Where did the body of Eve come from in 'catholic' evolution?
#41
(04-14-2017, 11:04 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: I am convinced that Holy Mother Church should simply to dispense with evolution entirely; proclaim it a damnable doctrine. I am repulsed by the notion that the Church's authority extends only infallibly to faith and morals. What about the temporal powers of the Papacy? And, more importantly, if a "scientific" doctrine absolutely contradicts Sacred Scripture and tradition, it must be suppressed, and those who teach it reprimanded.

Evolution, I think, is heresy. Let us hope, in the coming years, it will receive its deathblow, and be returned to its father the devil in due time.

>:(

I've always heard papal infallibility explained as God preventing the Pope from teaching as true something that is an error.  God does not infuse knowledge into the Pope so that he can teach something.  If this is correct, then I don't see why it would be a problem to believe that his infallibility is restricted to faith and morals.  The reality is the Pope is a spiritual leader.  His temporal powers are a medieval human invention, not inherent in the keys given to him by Christ.  Given that, I wouldn't want to get my science from someone who has no training in it any more than I'd want to have my brain operated on by a urologist.  Science is outside of the Pope's scope of practice. 

It's one thing to suggest that even the trained scientists are fallible and may have made mistakes.  It's quite another to shun scientific insight altogether when it suggests things we'd rather not believe.  If the traditional Catholic teaching is scientifically accurate, then it should welcome scientific debate and the opportunity to publicly prove as false the "pseudo-science" of evolution or heliocentrism.  To merely proclaim scientific theories as heresies of faith (an oxymoronic position, since the realms of knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive) does a disservice to the Church; it paints it not in a light of correct understanding, but one of sheepishly holding onto superstitious beliefs that can't stand up to reason.
Reply
#42
(04-15-2017, 09:35 AM)delsydebothom Wrote: This is my take on what I think probably happened. It is based largely on repeated reading of many Catholic philosophers and theologians, including St. Augustine, but I am altogether to blame for this exposition. If it is faulty, it is my fault. There’s that then.

Prior to the creation of humankind, the universe operated as a sort of cosmic Rube Goldberg machine. Its components, most of which would have existed only tacitly in the universe’s original conditions, were created "omnia simul".  Immediately, this is the “day” "in quo fecit Dominus Deus terram et caelum". This movement from naught to the ordered cosmos, from nothing to something, is a sort of movement from darkness to light, from evening to morning. Wisdom prevails against the abyss, and brings about a great work which, wonder of wonders, is endowed even with the capacity to build itself. It participates not only in God’s Being, but shares in part his causal nature as well.  “Nature,” says St. Thomas, “is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.”

Hidden within this great “metaday”—folded, as it were, within its deepest identity—are the six subordinate “days” of creation, as well as the seventh of rest. Though the fruits of these days emerge in a sequence of time, the days themselves are not temporal. This is why they can be called both one “day” and a “week”. The six days of creation are concurrent with one another, brought into existence together at the first instant of creation. It would simply take some time for the Rube Goldberg machine to run through its sequence far enough to explicate these implicit days. At this point, if there is any intervention from a spirit, it seems less likely to me that it would be the spirit of God. More likely would be attempts on the part of the devils and his angels to meddle. Without direct evidence that such is the case, though, any claim that such a thing occurred would be a guess. Regardless, biological evolution appears to be one of the powers God folded into the nature of his creation. 

At some point in the past—I suppose about 70 "Platonic Years" before the incarnation of our Lord—creation had produced, by means of the powers God had given it “in principio”, a body capable of sustaining the gift of a rational soul. This guessed timeframe sits on the basis of evidence that leads me to believe tentatively that Homo Erectus had a rational soul.  Homo Erectus appears in his "stable" state around 1,800,000 solar years ago. Also, it is rather seemly, I think; 70=7x10, which whimsical fancy might suppose indicates the fullness of the time of the Law.

In any case, I think a Homo Erectus became the vehicle through which God did  “exalt” man’s nature “very wonderfully”, as our offertory prayers commemorate. His body—as it were, just ordinary red earth like our own—had been brought into existence by the powers God had given nature for that purpose. Adam's nature, though, was a miraculous creation, a divine "in-spiring" that made man a rational animal and gave him an eternal destiny. 

