Genesis isn't a science book: Vatican to study evolution; Benedict's trip to France; and Pius XII
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, September 19, 2008 - Vol. 7, No. 52 |
From time to time, Catholicism can be seized with fits of enthusiasm and veer toward one extreme or another. Over the long run, however, its instinct is usually to seek the sane middle, driven by what Pope Benedict XVI has called the Catholic genius for seeking "both/and" solutions to seemingly "either/or" problems.
In Rome this week, a blow was struck for the sane middle on the most vexed issue in the modern relationship between faith and science: the theory of evolution.
The man responsible was Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture and, in a certain sense, heir to Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini of Milan as the church's great interlocutor with secular culture. Like Martini (and also, of course, like Benedict XVI), Ravasi is that rare prelate capable of holding his own with the best and the brightest of secular art, philosophy and science, not as an apologist but as a sympathetic partner in dialogue.
He brought that touch to his discussion of evolution on Tuesday.
"I want to affirm, as an a priori, the compatibility of the theory of evolution with the message of the Bible and the church's theology," Ravasi said.
Ravasi pointed out that Charles Darwin had never been condemned by the church, nor was his Origin of Species ever placed on the index of prohibited books. Ravasi brushed aside a question about whether the Catholic church should posthumously apologize to Darwin, as a senior British prelate has suggested the Church of England might do, with the quip that "we should abandon the notion of history as a court eternally in session."
The setting was a Vatican briefing to announce a major academic conference in March 2009, organized by the Jesuit-run Gregorian University in Rome and the University of Notre Dame in the United States, and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture. The title is "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories," to be held at the Gregorian in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species.
Though organizers didn't quite put it this way, one aim of the conference appears to be to correct impressions that the Catholic church has moved closer to Evangelical-style creationism or the "intelligent design" school. (In brief, creationism is based directly on scripture; intelligent design posits that scientific evidence supports the hypothesis of a designer.) In response to a question from a reporter, Jesuit Fr. Marc Leclerc of the Gregorian University said that exponents of creationism and intelligent design had not been invited to the congress.
Leclerc said of intelligent design that it "substitutes divine will for the mechanism which it is the province of science to study, even though this is obviously a matter of two distinct levels [of causation]."
Professor Gennaro Auletta, a lay scientist and philosopher at the Gregorian who also directs the quixotically named "Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest" project for the Council of Culture, offered a sound-bite for the point of view the conference wants to express: "No to a closed evolutionism, yes to a theory of evolution which is itself evolving."
Not so long ago, the theory of evolution was considered a shining example of how the Catholic church had made its peace with modern science. Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, while warning against ideological abuses, stated 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." Famously, Pope John Paul II called evolutionary theory "more than a hypothesis" in a 1996 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science.
Recently, however, a growing number of Catholics have voiced affinity for intelligent design, worrying that accepting the theory of evolution means acquiescing to a world without God, in which randomness and chance are the ultimate realities. A July 7, 2005, opinion piece in The New York Times by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, seemed to express official endorsement of this view, all the more so because the piece had been placed on Schönborn's behalf by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank.
Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame, who took part in the Vatican press conference, told me afterwards that he's seen a clear shift in Catholic attitudes.
"When I started in the 1970s, my Catholic students said the following: 'God works by natural ways, so there's no problem with evolution,'" Sloan said. "When I taught Darwin, the only ones who had a problem were the Protestants. Now I get Catholic students who think it is impossible to be a Catholic and accept the theory of evolution."
"If you look at the condensed versions of the Catechism that end up in high school textbooks, it just gets stronger and stronger toward an almost literal kind of creationism," Sloan said. He attributed that development in part to "an alliance, sometimes an unfortunate one, between right-to-life groups and anti-evolution groups, often developing within Evangelical Protestant circles, which then gets transferred into Catholic discussion."
Ravasi and his colleagues obviously hope to offer a different perception of the church's message. During Tuesday's press conference, I asked Ravasi if one could say that neither creationism nor intelligent design form part of Catholic teaching.
"There is a doctrine of creation which is obviously part of the church's teaching, and which is elaborated in a strictly theological context," Ravasi said. "But if I use this doctrine ideologically in the scientific field, then it breaks down."
Ravasi offered three "virtues" he hopes will characterize the discussion among scientists, philosophers and theologians over evolution:
- "Serious study … beyond stereotypes and radicalisms."
- Humility, including an awareness of the limits of any one perspective.
- Optimism, based on the conviction that "science can purify religion from superstition" and that "religion can protect science from false absolutes."
In a typical flourish, Ravasi managed to cite six prominent secular thinkers during his roughly 10-minute presentation, reflecting an astonishing variety of backgrounds and perspectives: Claude Lévi-Strauss, Oscar Wilde, Friedrich Schelling, Max Blanc, Isaac Newton and Alexander Pope. Ravasi noted parenthetically that Newton was a believer and even wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation -- though Ravasi, a renowned Biblical scholar, added that it was of "low quality."
