FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Creation: Is it Ongoing?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

When we talk about "Creation," we're, most of the time anyway, referring to the creation of the earth, seas, firmament, stars, fish, land animals, man, etc.  But is creation an ongoing thing?

I ask because, before the work of Redi and Pasteur, it was generally accepted, and by Catholics as well, following Aristotle, that there was such a thing as "spontaneous generation" -- that life could come "from nothing" in terms of the physical world (but ultimately via God, of course, to any Catholic). That theory was scientifically disproven, but it leaves the question open as to whether the Church sees Creation as an ongoing process. Does She? If so, in what way? Or am I misunderstanding the erroneous, older view of life coming "from nothing"?

I'm not talking about God's willing things to remain in existence from moment to moment, but actual Creation, the bringing into existence that which had not existed before. What's up with all this?
I personally believe that the creative process as described in Genesis has come to a close, as stated in Genesis by God resting on the seventh day.

However, that is not to say that mechanisms for natural processes are in place that may result in such spontaneous generation. I'm not thinking of biogenesis, but rather, for example, the energy/matter conversion that occurs in stars.

God created an orderly universe, and within that context much is possible. 
One of the error of Origen is (supposedly, at least attributed to him) the preexistence of the soul, which is unambiguously condemned. So either God creates a soul from nothing or the soul is transmitted through organic processes or the soul of the parents. From what I know there is no Church dogma, though Scholastics held to Creationism, and St. Thomas even says its a heresy to say the soul is transmitted through matter (semen), and here, paragraph 29 he cites that the Church maintains that the body is created by intercourse and the soul is created and infused.
This might lead to some problems down the road, but imho, its the best opinion (philosophically, it makes no sense to say a soul, which is immaterial, is generated by an material process, so that's out of the question).

The way I learned biogenesis is that living things would spring from non-living things. They used to prove it by observing how maggots and such appeared in trash, rotten meat, etc. Not exactly out of nothing (at least that was the way I learned at school).
(09-15-2015, 11:16 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]One of the error of Origen is (supposedly, at least attributed to him) the preexistence of the soul, which is unambiguously condemned. So either God creates a soul from nothing or the soul is transmitted through organic processes or the soul of the parents. From what I know there is no Church dogma, though Scholastics held to Creationism, and St. Thomas even says its a heresy to say the soul is transmitted through matter (semen), and here, paragraph 29 he cites that the Church maintains that the body is created by intercourse and the soul is created and infused.
This might lead to some problems down the road, but imho, its the best opinion (philosophically, it makes no sense to say a soul, which is immaterial, is generated by an material process, so that's out of the question).

Well, duh! I should've thought of that. Genius, Renatus! Thanks for bringing up the fact of new souls coming into being at conception... Nice.

Quote: The way I learned biogenesis is that living things would spring from non-living things. They used to prove it by observing how maggots and such appeared in trash, rotten meat, etc. Not exactly out of nothing (at least that was the way I learned at school).

I misused the word "biogenesis" when I first made that post and then went back and corrected myself. "Biogenesis" is the idea that life can only come from life. So it can't refer to spontaneous generation.

An Italian named Redi did those maggots-on-the-meat experiments by putting pieces of meat in three different jars -- one corked, one covered with gauze, and one uncovered. As expected, the uncovered one got all maggot-ridden; the gauze-covered one ended up with maggots on the gauze; and the corked one ended up with no maggots. But that experiment was challenged because supporters of the idea of spontaneous generation said that the new life that came from nothing (? Or were they positing that it came from inanimate matter?) needed air to live, so the corked jar proved nothing.  Pasteur finally proved biogenesis *** by coming up with a closed flask with a goose neck tube. He put some boiled broth in it, and the goose neck disallowed dust and particles from entering, while allowing air to enter. So that was that.

*** Apparently, in order to defend evolution, some scientists are trying to prove "abiogenesis," the idea of life coming from inanimate matter. They're trying to show that, in the right conditions, life can come from the non-living -- and that those conditions existed once upon a time on earth, but exist no longer. Or they're pushing the idea that those conditions exist or existed in space and that's where life on earth comes from. (hey, whatever happened to Occam's Razor? LOL)