However, in light of certain famous responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it seems to me that the miraculous production of the first woman from Adam’s side is still what we ought to believe. I can’t think of any rational roadblock to believing this. When mere men can take parts of other men and grow them into organs, what possibly could prevent God from building a person out of living human tissue? Dearest Mother Eve was made to grow from Adam's body, signifying how the Church would grow from Christ's.

In 1860, one year after Darwin’s evolution theses, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, approved by Pope Pius IX:

‘Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen. 2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Catholic Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived from spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.’

So much for your 'Catholic' theory of evolutionary man delsydebothom.

Moreover, the theory of homo erectus being used by God to create 'man in God's image' (God like a monkey-man) never tells us if God used a living homo or a dead homo's body. Here of course we have the possible theory of two souls, homo's animal soul and the human one zapped by God. This two souled Adam of course is long condemned too, at the 8th general copuncil of constantinople 869-870.

Here is more Church teaching that eliminates evolution

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) --- Vatican I.

Surely it is obvious that evolutionism is a heresy because it contradicts, rejects and ignores the dogma of immediate creation of all creatures defined in the Fourth Lateran Council and confirmed at Vatican I. If all things were created whole ‘at once’ how could the creation of all things have evolved over 15 billion years and continue to evolve? One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe is an evolving mass of atoms, if life began by inanimate matter evolving into a single cell, or if a man was once a gorilla. ‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind,’ the stars as stars, a mammal as a mammal, a fish as a fish, a bird as a bird, and a human as a human.
Reply
#43
(04-16-2017, 04:02 PM)cassini Wrote: Surely it is obvious that evolutionism is a heresy because it contradicts, rejects and ignores the dogma of immediate creation of all creatures defined in the Fourth Lateran Council and confirmed at Vatican I. If all things were created whole ‘at once’ how could the creation of all things have evolved over 15 billion years and continue to evolve? One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe is an evolving mass of atoms, if life began by inanimate matter evolving into a single cell, or if a man was once a gorilla. ‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind,’ the stars as stars, a mammal as a mammal, a fish as a fish, a bird as a bird, and a human as a human.

All disagreement on evolution aside, would you mind not saying things like this?  No evolutionist believes that man came from a monkey or a chimp or a gorilla, any more than they believe that they personally came from their 1st, 2nd or 17th cousin.  Even if, for the sake of argument, your are absolutely correct on your position of how life, and individual forms of life, came into existence, when you represent the evolutionist argument as humans descending from a currently existing animal species, you make it sound like you have no idea what you're arguing against.  To an evolutionist, when you suggest that they believe humans descended from monkeys, you're making the biological equivalent to them of suggesting that X person is as bad as Hitler.  Even if you are actually correct, you've already lost the argument in the eyes of the people you're trying to convince, and as passionate as you are about this subject, I doubt it is your goal to smash people in arguments rather than to convert them to the truth.
Reply
#44
Quote:"In 1860, one year after Darwin’s evolution theses, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, approved by Pope Pius IX:

‘Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen. 2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Catholic Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived from spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.’

So much for your 'Catholic' theory of evolutionary man delsydebothom."

I don't believe the condemned proposition, nor does my scenario imply disagreement with this canon. Firstly, I don't believe in spontaneous transformation; biological evolution operates according to a definite, rational mechanism. Despite protests to the contrary, the very way evolutionists describe the mechanism screams that we are dealing with a teleological reality. Indeed, were it not so, it would be impossible for it to be discerned at all. Secondly, I don't think the body "improved continually" until it reached the present human state, or to any human state at all. Man is a rational animal. Reason is immaterial. You cannot make an immaterial thing out of matter. Ergo, whether the body of a Homo Erectus was used or not, Adam along with his entire nature was created immediately by God.

Quote:Moreover, the theory of homo erectus being used by God to create 'man in God's image' (God like a monkey-man) never tells us if God used a living homo or a dead homo's body. Here of course we have the possible theory of two souls, homo's animal soul and the human one zapped by God. This two souled Adam of course is long condemned too, at the 8th general copuncil of constantinople 869-870.