To be sure, Ravasi emphasized that it's just as dangerous for scientists to draw metaphysical conclusions from the fossil record as it is for religious believers to use Genesis as a science textbook. He said that over the years, he's sometimes heard scientists make theological statements that are "frankly laughable."
Ravasi's bottom line was the following: "We don't need an iron curtain of ideologies. We need the nobility of making distinctions, which is not the same thing as separation."
Information about the March 3-7, 2009, conference can be found here: www.evolution-rome2009.net.
* * *
The Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture made part of Tuesday's media brief availalbe through YouTube. The selections are in Italian with English subtitles.
* * *
This week, I covered a conference in Rome devoted to Pope Pius XII, whose record during the Holocaust has long been a subject of controversy, especially between Catholics and Jews. The 50th anniversary of Pius' death in 1958 falls this year on Oct. 9, which, ironically, also happens to be the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur.
The Sept. 15-17 conference was held at Rome's Palazzo Salviati, on the Tiber River near the Vatican. It was the location where slightly more than 1,000 Roman Jews were incarcerated on Oct. 16, 1943, before being deported to the Nazi death camps. Of that group, only 16 survived.
The conference brought together a number of leading defenders of Pius XII, such as Filippini Sr. Margherita Marchione of Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey; Ronald Rychlak, a Catholic law professor at the University of Mississippi; William Doino, author of The Pius War; Andrea Tornielli, a prominent Italian journalist; and Fr. Peter Gumpel, relator for the sainthood cause of Pius XII.
In brief, the case for the defense amounted to:
- Pius was not "silent" on the Nazis or the Holocaust, because he spoke on numerous occasions in ways both public and private. Defenders point out, for example, that Adolph Eichmann's diary, released by Israeli authorities in 2000, claims that protests from Pius XII resulted in suspension of the round-up of Jews in Rome.
- Pius XII avoided more direct and dramatic statements because they could have unleashed even worse persecution.
- Behind the scenes, he mobilized church resources to save lives, including Jewish lives. To take just one example, the pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolfo became a sanctuary for refugees, with the pope's own bedroom converted into a makeshift nursery where 40 babies were born during the war. Afterwards, Jews who had taken shelter at Castel Gandolfo thanked the pope.
What made the gathering remarkable was that it took place under the aegis of the "Pave the Way" foundation, an inter-faith group founded and led by an American Jew named Gary Krupp. A number of Jews, including a handful of rabbis from different parts of the world, were present at the conference, and Krupp plans to turn over materials the defenders have unearthed to Holocaust museums in order to try to correct impressions of Pius XII.
On Thursday, I took part in an audience at Castel Gandolfo in which Benedict XVI addressed participants in the conference. It amounted to the first time this pope has come to the defense of his controversial predecessor.
Benedict insisted that Pius "spared no effort" to help people, and that many of the pope's humanitarian initiatives were "made secretly and silently," because "in that difficult historical moment, only in this way was it possible to avoid the worst and save the greatest number of Jews."
The cause to declare Pius XII a saint is currently at something of an impasse. In May 2007, the Vatican's Congregation for Saints voted to endorse his "heroic virtue," the first formal step in the process, and a document confirming that verdict is now awaiting a papal signature. Only when that occurs can officials move forward with investigation of a miracle, which is required for beatification. Another miracle would be required for eventual canonization.
My two earlier stories on this conference are here: American Jew comes to the defense of Pius XII and Pius XII 'spared no effort' for Jews, Benedict XVI says.
* * *
Last weekend, I travelled on the papal plane with Benedict XVI for a four-day visit to France. (The press corps joked that it could be a historic trip in at least one respect; this might have been the last papal flight ever on Alitalia, if the Italian national carrier can't pull itself back from the brink of collapse.)
My coverage can be found here: Benedict in France and at Lourdes. For now, I'll offer just a couple of quick thoughts about the significance of the trip -- which, by the normal standards of turnout and press coverage, was widely rated a success.
In effect, this trip took the pope to the citadels of the "two Frances." When he visited President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysée Palace, he was paying tribute to official, establishment France, the France of the Enlightenment and the Revolution. When he travelled to Lourdes, the famed Marian sanctuary near the Pyrenees, he was in effect honoring the other face of France -- rural, traditional, and believing.
The enthusiasm for Benedict offered a clear sign that this second France, even if reduced in size and visibility, is still around. The church in France, like much of the rest of Europe, is making a sometimes painful transition from a cultural form of Catholicism, relying on institutions and history to transmit the faith, to what one might call a more "evangelical" model -- smaller, but more dynamic and entrepreneurial.
