Miracles

[Snarf]

Yes, there are certain caveats that a Catholic who concedes evolution must observe. Some of them require a certain amount of, yes, I'll say it--faith. For example, Catholics must believe in a distinct couple that bore the entire species, that is, no multiple lineages of homo sapiens.

[scardella]

Nature is a miracle. So there.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 23 2006, 11:09 PM']Adam please define your version of creationism
[right][snapback]919853[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I already have. What are you trying to get at?

And as far as I know there is only one main one. I've never met anyone who denies changes within one species (such as darkening of the skin), and I know a lot of fundamentalists.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2006, 12:53 AM']I think you underestimate some forms of evolution (or Creationism as well) and just what they imply. Some theories cross into matters of faith, and that is perfectly within the scope of the Church to speak on. If you maintain a theory of evolution that denies certain tenents of the deposit of faith then the Church has the authority to render that belief as incorrect. So yes it is within the scope of the Church to speak on matters of evolution insofar as they pretain to the deposit of faith. Is it within the bounds to say that evolution is scientifically impossible? Not exactly, but as I stated, the Church is perfectly within Her bounds to strike down theories that deny revealed Truth from Scripture or Tradition.

You are using a minimalistic approach to theology and this should never be done. Simply because it does not pertain to matters of salvation does not mean that the search for theological truth should just be abandoned in favor of scientific hypotheses that change with the ebb and flow of the tide.

My point was to show that the Church has also accepted Creationism and to speak with more authority than the Church on this matter (such as saying that it is illogical) would be imprudent at best. In short, to say that one should be an evolutionist because the Church allows it gets you nowhere for the Church also allows the other position.
[right][snapback]919966[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 23 2006, 11:59 PM']I'll take you up bro. adam.

I personally believe in evolution and, with Cardinal Schonborn, I argue that we can still see God in all of Creation without casting aside evolution.

Also, all evidence supports the idea that different languages developed naturally and gradually over time and geographical location.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]919919[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So that means we can also check off the tower of babal as having never happened? That's fine. Thank you for addressing the issue.

As someone mentioned, common sense tells us that the resurrection did not happen. It is against everything that science tells us about living organisms. Doesn't common sense tell us that the Jesus story teaches us truths about the love God has for us, but truly is not a historical event?

Edited March 24, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='scardella' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:32 AM']Nature is a miracle.  So there.
[right][snapback]920095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:54 AM']So that means we can also check off the tower of babal as having never happened? That's fine. Thank you for addressing the issue.

As someone mentioned, common sense tells us that the resurrection did not happen. It is against everything that science tells us about living organisms. Doesn't common sense tell us that the Jesus story teaches us truths about the love God has for us, but truly is not a historical event?
[right][snapback]920117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do not belittle [i]me[/i] Adam. I answered your question in exactly the way that you wanted it answered. My response in no way calls into question either the Resurrection or the veracity of the miraculous Incarnation. Were those to be called into question, I would be two steps ahead of you in getting there to defend them.

If you take issue with my stance, please, I invite you to enter into dialogue with me. But I'd ask you, in all Christian Charity, not to connect my response with one that questions dogma. We both know I would never do that.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:56 AM']Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"?
[right][snapback]920118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As Cardinal Schonborn discussed in his most recent article in First Things, to look for Final Causes within the realm of Efficient Causes is a philosophical Category mistake. To say that evolution implies an unreasoned, uncaused Creation is to fail to grasp the difference between Material & Efficient Causality (science) and Final Causality.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Brother Adam]

Why do people see this as belittlement? All I see these answers are as avoiding the issue completely. I am connecting them because they are rightfully connected. Did I say that you didn't believe in the resurrection? No! I didn't! I asked a question. The question was asked in complete Christian charity. If we can scientifically deny events of the Old Testament, I see no reason why we cannot scientifically deny events of the New. It is not a question of Dogma, it is a question of logic.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:18 AM']As Cardinal Schonborn discussed in his most recent article in First Things, to look for Final Causes within the realm of Efficient Causes is a philosophical Category mistake. To say that evolution implies an unreasoned, uncaused Creation is to fail to grasp the difference between Material & Efficient Causality (science) and Final Causality.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]920125[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right. He is simply "inserting God" into evolution. "Here is evolution, now we are going to simply say 'God did it'".