No, in neither case would there be two souls. If the Homo Erectus in this scenario were alive, the powers of its animal soul would be incorporated into the new creation, but the animating principle of the body, the human soul, will have entirely changed. The "cosmic meaning", as it were, of the kind of body a Homo Erectus had will have changed altogether. The substantial form of the new creation would be one and one only, no matter what the metabolic condition of the body was beforehand.

Quote:Here is more Church teaching that eliminates evolution

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) --- Vatican I.

There is nothing in what I have said that denies either of these things. Indeed, in regards to the latter, one might rightly ask, "Well, what else *could* God have done?" There was nothing out of which things could be produced, so of course he had to produce them from nothing. That doesn't mean that their subsequent effects are produced immediately from nothing.

Quote:Surely it is obvious that evolutionism is a heresy because it contradicts, rejects and ignores the dogma of immediate creation of all creatures defined in the Fourth Lateran Council and confirmed at Vatican I.

No, it doesn't, any more than the sequential growth of a flower does.

Quote:If all things were created whole ‘at once’ how could the creation of all things have evolved over 15 billion years and continue to evolve?

St. Augustine addresses this in his work "De genesi ad litteram". I am not suggesting, of course, that he conceived of the present-day theory of evolution, but he nonetheless enunciated clearly applicable principles vis-à-vis natural processes. The short of it is this: God created all things in a single instant by incorporating into nature the power to produce them in that instant. The existed in potential, long before being reduced into act. God gives nature its capacity to reduce the potential into act. This is old-fashioned vanilla Catholic philosophy: a given thing must exist potentially before it ever actually exists. God created all things, whole and entire with all their parts, immediately and from nothing. However the movement in their existence from potential being to actual being took place sequentially in time.

Quote:One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe is an evolving mass of atoms, if life began by inanimate matter evolving into a single cell, or if a man was once a gorilla.

Everything obeys the laws of God; nothing is truly random, but is guided by the providential design with which God has endowed it.

Every man, including Adam in my hypothetical scenario, was always a man. However, the gorilla analogy brings something to mind. Say a gorilla dies, decays, and in the soil to which it returned there is planted an apple tree. Apples grow, drawing from the tree's roots matter from the soil--some of which is part of that gorilla. Now, it isn't a gorilla anymore, of course. But then, I am saying that the body ensouled by God is no longer an irrational animal, aren't I? But I digress! The gorilla has, in a certain remote sense, "become" an apple. If I then eat the apple, the gorilla has "become" a man. Or, let's say I simply firmly poke the gorilla with a sharpish stick, and it responds by expiring. I think roast it and eat it, and part of the gorilla becomes part of me.

But, of course, no one thinks a gorilla became a man. Well, maybe someone does, but such a person wouldn't be relevant to this discussion. 

Quote:‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind,’ the stars as stars, a mammal as a mammal, a fish as a fish, a bird as a bird, and a human as a human.

Yes, "substance" means the underlying reality by means of which a given thing is the thing it is.

"Kind" is a categorical word. In a broad sense, I am the same "kind" of thing as a rock; I and a rock, that is, are material objects. In an even broader sense, I, a rock, and an angel are of the same "kind"; we are the kind of thing called "created being". This is a bit too broad to be useful in most cases, though. Regardless, the fact that things propagate after their kinds does not mean that they haven't the capacity, on occasion, to produce something else. This wouldn't occur unless some external pressure actualized the potential (since a thing cannot be both cause and effect with regards to own itself). This happens with languages, too; while our limited capacity to recognize thresholds makes it difficult to point to the moment at which Italian was no longer Latin, there nevertheless was a point at which Italian was born from the elements of Latin, and ceased to have the substantial form of Latin.

And, of course, I am not even arguing this is analogous to what happened when Adam was made, whatever the origin of his body. Adam was a miracle, because his existence as a rational animal required a miracle. On the other hand, there is no reason to posit that the emergence of each kind of organism required a separate miracle; in their case, it is enough to posit that when God created the universe, he included their natures within it tacitly, and gave this universe the power to bring about their visible emergence "ab initio". Positing multiple miracles requires that we explain what we see with many principles rather than a few, which is contrary to the principle of parsimony. 

I am reminded of something William of Conches said: "[They say] 'We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.' You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so." In short: don't assume extra miracles where they aren't needed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)