A key theme for Benedict over his four days in France was laïcité, usually translated as "secularism." In a sense, the trip offered the second installment of a two-part reflection from the pope on church/state relations, with the first coming during his April visit to the United States. In America, Benedict lauded a model of church/state separation which he regards as offering freedom for religion; in France, he urged a new look at laïcité, which, in the eyes of many believers, sometimes means freedom from religion.
Senior Vatican officials worry that the French model of laïcité is marching across Europe these days in a growing body of EU treaties and court decisions, driving member nations into a more rigidly secular stance.
To what extent Benedict actually persuaded the French to be more open to religion in public life remains to be seen, but the tone struck by Sarkozy could not have been more affirmative. It was Sarkozy, not the pope, who asserted in an address at the Elysée that it would be "madness" for France to deny its Christian heritage or the contributions of religious believers.
With allowances for the massive cultural differences, one could say that Sarkozy is sort of the Ronald Reagan of France -- the first political figure to understand the electoral importance of his country's version of the "religious right." The second France, the France of Lourdes, helped propel Sarkozy to victory, and in turn he's emboldening believers to claim a seat at the table of public life.
In the United States, the "Reagan revolution" ushered in an era in which religious believers became an indisputably potent, albeit controversial, force in American politics. It's not at all clear that Sarkozy will have the same impact in France; for one thing, in late 2007 and early 2008 his approval ratings were the lowest of any modern French leader. Yet if Sarkozy is able to right the ship, he could point the way to a new political formula -- one which could dovetail with Benedict's project of opening up a space in which the religious voice can be heard.
Whatever Sarkozy's fortunes, the trick for the pope is to make the case for a religious contribution to politics without seeming partisan; in other words, not to inadvertently unleash a new round of conflict between the "two Frances" and their analogues in other European nations. That's the tightrope Benedict is on, and it will be fascinating to watch him walk it.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Hey Y'all! You are all
Hey Y'all!
You are all so beautifully intelligent and eloquent! I know that I should keep my head down and my mouth shut, but, "If you're going to be dumb! You gotta be tough!" Here's the way I see it.
GOD made everything!
EVERYTHING emcompasses it all, y'all! He has a plan! He has a design! (this ain't over yet!) His plan and design, include a being with, get this now, reason and free will! The plan also includes 10 rules and regulations!
I can only imagine that point where He said, "OK! I've designed this beautiful playground for you reasoning, and freewilled beings! Now go play! Don't make a mess and don't hurt each other!"
"I placed that crown, and I drove those nails! Yes! I drove them just as sure as I was there!"
"No! I did'nt! God placed that crown AND drove the nails!" It was part of "The Plan!" What "I" did is this! I diluted and contaminated the 10 rules and regulations with "statutes" and "Civil and Criminal Codes" "International" and "Corporate" laws, all formed as ways to justify my "reasoned" lack of FAITH in the plan! Why did "I" do that ? Because I have the "free" will to do so!
There IS such beauty in simplicity!
God loves and cares for us all! And so must we!
I offer! From "The Works of Enaud Semaj"
I have stumbled through this life, in veiled confusion!
Never knowing when to stop, or when to start!
I have shattered all my dreams and my illusions!
And every time I did it broke His heart!
SO! I pray that you won't take this road I've traveled,
And I pray that you not do the things I've done.
And I pray, you learn from me, That you can wish and dream for free!
And that battles never fought, are'nt lost or won!
Yes I pray for you the freshest breeze of Springtime!
And I pray you too, the fruitful days of fall!
And if times were REALLY bad, And one prayer were all I had1
I'd pray you'd PEACE and COMFORT, most of all!
Amen!
James Edward
I am wondering if Professor
I am wondering if Professor Philip Sloan can explain why Intelligent Design, as supported by the Discovery Institute and other Scientists, is not being addressed at the Conference on Biological Evolution. The Discovery Institute uses much of the same Scientific information on micro evolutionary processes that those who support Darwin's Theory of Evolution do. It is how they interpret this scientific evidence in regards to the origin of Life that differs. The Discovery Institute believes, that the scientific evidence of micro evolution, reveals no scientific data that can prove that man evolved from animal through a random sequence of events over Time. Micro evolution does, however, give evidence of an Intelligent designer because of the way in which the various processes of micro evolution exist in relationship.
According to the Discovery Design Institute, "Intelligent design as a counter-argument to Darwin's theory, dates back to 1890, and the impetus for the modern theory of Intelligent design came from the last several decades of discoveries in physics, biochemistry, genetics, and similiar disciplines. The theory of Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause."
