Evolution Must Go
(11-29-2012, 04:24 PM)Hanno Wrote: Forgive me, Melkite, but you appear to be getting seriously far out with this, and I'm becoming wary of indulging you.  I can only guess that you're having a crisis of faith perhaps, or else you have embraced some sort of relativism or subjectivism because you seem to be genuinely unsure of whether we can know Catholicism is true and you're talking like a modernist.  If I'm reading you wrong, correct me. 

Anyway, we do not know that Catholicism is true in the same way we discern what is true in our observations of the material world.  Our gnosis is spiritual, not intellectual.  It is perceived by the soul, not the senses.  As an Eastern Catholic, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of metanoia, which in part suggests a radical changing of one's mind: to repent and be open to perceiving things anew; spiritually, not just intellectually.  We come to the Catholic faith by cooperation with the pure grace of God, not through any proofs we figure out with our mind.  Personally, I think it's dangerous for you to place the same demands on spiritual truth as you do on observable phenomena.  The faith, which is of God, necessarily transcends the scientific method.  I am not your spiritual advisor, but please consider this passage of scripture:

Well, yeah, spiritually, I understand that, that's why I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, and why I'm Catholic instead of Orthodox or some other sect.  But how do I know I'm right and not the Pentecostal who is just as sure that his church is right?  Judging by the way you phrased it, would I be right in assuming you believe in predestination and that only those who are specifically called to the faith will ever believe it anyway?

Quote:But God has come down and notified me which son is inspired!  It's called the Incarnation.  God became incarnate in Jesus Christ and founded the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit, so that by faith we could come to the truth.  If you are even close to questioning any of this, then we have wasted many, many pages of this thread.  I'm interested in knowing how believing practicing traditionalist Catholics reconcile evolution with Humani Generis.  I already know how the modernists do it.

Ok.  Well, I'm definitely no longer a traditional Catholic, so I'll bow out of the discussion.  No point in wasting your time if I can't give you what you're looking for.
Reply
duplicate
Reply
(11-29-2012, 04:47 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-29-2012, 04:24 PM)Hanno Wrote: Forgive me, Melkite, but you appear to be getting seriously far out with this, and I'm becoming wary of indulging you.  I can only guess that you're having a crisis of faith perhaps, or else you have embraced some sort of relativism or subjectivism because you seem to be genuinely unsure of whether we can know Catholicism is true and you're talking like a modernist.  If I'm reading you wrong, correct me. 

Anyway, we do not know that Catholicism is true in the same way we discern what is true in our observations of the material world.  Our gnosis is spiritual, not intellectual.  It is perceived by the soul, not the senses.  As an Eastern Catholic, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of metanoia, which in part suggests a radical changing of one's mind: to repent and be open to perceiving things anew; spiritually, not just intellectually.  We come to the Catholic faith by cooperation with the pure grace of God, not through any proofs we figure out with our mind.  Personally, I think it's dangerous for you to place the same demands on spiritual truth as you do on observable phenomena.  The faith, which is of God, necessarily transcends the scientific method.  I am not your spiritual advisor, but please consider this passage of scripture:

Well, yeah, spiritually, I understand that, that's why I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, and why I'm Catholic instead of Orthodox or some other sect.  But how do I know I'm right and not the Pentecostal who is just as sure that his church is right?  Judging by the way you phrased it, would I be right in assuming you believe in predestination and that only those who are specifically called to the faith will ever believe it anyway?

You say you understand it spiritually, but I wonder: why do you have to ask?  Frankly I don't know if you really do perceive it spiritually, because you're still expecting it to be verified on the same criteria by which we observe phenomena.  It can't be confirmed outwardly.  It confirms itself.  It's a transcendent experience.  It's "the peace that passes all understanding."  Yet you're persistent in wanting to understand it.

