I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-05-2019, 08:25 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 05:19 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.

I read this essay by Pera, and came away with the opposite conclusion.  To me, he seemed to be setting up the argument of "how can one believe in God, because SCIENCE!!"  

Plus, this quote from a secular, atheist philosopher didn't answer the fundamental part of my question: if I believe in God, and believe that he created everything, visible and invisible, what we've discovered and what we have yet to discover, in His own way, how does a theory regarding the method He chose to do so impact my faith?  Contrast that with the statements of a Catholic (not atheist or prot) pope, who said we can believe in the theory of Big Bang, of a not-literal 7 x 24 hour days of creation.

Forgive me if this comes across the wrong way, but it seems almost cocky to accept that God created everything, to include what we call "science", which could help us understand creation to a degree, but we cover our ears and scream, "NO, NO, NO! The universe couldn't have been created some other way despite the clues you've left us...!"

Let us see what the Church ruled dogmatically on the doctrine of Creation? First we had the Lateran Council’s confirmation of it:
    
‘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.
 
Lateran IV opposed the belief:

  1. of the world being eternal, as proposed by many Aristotelians – thus the definition states the world was created in the beginning of time to make clear the exact meaning of finitude.
  1. by the Manichees of the visible material world not being within God’s power, by declaring that “all  visible…things…were created from nothing” de nihilo (i.e. instantly).

  2. that the world was not created solely (unum) by God’s omnipotent power omnipotenti virtute (i.e. without cooperation of instruments) [ like Big Bang evolutionism} as believed by the medieval Neo-Platonists.
These beliefs are precisely those advanced either severally or individually by the theory of evolution or progressive creation. 

Vatican I decreed:

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) ‘This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which he bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.’--- Vatican I.

One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if all evolved bit by bit and continues to evolve. ‘Substance,’ classic philosophy says, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Did the Lord not say His creating was finished on the last day?

Finally the dogma says God FINISHED His creation. Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 07-05-2019, 09:12 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)