Anne, The Discovery
Anne, The Discovery Institute and its Intelligent Designer theory are not Christian. They are open to the possibility that the Intelligent Designer could turn out to be a space alien type, to say the least. The Discovery Institute is interested in social engineering and part of the effort involves addressing, or even exploiting, the human impluse to seek and find God. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that evolution is fully compatible with Christian beliefs about the existence and nature of God. It recognizes that evolutionary theory is based on valid scientific observations. It does not contradict the profound truths found in Scripture.
Really, Marie. If this is
Really, Marie. If this is true, then where is your evidence?
The Internet is a good
The Internet is a good source of information. The Discovery Institute has its own website. It describes its worldview there. It says, "Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical." It is necessary to delve deeper into some of the ideas in order to see the social engineering aspect of this.
I assume you are questioning where I got my info on The Discovery Institute, not the science of evolution or the Catholic Church's teaching.
"And a child shall lead
"And a child shall lead us!"
I don't know who said that, but I quote H.L. Menken, " Id rather be a christian in a den of lions than a lion in a den of christians!" I believe that apes do, in a fashion, govern themselves! I can't feel a whole lot of conceit about the way humans have done it so far! Belief in, from whence we emanated, confronts a whole lot of "pride" and hubris for a lot of people! I offer a quote from the eldest of my progeny, at age twelve or fourteen, "The defining line between human and animal... is the ability to accessorize!"
If the evolutionists are right, and we are made in the image and likeness of God, then God may well NOT be a woman, but quite possibly a female ape!
Wouldn't that be like getting called "ugly" by a possum?
I honestly don't see what difference it makes how He or She did it! He or She is still God!
Ain't it about the glorification of God, and not about who's right or wrong, smarter or dumber. As a finial on this post, I offer a quote from an old friend named J.R.. "You know we all decended from Apes. Some just decended a little farther than others!"
God bless you all and all of yours!
Ed
"If you look at the
"If you look at the condensed versions of the Catechism that end up in high school text books, it just gets stronger and stronger toward an almost literal kind of creationism."
This is because the Catechism deals with questions about the origin of Human Life. While there are elements of truth in Darwin's Evolution Theory, it simply does not account for the fact that Human persons are much more complex than the African ape. With all due respect to our so called "cousin", the African ape, I, for one, am not buying into the theory that we are distant cousins. I mean, we are talking about many, many, missing links here.
AnnieD, it really doesn’t
AnnieD, it really doesn’t take a leap of Faith to believe in God and Evolution. It actually makes a lot of sense. A few years ago I saw a Vatican geneticist on a Public TV Program say that the human genome on DNA is about 5% of the DNA I believe and has a little over 2000 genes capable of created something like 1 X 10^39 power distinct individual human beings. That’s a 1 with 39 zeros after it. Not exactly infinite BUT close enough to it for our extents and purposes. Now Science can’t make DNA, which is the basis of all evolution. BUT now that we are learning about in much more detail than we knew before, I don’t see HOW WE CAN NOT MARVEL even more than before at GOD’S CREATION.
Evolution and Science don’t deny the existence of God. On the contrary they magnify the genius and complexity of His Creation. How could anybody but God ever dream up such an amazing process. What’s makes it even more incredible is that science shows us that everything we have discovered, all the cumulative knowledge of the human race is less than 4% of everything that exists in the Universe. So that means AnnieD, that in spite of every thing we know and that science has proved we still have more than 96% to go to uncover the secrets still held in God’s magnificent creation. Here’s a few examples of discoveries that lay between us You and I, AnnieD and the so called Apes that we came from. And it was all encoded on that first strand DNA, the seed of Life that God planted on this world who knows how millions or billions of years ago.
Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1635020
"At the center of the debate on the emergence of modern humans and their spread throughout the globe is the question of whether archaic Homo lineages contributed to the modern human gene pool, and more importantly, whether such contributions impacted the evolutionary adaptation of our species. A major obstacle to answering this question is that low levels of admixture with archaic lineages are not expected to leave extensive traces in the modern human gene pool because of genetic drift. Loci that have undergone strong positive selection, however, offer a unique opportunity to identify low-level admixture with archaic lineages, provided that the introgressed archaic allele has risen to high frequency under positive selection. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. Within modern humans, a group of closely related haplotypes at this locus, known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy ≈37,000 years ago and swept to exceptionally high frequency (≈70% worldwide today) because of positive selection. Here, we examine the origin of haplogroup D. By using the interhaplogroup divergence test, we show that haplogroup D likely originated from a lineage separated from modern humans ≈1.1 million years ago and introgressed into humans by ≈37,000 years ago. This finding supports the possibility of admixture between modern humans and archaic Homo populations (Neanderthals being one possibility). Furthermore, it buttresses the important notion that, through such adminture, our species has benefited evolutionarily by gaining new advantageous alleles. The interhaplogroup divergence test developed here may be broadly applicable to the detection of introgression at other loci in the human genome or in genomes of other species."
