefer prayer threads and the really cool Verse Of The Day. And theological discussions and debates.
If you ask me, discussions about science really belong elsewhere. This isn’t about religion, it is about philosophy.
Hi A/G!
I really don;t think this is religious, per se.
This is argumentum ad absurdum — kind of C.S.Lewis writ very very small.
I understood the reasoning behind “Mere Christianity” — even if I found what I considered a bit of a jump from Moral Law to Christ.
THAT would be a proper subject for the Religion forum.
I just got here so I don't have much to say yet - but I did not notice the title of the article and its source, beliefnet. So I'm not surprised it's in the Religion Forum.
If you can provide a link with me saying that every person who falls for derwood’s Godless creation myth is an atheist, I won’t call you a liar.
:.....Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”
Pay attention! “It allows for the possibility ....”. And “.......does not forbid..”
That's not a statement of Doctrine that Catholics must accept Darwinism as fact. It simply allows Catholic who wish to accept Darwinism to do so without being in conflict with Catholic Doctrine with the exceptions stated.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Conclusions in the Topic of evolution:
“The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:—
The origin of life is unknown to science.
The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of “new” characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's “natural selection” is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's “inheritance of acquired characters” is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by “mutation”. In our opinion the principle of “Mendelian segregation”, together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.
l, Humani Generis. The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man. The Pope declared:
The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
Hardly a ringing endorsement. And as Jerry Coyne admitted: "Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict." (www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472 - 52k) The Darwinists really don't want to say out loud that Darwinism is atheistic at its core.
What I say is that a man who puts his faith in a story, above his faith in God, or decides the "worthiness" of others to be considered Christian based upon the fact they either agree or disagree with his narrow interpretation of the Bible - which runs counter to 2000 years of Biblical studies - is sadly misguided and a poor example of Christianity to the world.
FreeRepublic!
==What I say is that a man who puts his faith in a story, above his faith in God
You have just described Christian evolutionists to a “T”.
>>If you can provide a link with me saying that every person who falls for derwood’s Godless creation myth is an atheist, I won’t call you a liar.<<
Your use of the silly and childish term “evo-atheist” is sufficient.
No, it is not. When I combine Evo and Atheist, I am doing so for the purposes of identification. Notice I didn’t say Evo-Theists, or Evo-Deists. If you can’t find any evidence for your lame accusation, then you need to retract your baseless accusation and apologize. Otherwise, you are just making things up, which seems to be quite a widespread phenomenon amongst the Temple of Darwin faithful.
>>Hardly a ringing endorsement. And as Jerry Coyne admitted: “Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict.” <<
One person does not speak for science. And there is no conflict.
>>The Darwinists really don’t want to say out loud that Darwinism is atheistic at its core. <<
No, all of science, including the many disciplines involved in TToE, is areligious. By definition, science investigates natural phenomenon using tools that do not depend on the supernatural.
>>No, it is not. When I combine Evo and Atheist, I am doing so for the purposes of identification. Notice I didn’t say Evo-Theists, or Evo-Deists. If you can’t find any evidence for your lame accusation, then you need to retract your baseless accusation and apologize. Otherwise, you are just making things up, which seems to be quite a widespread phenomenon amongst the Temple of Darwin faithful.<<
Dance all you want — you’re busted.
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.