[Azriel]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:21 AM']
[right][snapback]920132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Did I miss out on the free popcorn somewhere?

[Azriel]

Its next to the Taco Stand - ..... ranch dressing mix optional.

[Brother Adam]

[scardella]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:56 AM']Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"?
[right][snapback]920118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

BTW, I've stated my lack of conviction in any one of the many theories of How We Came to Be™. I do know that God created nature. He created, directly or indirectly, man. Maybe I'm going all Byzantine on this, but nature itself being a miracle makes everything a miracle. Every good and perfect gift comes from God...

[rkwright]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:19 AM']If we can scientifically deny events of the Old Testament, I see no reason why we cannot scientifically deny events of the New. It is not a question of Dogma, it is a question of logic.
[right][snapback]920127[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1- No one here is denying the events of the New.
2- It doesn't follow in any way that because the old can be explained by science the new is automatically also explained by science.
3- The logical jump you're making is huge. If Some A (old testment mircales are explained by scince) then All A (all miracles explained by science). Thats not logic, just a bad premise.
4- I haven't seen anyone challege the resurrection or the like through science in this thread. If you're whole religion is based on the literal interpretation of the first stories, you run into problems like these.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]1- No one here is denying the events of the New.  [/quote]

Who said anyone did?

[quote]2- It doesn't follow in any way that because the old can be explained by science the new is automatically also explained by science.[/quote]

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?
[quote]3- The logical jump you're making is huge.  If Some A (old testment mircales are explained by scince) then All A (all miracles explained by science).  Thats not logic, just a bad premise.[/quote]

It isn't a huge jump at all. It's quite reasonable. If we are going to arbitrarily state that God used myths in the old to teach truths, there is no reason to think he didn't in the new.

[quote]4- I haven't seen anyone challege the resurrection or the like through science in this thread.  If you're whole religion is based on the literal interpretation of the first stories, you run into problems like these.[/quote]

Either have I. And I'm not quite sure I follow. The Catholic Church considers several various interpretations. Read the first few hundred paragraphs of the Catechism.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:21 AM']Right. He is simply "inserting God" into evolution. "Here is evolution, now we are going to simply say 'God did it'".
[right][snapback]920130[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Have you even read the article by Schonborn? That is precisely what he is [i]not[/i] saying, and it is precisely the kind of thinking that he is guarding Catholics from falling into.

Within Thomistic (and Aristotelian) philosophy, there are distinguished to be Four Causes for any one thing.

Material Cause
Formal Cause
Efficient Cause
Final Cause

Using the cliche example of a marble statue of a woman, its Material Cause is the marble block from whence it comes, its Formal Cause is the shape, or form, of woman that it takes, its Efficient Cause is the sculptor's act of sculpting, and its Final Cause is the purpose for which it came to be, namely, to be admired.

Now, Cardinal Schonborn's point is that the science of today concerns itself [i]only and exclusively[/i] with Material and Efficient Causes. So what is Schonborn's point? He says [i]of course[/i] you aren't going to find God's purposiveness [i]in[/i] evolution, because evolution is science and science omits, [i]a priori[/i] Final Cause.

Trying to find purposiveness in evolution will never happen because that is to try to find Final Causality within Material and Efficient Causality. That's impossible.

So, does believing in evolution mean that you have to give up purposiveness in creation? No. It means you give up trying to find purposiveness in [i]evolution[/i], or any other scientific account of reality, because that's impossible.

God's power, plan, and purpose can be seen in creation, and easily too, but it involves moving outside of a purely scientific account of the universe and embracing a more whole, more complete, philosophical account of the universe.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Brother Adam]

Right, I understand what you are saying, essentially, science, through evolution, is the 'how", and God is the "who" and "why". I understand that evolutionists think God controls and designs the evolutionary origins of the universe, but I don't see how this system doesn't clash with the nature of God as both loving and personally concerned (the daisies of the field analogy).

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:25 AM']Its next to the Taco Stand - .....  ranch dressing mix optional.
[right][snapback]920139[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You can choose ranch or... taco seasoning....