Fossil From Last Common Ancestor Of Neanderthals And Humans Found In Europe, 1.2 Million Years Old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403185958.htm
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html
These links came from this thread where I try to prove Bible Stories to atheists with newly discovered scientific facts. Imagine not only do I have to prove the Bible to atheist with science. I have to prove the Science to believers with historical acts of God. - Go figure. J God’s Peace be with all here. J
Were Adam and Eve mythic characters?.
Did the first two humans really exist as the Bible teaches?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=170334&highlight=&sid=e1724519de57724c71c5a3146fc22f83#170334
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Woooh, so based on this so
Woooh, so based on this so called evidence that may or may not explain the evolution of apes, you want me to believe that Man, who is not of the same species as animals, evolved from an ape? Joer, with all due respect, I am surprised that you are buying into this "monkey" buisness. Next thing you know, someone will be trying to convince us, that apes are capable of governing themselves, and that somewhere in the universe, there may even be, a Planet of the Apes.
Hi AnnieD God Bless You.
Hi AnnieD God Bless You. There's no monkey business to it. Just look at it. It won't hurt you. You can believe what ever you want. If you want to believe Genesis in the Bible is a little history of our creation, Go ahead. Some people still think the earth is flat. So what. the main thing is AnnieD is you Believe in God and for that you'll be saved. What more could you want. The rest is just icing on the cake. I'm sure sooner or later in this life or the next we'll both know where we were right and wrong in our beliefs.
So if you think DNA is "monkey business" and has nothing to do with God, that's fine with me. To each their own. I know in terms of what's important "believing in God", your on the right side of the belief, God's side. That's close enough! God bless you AnnieD. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
From the beginning, God made
From the beginning, God made Man in His image and likeness, separate from all the living creatures on Earth, to be in a loving relationship with Him.In order to have a relationship with God, we need to know who God is.
I never said that Dna is "monkey buisness", I said the belief that Man evolved from ape, is buying into, "monkey buisness." :-)
Well think about for a
Well think about for a moment AnnieD in a somewhat reasonable way.
If God made DNA and God's plan was for human kind to evolve into a human form from the original pattern of life contained in the DNA in an evolutionary process which was God's natural design than you agree that human kind evolved from a single cell creature through millions or billions of years of evolution through many forms until eventually species that could meet the criteria of being called human emerged onto the scene. Then that human formed evolved to the point of becoming self conscious, then God Conscious and began discovering the relationship of being made in God's image and that conceptual reality has developed over recent geological history through the revelation of the prophets and then the revelation of the Son of God himself, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Amen.
If you don't see this as a scientific observation as well as a Religious understanding of what God's plan for human development was from the beginning of God Given LIFE then how would describe the design of God's Plan from the beginning of Life up until now?
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Well, I suppose, based on
Well, I suppose, based on your theory, perhaps we didn't evolve from ape at all. It may be, at one time, we were all Cabbage Patch Kids. :-)
Well AnnieD if you don't
Well AnnieD if you don't agree with the POV I presented, then how would YOU describe the design of God's Plan from the beginning of Life up until now?
I mean, aside from being facetious, you do have a Point of View (POV) about How we get from the Origin of Life to where we are NOW consistent with the reality of God as you see it, don't you?
God Bless you AnnieD. I value your REAL answer that is a REAL representation of you POV in regard to this theme.
Thanks in advance.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Well, Joer, my POV, is that
Well, Joer, my POV, is that God, who is Love, is waaaaa...y more intelligent than us. All you have to do is look at the details of His Design, the Universe, the prefered position of the Earth in the Universe, DNA, etc., to understand that. So once you realize there has to be a God, the next step is to determine who God is. How do I know that God is Love? Simply because, if you follow the Word of Love, Christ, only GOOD can come from it. Follow Him, Christ.
Why did God make us? Simply because He Loves us and wants to have a Loving relationship with us.
Dear Anne, I think Darwin
Dear Anne,
I think Darwin suggested a common ancestry for apes and humans. I found this on the web:
"Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
August 31, 2005
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apesâ€â€he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
I read elsewhere that a number of those variant genes are olfactory, giving the apes the advantage in the sniffing department.
I have seen films on Washo, one of the first chimps to use human language in the form of deaf sign. She wanted to ask her keeper for a soda, but she forgot the sign for soda. So she asked for a "honey cup." That's not rote memory. That's creating language. That's a human funtion. Dr. Christian Barnard who pioneered heart surgery said he would never again sacrifice a baboon in an experiment because of the deep grief it caused in the baboon partner. Another human function. It may be that we allow ourselvers so privileged a position because we know so little about our common lives.
Anne, do you feel compelled
Anne, do you feel compelled to believe that it is not possible that apes and man evolved from a common ancestor?
