I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-13-2019, 05:09 AM)cassini Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 04:38 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(07-10-2019, 09:13 AM)cassini Wrote:  as the creation of new souls is evolutionary nonsense..

I'm curious about this line: Do you not think God creates a soul when a human is conceived?

Of course God creates souls as each human is conceived. But to class them as a continuous part of evolution is one of the weirdest things I have heard. Its no different than what atheists believe, that life is as a result of the evolution of life. Next you will be telling us heaven and hell are also part of evolution.

You claimed "dogma says God FINISHED His creation" is an argument against evolution because "Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing." 

If this were really an argument against evolution or progressive creation, then it would also be an argument against God creating souls with each conception.

But you agree God creates souls with each conception.

Therefore "God FINISHED His creation" is not an argument against evolution or progressive creation.

Do you really not see the logic?
Reply
(07-13-2019, 10:38 AM)Stanis Wrote:
(07-13-2019, 05:09 AM)cassini Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 04:38 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(07-10-2019, 09:13 AM)cassini Wrote:  as the creation of new souls is evolutionary nonsense..

I'm curious about this line: Do you not think God creates a soul when a human is conceived?

Of course God creates souls as each human is conceived. But to class them as a continuous part of evolution is one of the weirdest things I have heard. Its no different than what atheists believe, that life is as a result of the evolution of life. Next you will be telling us heaven and hell are also part of evolution.

You claimed "dogma says God FINISHED His creation" is an argument against evolution because "Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing." 

If this were really an argument against evolution or progressive creation, then it would also be an argument against God creating souls with each conception.

But you agree God creates souls with each conception.

Therefore "God FINISHED His creation" is not an argument against evolution or progressive creation.

Do you really not see the logic?

Seriously Stanis, do you not see the logic.

Evolution is about the material evolution of the world. In His creation God created both flora and fauna to produce.

Anything that God's creation produced belongs to His immediate creation, it does not 'evolve.'

A soul is not a material thing, so cannot evolve. The human baby in conception does not evolve a soul. God gifts it a soul.
Reply
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
Reply
I've gotta admit, what I've read of Fr. Seraphim's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man and Wolfgang Smith's book on traditional cosmology The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology; coupled with the works of the Kolbe Center and conferences by traditionalist Catholic priests on the matter; I no longer view evolution as a scientific possibility. It's just a naturalistic philosophical viewpoint. I mean, metaphysically evolution falls apart pretty quickly when leading proponents of it state that things just arose out of nothingness into something on their own. Which is impossible without a higher principle. Not to mention their skewed reasoning surrounding hierarchy and the natural order of creatures; lower things cannot beget higher things because they cannot give what they lack. An irrational creature cannot beget a rational creature because rationality is not a quality it possesses in and of itself.


Evolution, metaphysically, just does not work. And theistic evolution simply throws God into the works at the expense of the divinely revealed truths of Scripture.

Call me a fundamentalist, but I've come to put a lot more weight into the view of the Church Fathers and Scripture than I can in these modern, worldly philosophies of human origin.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (St. Matt. 7:15)

"In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." -Pope Pius XI., Mortalium Animos
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
I don't think there is any problem with not believing in evolution. I disagree with it fundamentally on three issues; two metaphysical and one natural. 

1.  Evolutionary theory cannot account for the advent of intelligent, rational minds. This is much the same reason you give.
2.  Being a realist, I don't see how one creature can change its essence gradually. This is just an impossibility.
3.  Mechanically, I don't think that evolutionary theory can account for the origin of life (Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, the immense improbability against the formation of life under the perfect conditions, and Stephen Meyer's arguments about DNA as digital information.)

I think that Darwinian evolution has immense problems with it which are mostly swept under the rug because of the theory's "usefulness" for the anti-theistic gang. It really does have knock down power, especially since we have let Protestant fundamentalists and Biblicists to set the stage for the debate. 

There is growing discontent with the theory even among biologists and those who try to speak out are quickly silence. The Inquisition of our days. You're not alone in your doubt of evolutionary biology (right now I am going through the works of the Intelligent Design theorists. I am not saying that I back everything that they say or support them, but I think that their arguments have more merit to them then their puerile critics let on.)

Quote:... coupled with the works of the Kolbe Center and conferences by traditionalist Catholic priests on the matter...

I have come to grow very, very suspicious of the Kolbe Center to say the least. I say this as one who used to be swayed by their arguments. I think that most of them are well-intentioned people but if you dare disagree with them (within the bounds which the Church has set for opinions on this matter, mind you) then you are a modernist and a heretic.

On top of this, I have read some of their literature and I think it is junk science, at best. Just the other day I was reading and article which they have link on their cite affirm the coexistence of dinosaurs and mankind. The author of that article has this to say:

Quote:This brass engraving was made over 500 years ago, and decorates Bishop Bell's tomb in England. The two animals depicted are very unambiguous sauropods, but were probably known to the locals of the time as dragons. The animal on the left has a tail that ends in a spiked club, just like the sauropod Shunosaurus. It's fascinating to consider that these dinosaurs were probably roaming the hillsides of Medieval England!

This is ridiculous. Absolutely no geologist and no historian in his right mind would support this view. And, unless we are going to admit Beowulf or King Arthur, there is no historical evidence for enourmous reptiles"roaming the hillsides of Medieval England!"

Quote:Call me a fundamentalist...

You fundamentalist  :huh: :P
[-] The following 3 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
(09-13-2019, 08:57 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: I don't think there is any problem with not believing in evolution.

I had to add some sort of disclaimer, because there really seems to be a lot of confusion regarding evolution in some traditionalist circles. Especially the neo-Thomists who believe that evolution can somehow fit into a Thomistic worldview (I guess it could if you completely gut essences from it).