If you're skeptical enough to wonder whether God might be a trickster, giving spiritual confirmations to people that would lead them to dozens of different sects, then you need to reconsider the way you're approaching this.  Your mind is restless.  Be still.
Reply
Further...evolution is the scaffolding in which the justification  of abortion and racism stands firm...even if the scientists dont want to admit it......could you imagine the shrieks from academia  if a Pope said the following...........................

Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin's Bulldog” –( a man who probably did more to get
evolution theory widely accepted than any other person )– said: “No rational man,
cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior
of the white man.” (Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, p. 20.)
Darwin himself. The sub-title of his infamous Origin of Species
was The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin said:
“Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will
have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” (Life & Letters,
letter to W. Graham, p. 316.)

The Direction of Human Evolution (p. 53), evolutionist Edwin Conklin warns that
“Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to
strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for
the longer this is maintained the greater the preponderance of the white race will be...
Reply
I don't think the fact that some adherents of a particular theory also happened to hold un-PC opinions is grounds for rejecting that theory.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 06:33 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I don't think the fact that some adherents of a particular theory also happened to hold un-PC opinions is grounds for rejecting that theory.


That's certainly true. While I do not believe in evolution I do grant that much Crusading Philologist.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 06:33 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I don't think the fact that some adherents of a particular theory also happened to hold un-PC opinions is grounds for rejecting that theory.
These werent opinion but what they described as PROOFS of their theory. And these arent some ADHERENTS these were the founding fathers....further using that standard I guess I should embrace lutharism
Reply
(11-29-2012, 07:48 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote:
(11-29-2012, 06:33 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I don't think the fact that some adherents of a particular theory also happened to hold un-PC opinions is grounds for rejecting that theory.
These werent opinion but what they described as PROOFS of their theory. And these arent some ADHERENTS these were the founding fathers....further using that standard I guess I should embrace lutharism

I'm pretty sure no one believes that eugenics and racism are PROOFS of evolution. And these things existed before the evolutionary theory was formulated anyway. Did abortions not occur during the Middle Ages?

And even if the "founding fathers" of evolution were racist, that wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution. . .If someone were racist and discovered that 1+1=2, their discovery wouldn't be any less valid because of their character.

And I have no idea how you logically come to the conclusion that what Crusading Philologist wrote would be a standard for embracing Lutheranism. . .He's saying that you cannot reject something simply because the people associated with it were "bad" people. Just like I'm sure you would agree that we shouldn't reject Catholicism simply because there were some "bad" popes in the past.
Reply
The quotes I provided show they thought the so called  supremacy of the white man was proof that natural selection worked.
Reply
(11-29-2012, 11:38 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: The quotes I provided show they thought the so called  supremacy of the white man was proof that natural selection worked.

They did not believe that the "supremacy of the white man" was proof for evolution. They were simply postulating that, in the future, the white race, due to having a more technologically advanced civilization, would dominate over other races. In other words, they were applying the theory of biological evolution to social evolution. But so what? It's just common sense that civilizations that are more technologically advanced will dominate over less advanced civilizations. If Great Britain wanted to attack Haiti and take their land, I don't doubt that they would be able to, due to having a technologically superior civilization. It's taboo to say such things, yeah, but it doesn't disprove anything.

But that's besides the point. Darwin believed a lot of things about evolution that were eventually tweaked. Darwin's word is not final on matters of evolution. The evolutionary theory has drastically changed since the time of Darwin as more scientific knowledge is accumulated.

Modern scientists don't even hold to evolution as it was understood by Darwin. For example, Darwin believed in Pangenesis as a mode of heredity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis). After peer review and additional experimentation by Galton, this was refuted, and the theory was tweaked. "Darwinism" isn't held by scientists as a religion. No scientist cites the "supremacy of the white man" as evidence for biological evolution. Evolution is just like any other theory whose parts undergo extensive review and experimentation.

If I were to discover the cure for cancer, and it actually worked, but I later claimed that the cure was proof that aliens existed on Mars, my discovery of the cure wouldn't necessarily be invalidated because of my other claims. The merit of each claim has to be examined individually, on its own.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)