Is that because you take one
Is that because you take one of the versions of Creation found in the Book of Genesis literally? Don't you think it is possible that God created things so that they evolved into what you see today rather than that he literally formed man out of dirt instead of just out of the same stuff as dirt (carbon molecules)? Isn't it possible that the Creation story is a kind of "Reader's Digest" version of what really happened, given that human scientific knowledge wasn't at a point where a more complex explanation would have made sense?
So, Marie, are you saying
So, Marie, are you saying that scientific knowledge that claims that Man evolved from "apeman" makes sense to you? What about the fact that there are many, many, missing steps in this theory of the origin of Man?
Here are the versions of Creation found in the Bible that I do take literally:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him, not one thing came into being."(John 1:1-4)
From the beginning, the Father and the Son were a perfect complement.
From the beginning, God made Mankind in relationship to Himself.
"Then God said, Let US make humankind in our own image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God , He created them, male and female He created them."(Genesis 1:26-28)
From the beginning, God made Man, separate from all living creatures on Earth, in His own image and likeness, as a perfect complement.
What about the people from
What about the people from the Land of Nod that already existed BEFORE God created Adam and Eve in Genesis 4?
You have Adam and Eve in the Garden and you have Cain marrying a woman from the Land of Nod and raising his own progeny there. While Adam and Eve's pure line decedents are continued through Seth. Assuming Adam and Eve had a daughter and Seth mated with her. Do you take that part of Genesis literally too?
If you do, how do you explain preexistent people in the Land of NOD?
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17 Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. 18 Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael became the father of Methushael, and Methushael became the father of Lamech.
25 Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.� 26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Anne, these verses that you
Anne, these verses that you believe in do not contradict evolutionary theory at all. Man could have evolved from a common ancestor with the other man-like creatures we know today -- how God made Man separate from all the living creatures on Earth is not detailed in the Bible. It seems that the how of it is one of the many things Man is learning throughout his many generations on Earth. Just because not everything is known yet does not make what is known false. Based on the scientific standards, which are pretty strict, there is sufficient evidence to make the theory of evolution a fairly certain thing.
anne, it sounds like you are
anne, it sounds like you are having trouble with the language--the metaphor of 'distant cousins'--which is the difficulty with metaphor. While St. Paul, for instance, would have all believers in Jesus call themselves 'brothers and sisters in Christ' and 'family' etc., most of us in our regular lives and thinking don't think anyone past a few spaces 'removed' of 'fourthed' is someone we would consider a cousin, although this does have different meanings in different cultures. Anglo-Americans, for instance, invested so heavily in capitalism and individualism, usually start putting in distance when someone is beyond a first cousin, while African-Americans often take in someone who claims distant relationship even without much proof...
At the same time, most people think of their cat and dog as 'family' and probably more so than ANY cousin. Clearly, apes are not that close a 'cousin' to you or me that that word holds the same meaning in regular life. Scientific thinking on this is going to be very broad. It is difficult for some people to see themselves in relation to apes, for instance, while others see their relationship to plants as closer than a distant cousin. I think the difficulty you speak of is more of switching from one kind of thinking to another? Or, perhaps, of the use of the wrong metaphor for your personal comparison? Yes, the evolutionary scientist is also talking about "many, many missing links here." The scientist will certainly agree with you on that. Unless he/she has spent a whole lot of time among apes, my guess is that they would think in a similar way in their regular life.
"Recently, however, a
"Recently, however, a growing number of Catholics have voiced affinity for intelligent design worrying that accepting the theory of evolution means acquiesing to a world without God, in which randomness and chance are the ultimate realities."
To study evolution, one must begin at the beginning, when God created the Laws of Nature.
It is important to note, although we may not always be able to understand it, what appears to be "chance" or "randomness" is actually governed by God's Law of Nature as well.
I am curios Anne, what
I am curios Anne, what EXACTLY is God's Law of Nature?
God createdNature. The
God createdNature. The 'Laws of Nature' (sic - no capitalization required;you make the mistake twice ...) are human artiface.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
With all due respect, Rev.
With all due respect, Rev. McCoy, God Has Created the conditions of His Law of Nature as well. We are called to respect His Laws.
Our Constitution recognizes God's Laws of Nature as well:
"...and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Do you really think that God
Do you really think that God created the US Constitution, too?
Wow; you really do seem to have quite a broad sense of non-differentiation. Just curious: where are the boundaries of "YOU" and your beliefs?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
I never said that God
I never said that God created the U.S. Constitution, I said our Founding Fathers believed that the Creator, God, created the Laws of Nature as well as Nature. It says so right in the Declaration of Independence. (It was understood that a Constitution was to follow.)
This is an interesting
This is an interesting theological proposition about which I confess ignorance. CAn you help me to understand by giving me some text to read? Thanks for your patience.