A theological point which I came across in Fr. Seraphim's book which swayed me into a "hard" creationist camp is the point he made regarding the state of the world before the Fall, and how it is impossible for modern science to obtain an accurate picture of that time period because the physical laws of creation would have been fundamentally different than they are today. And this is a solid theological point mainly due to the fact that physical creation was made perfect and incorrupt. The introduction of sin and corruption into the word with the subsequent ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise into fleshly bodies fundamentally transforms the necessary physical laws of the universe from something perfectly ordered and unchanging to where everything is in a state of consistent decay over time.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (St. Matt. 7:15)

"In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." -Pope Pius XI., Mortalium Animos
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
Apropos the topic of this thread. This is the quote from 'A Chesterton Calendar' for tomorrow, 14 September:

SEPTEMBER 14th

I never said a word against eminent men of science. What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the Fall of Man, they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now they talk about the survival of the fittest: they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean.
'The Club of Queer Trades.'

Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
(09-13-2019, 10:38 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 08:57 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: I don't think there is any problem with not believing in evolution.

I had to add some sort of disclaimer, because there really seems to be a lot of confusion regarding evolution in some traditionalist circles. Especially the neo-Thomists who believe that evolution can somehow fit into a Thomistic worldview (I guess it could if you completely gut essences from it).

I think that it is the idea of an essence/nature that really solidifies my rejection of Darwinian evolution. They would of course argue that evolution proves that there are no essences, but really that puts the cart before the horse.

The dominant view today among the scientific community is materialism. Every major scientific discovery is going to be interpreted with this philosophic presupposition. 

Quote:A theological point which I came across in Fr. Seraphim's book which swayed me into a "hard" creationist camp is the point he made regarding the state of the world before the Fall, and how it is impossible for modern science to obtain an accurate picture of that time period because the physical laws of creation would have been fundamentally different than they are today. And this is a solid theological point mainly due to the fact that physical creation was made perfect and incorrupt. The introduction of sin and corruption into the word with the subsequent ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise into fleshly bodies fundamentally transforms the necessary physical laws of the universe from something perfectly ordered and unchanging to where everything is in a state of consistent decay over time.

I'll have to confess ignorance of the theological arguments that Fr. Seraphim makes but I have a problem with this proposition. 

It seems very hard for me to believe that the sin of mankind would vastly alter the order God has woven into the universe. Also, if this were the case then it would seem to make God out to be some sort of a trickster. He has given mankind a reason and intellect to know things about the universe that he inhabits but that universe is set up deceptively. 

The second thing I have a problem with is this 

Quote:with the subsequent ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise into fleshly bodies

What precisely are you saying here? Are you saying that Adam and Even did not have bodies made of flesh before the fall? Are you just saying that we have fallen nature? Which is it?
Reply
(09-14-2019, 10:13 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: I'll have to confess ignorance of the theological arguments that Fr. Seraphim makes but I have a problem with this proposition. 

It seems very hard for me to believe that the sin of mankind would vastly alter the order God has woven into the universe. Also, if this were the case then it would seem to make God out to be some sort of a trickster. He has given mankind a reason and intellect to know things about the universe that he inhabits but that universe is set up deceptively. 
It's a result of a change in nature, which is exactly what sin does. Thorns and brambles were not something present in Paradise, but once Adam and Eve fell, then they were introduced through a corruption of the nature of things due to sin.


Quote:The second thing I have a problem with is this 

Quote:with the subsequent ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise into fleshly bodies

What precisely are you saying here? Are you saying that Adam and Even did not have bodies made of flesh before the fall? Are you just saying that we have fallen nature? Which is it?

It comes from an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 3:21 by St. Gregory of Nyssa in On the Soul and Resurrection: 
"He [Gregory] interprets them [the garments] in a figurative sense, associating them with "such accretions [as] sexual intercourse, conception, partition, impurities, suckling, feeding, evacuation, gradual growth to full size, prime of life, old age, disease, and death."

Further, 'garments of skin's can refer to the passions as well in St. Gregory's On Those Who Have Fallen Asleep: "The garments of skin have all the properties belonging to an irrational nature: pleasure, anger, gluttony, greed, and similar tendencies which allow man to choose between virtue and evil."

Therefore, my use of "fleshly" has much more to do with the scriptural sense of the "flesh" meaning concupiscence rather than referring to their actual physical bodies, which they undeniably possessed in Paradise.

The Fall had a fundamental effect on not just the spiritual state of man, but the essences of all created things as corruption and death entered the world through Adam.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (St. Matt. 7:15)

"In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." -Pope Pius XI., Mortalium Animos
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Florus
Reply
Quote:meaning concupiscence rather than referring to their actual physical bodies, which they undeniably possessed in Paradise.

Good to clarify. Your post was a little ambiguous out what "fleshly" meant.

I'm going to have to disagree with St. Gregory's interpretation, at least certain aspects of it.
Sexual intercourse, conception, suckling and feeding are all perfectly natural and good things. We know this from the Genesis account of creation and other passages of Scripture. 

Obviously sin didn't give men and women their respective genetalia, or women breasts. And I would have every reason to think Adam had canine teeth and a stomach. 

And even the passions are natural to man. They just need to be controlled and regulated. Anger, desire, hunger, and fear are natural to us. It is whem the passion is allowed to dominate amd the intellect is made the servant of the will that things become problematic. 

And maybe I am in the wrong about this, but I firmly disagree with that interpretation of what the fall did to nature. I think thorns and brambles are natural and part of God's creation. 

It seems relevant to say that this gives sin the power to "evolve" new plants and animals.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)