God's peace,
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
"In the beginning was the
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him, not one thing came into being." (John 1:1-3)
The theology of the Logos is
The theology of the Logos is a beautiful and unique contribution of Christian piety and theological heritage. To misunderstand it so utterly by making it a caricature of literalism is very sad.
I wonder if you comprehend what it is that you are doing in treating in such an off-hand way the profound teaching of the Logos. Your hubris is breathtaking. I think you believe you are displaying loyalty or 'faithfulness' or something equally beatific. I wonder who is encouraging you in this? If it is someone of better learning, such exploitation is reprehensible. If it is someone who merely shares an agenda, the culpability is no less.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
So, The Rev.Dr.E.McCoy, are
So, The Rev.Dr.E.McCoy, are you saying that you believe that God, who is Love, and the Word Made Flesh are an imperfect complement? Who is encouraging you in this?
From the beginning, the Father and the Son, were a perfect complement. God made
Mankind in relationship to Himself, separate from all the creatures on Earth, in His own image and likeness as a perfect complement.
"Let US make man in OUR image." (Genesis 1:26
"I give you a New Commandment, that you Love one another Just as I have Loved you."(John 13:34)
P.S., Don't you think the distinct but complementary nature of RNA and DNA point to an Intelligent designer as well? Of course, we all know that God is certainly intelligent enough to figure out His own Design.
The word complement comes
The word complement comes from complete. Does the Son complete the Father? Is the Father incomplete?
Huh? The Rev. Dr. E.
Huh?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
I think that you really do
I think that you really do know that Rev. McCoy asked you a question. Your reply is simply a refusal to ask yourself the question she posed to you. You are right and everybody else is wrong, right? I have often asked the question that the Reverend has asked. Authenticity or even some meager amount of humility from you would suffice to bring us to the truth.
Your posts so often spark
Your posts so often spark questions for me. I've never really thought about being the perfect complement. And yet I believe that we were created to be loved. I believe that God longs for us in the God-sized version of our own longing for God.
Huh? Is this a
Huh? Is this a palinism???
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
There are people in this
There are people in this world, whose curiosity compels them to know, the what, when, where, why and how of everything! I don't think, well hardly ever, but when I do, it comes out as; In the grand scheme of things (therein read, salvation of our souls), God doesn't really care what we know or believe about creation as long as we know and believe that He or She did it!
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth! And He filled them with wondrous mysteries! Like the twinkle in my Baby Darlin's eye when she's done something mischievous!
Like why I feel the way I do when she's smiling! Don't have to even be at me! Why God put me on my path and she on hers and then had them converge! And why'd He wait so long to do it? Why my children turned out to be who and what they are! Why people yell at folks that are blind! Why we hate and why we fight! Why some people talk to little kids and dogs and old folks with baby talk! Why we want what someone else has got, and try to get it as cheap as possible! And when we get it we think he was so dumb 'cause he let us do it! And why we don't figure he was just being a nice guy! And why every thing is about cost and retribution and not about just getting through this without hurting anybody!
I just remembered why I hardly ever think!
God bless and keep us all! And thank you God, for another beautiful day, on this earth that you created! However you did it!
James Edward
Catnip: You said:
Catnip: You said: "Catholics students in the 1930s had no problems with evolution nor were they taught that it went against Church teaching. But seventy years later, we have gone backward...."
Why are they doing that? I submit that it's because the latest developments in science, especially biochemistry, are telling us in most blatant terms that macro-evolution never happened. In fact there is only de-volution going on (genetic entropy), not evolution of new higher forms of genetic information production.
Essentially, what started out as a near perfect package of molecular machinery, has now degenerated into a more dysfunctional product; some researchers say that in a few hundred generations, the human genome will be so full of defective information that we will be too diseased to even reproduce ourselves. (See Dr.J.C. Sanford’s Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome)
phillipjohn, FYI: The
phillipjohn,
FYI: The universe is expanding and new stars are born and dying. This disproves "de-volution going on (genetic entropy).
Creation is not just an occurrence that took place in the distant past. God is and He continues to work in His creation.
It might be incorrect to
It might be incorrect to view things in terms of only the latest scientific developments and to focus on one branch of science such as biochemistry and then draw a negative conclusion--dysfunctional, degenerated, no such thing as macroevolution.
It is the theory that populations change over time based on spontaneous genetic mutations as well as in response to environmental cues. The topic of this past week's Nova episode was epigenetics. In epigenetics environmental factors influence what genetic attributes will be activated in one's offspring or one's offspring's offspring.
It seems to me that this is in keeping with the theory of evolution, though it does not explain exactly how it would make it possible for a population of single celled creatures to evolve into various populations of complex multicelled creatures. However, there is less proof for the position that macroevolution did not and does not happen over the immense time spans that characterize the age of the universe.
If as you say some
If as you say some researchers believe that we are degenerating into a more dysfunctional product biologically and becoming too diseased to even reproduce ourselves, the reason that may happen will come from diseased thinking, repression of thinking and creativity, which could ultimately cause the molecular structures to dysfunction.
In relation to this, some see cancer as a spiritual disease which is caused by guilt, shame or fear and that it is by forgiveness of ourself and others that we are healed.
I don't think there can be much discussion that is enlightening without including in the idea of evolution the spiritual connection to God we all have in our very souls. Tapping into this source of love within has the capacity to change DNA.
God Has revealed, through
God Has revealed, through His only Son, the Word Made Flesh, the Truth about how we are to Love one another in relationship with Him. How do we know that the Word Made Flesh is the Truth? If we follow Him, the Word of Love, only Good can come from that.
Thanks for covering the
Thanks for covering the issue of the Church's position regarding evolution. I was alarmed at some of Card. Schönborn's remarks in the past, as least as they were carried in the press, and I am happy that Benedict XVI is advocating a more positive view of evolution. In this regard, perhaps a more important example than the conference being held at the Gregorian University next year is the fact that this year's annual Symposium sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences is on the topic of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life." One of the speakers is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". The program for the Symposium can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_38.pdf.
From the Catechism of the
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
AnnieD I like what you say
AnnieD I like what you say here:
Submitted by annedanielson on October 9, 2008 - 10:04am.
Well, Joer, my POV, is that God, who is Love, is waaaaa...y more intelligent than us. All you have to do is look at the details of His Design, the Universe, the prefered position of the Earth in the Universe, DNA, etc., to understand that. So once you realize there has to be a God, the next step is to determine who God is. How do I know that God is Love? Simply because, if you follow the Word of Love, Christ, only GOOD can come from it. Follow Him, Christ.
Why did God make us? Simply because He Loves us and wants to have a Loving relationship with us.
And I like James' post too.
I have a friend, A Christian. He posted this yesterday on another site, after a long absence, and after being requested too by someone via a PM.
It seems to me he has captured an excellent understanding of God and the reason for our creation by God and why we are like we are. I “get†what he’s saying if anyone would like me to explain anything I’d be glad too. Here’s his post:
--------------------------------------
Being human, when we go searching for guidance, We are wont to focus our attention externally. We look for authoritative sources like pastors, or gurus, or even the good old Urantia Book! The fact is, Father has sprinkled shards of truth so generously, that inquisitive minds can be tantalized from literally anywhere the search begins.
The “larger†truth seems often to escape us, and that is our uniqueness. So, let me begin right there.
God, as First Source and Center, is of course infinite, and unlimited. But even being “unlimited†has its limit; you cannot experience growth. The UB tells us, God devised a plan for escaping the “prison†of absoluteness. That plan was us. God’s plan was to create children who, though created from perfection, with inherited perfection potentials, were given an even more precious gift IMPERFECTION!
Whoa! How can that be? You ask. Well, since God’s only true limitation is being able to experience growth, his gift of imperfection opens up the possibility to share in that growth. And, being a free will system, God assures that his kids, in their search for Him, ultimately find Him because of Love, not duty.
… The UB tells us about the circles, to give us a sort of terrain map. Our exact location on this map is not so important as how we make our plans to traverse it. Remember, the only gift we have to give to God, is our growth experience that we share with Him. We’ve started as far from Perfection as is possible, while still retaining the possibility of eventually attaining that goal. Each stumbling journey strengthens our stride, and enhances our skills. All our mini-struggles are summed in God the Supreme, and ultimately in the First Source and Center. So, taking a “shortcutâ€, only would limit our growth, and therefore our gift.
This also helps clarify another of our misconceptions. Some of us are born rich, some poor. Some have vigorous health, some suffer from birth. How is that in any way fair?
Once again, imperfection is the gift. Those who apparently given the least, in reality have the most to give back, while those who appear to have been born into the privilege of wealth and even mental brilliance, enjoy but a limited opportunity. Those who seem most gifted, are usually the most limited by their material focus and attachments. They see themselves as smarter, and of greater importance, and may tend to be more complacent and less introspective than those who look for spiritual answers instead.
Would it not be the ultimate in unfairness, if finding God was based on how smart, or how rich we are? Thankfully, the playing field is level, and God has made sure we each have our own unique path back to our Source.
So, let’s walk that path, and join hands with our Divine Partner to get us over or around the obstacles while maintaining our balance.
-----------------------------------
I think my brother's explanation is insightful and moving. My question to all the believers here is:
AnnieD, JamesD's post right under this one, and my friend seem to answer the question: Why are we and God the way we are?
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will