Evolution conflict and division

[Mercy Shown]

It hardly needs to be pointed out that a loving Creator would not subject innocent animals to suffering and death, because a man and a woman disobeyed Him.

No, a creator wouldn’t but the man and woman would.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You're still resisting the fact that God can use contingency to effect His will.

So it was only possible that mankind would be the result of all the violence but not certian.

For a Christian, God is completely involved with every bit of creation. The laws that drive natural selection exist only as long as He wills them to.

Faith is for God. Science is for the physical universe. Which is why Newton and Darwin asserted a Creator, but did not insert Him into their theories.

You overstate Darwin’s actual position on this. As I’m sure you’re aware, Darwin became an agnostic.

Since the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that say evolution is consistent with the Bible, yours is a minority viewpoint. It certainly isn't an issue that determines your salvation, of course.

This is quite meaningless. Truth is not determined by the number of people who hold to a position.

 

[The Barbarian]

So it was only possible that mankind would be the result of all the violence but not certian.

If you think God can't use contingency, maybe so. But of course, He can.

You overstate Darwin’s actual position on this.

Well, let's take a look...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

No way to dodge that.

Since the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that say evolution is consistent with the Bible, yours is a minority viewpoint. It certainly isn't an issue that determines your salvation, of course.

This is quite meaningless.

Not if you trust Jesus.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Majority isn't always right. But if you set yourself against His Church, that's a mistake. At very least, you see that better theologicans than you or I disagree with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

It hardly needs to be pointed out that a loving Creator would not subject innocent animals to suffering and death, because a man and a woman disobeyed Him.

No, a creator wouldn’t but the man and woman would.

So Adam and Eve forced God to subject countless innocent animals to suffering and death? No I don't think so. God is Lord, not Adam.

 

[Mercy Shown]

It hardly needs to be pointed out that a loving Creator would not subject innocent animals to suffering and death, because a man and a woman disobeyed Him.


So Adam and Eve forced God to subject countless innocent animals to suffering and death? No I don't think so. God is Lord, not Adam

You are unfamiliar with Romans?

 

[Mercy Shown]

If you think God can't use contingency, maybe so. But of course, He can.

Well, let's take a look...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

No way to dodge that.

Of course there is no need to dodge anything. You should study Darwin’s life and private correspondence rather than camp on this single quote. You’d be surprised if you did.

Since the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that say evolution is consistent with the Bible, yours is a minority viewpoint. It certainly isn't an issue that determines your salvation, of course.


Not if you trust Jesus.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Majority isn't always right. But if you set yourself against His Church, that's a mistake. At very least, you see that better theologicans than you or I disagree with you.

You mean the Catholic Church?

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course there is no need to dodge anything. You should study Darwin’s life and private correspondence rather than camp on this single quote.

It was Darwin's mind when he wrote On the Origin of Species. Which is what matters, after all. His crisis of faith happened after the death of a beloved young daughter, much later.

Since the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that say evolution is consistent with the Bible, yours is a minority viewpoint. It certainly isn't an issue that determines your salvation, of course.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Majority isn't always right. But if you set yourself against His Church, that's a mistake. At very least, you see that better theologians than you or I disagree with you.

You mean the Catholic Church?

And the Eastern Orthodox churches. And the Anglicans. And all of the Lutherans, absent the Missouri Synod, and many others. Yours is a minority view among Christians.

 

[The Barbarian]

It hardly needs to be pointed out that a loving Creator would not subject innocent animals to suffering and death, because a man and a woman disobeyed Him.

No, a creator wouldn’t but the man and woman would.

You are unfamiliar with Romans?

Romans doesn't say what you want it to say, either:
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Nothing at all about God subjecting animals to agony and death because of Adam. It's not something a just and good God would do. Adam and Eve did not force God to do these things. He is the omnipotent creator, eternal and good. The pains of childbirth are not a time to mourn, but to celebrate, as most women do. even while there is pain.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Romans doesn't say what you want it to say, either:
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Nothing at all about God subjecting animals to agony and death because of Adam. It's not something a just and good God would do. Adam and Eve did not force God to do these things. He is the omnipotent creator, eternal and good. The pains of childbirth are not a time to mourn, but to celebrate, as most women do. even while there is pain.

.... the good thing in this set of concerns about 'innocent animals' is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt no animals were harmed in the production of the skins which God gave Adam and Eve to wear. Right?

Yeah, somehow I don't believe that no animals suffered in that story. Not for a second. I also don't believe that animals were pain free or immortal before "the Fall."

 

[Mercy Shown]

Romans doesn't say what you want it to say, either:
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Nothing at all about God subjecting animals to agony and death because of Adam. It's not something a just and good God would do. Adam and Eve did not force God to do these things. He is the omnipotent creator, eternal and good. The pains of childbirth are not a time to mourn, but to celebrate, as most women do. even while there is pain.

Verse 19 “For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.”

As you can see creation is personified as waiting, craning its neck. “Creation” here means the non-human world: earth, animals, ecosystems, the physical cosmos. “Children of God to be revealed” refers to the final unveiling of who God’s people truly are—resurrected, glorified, restored. Human redemption and cosmic renewal are linked. Creation’s fate is tied to ours.

Verse 21 “…that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” This is one of the strongest biblical affirmations of cosmic redemption. Human's had dominion over the earth so when they fell their entire domain fell.

 

[Mercy Shown]

It was Darwin's mind when he wrote On the Origin of Species. Which is what matters, after all. His crisis of faith happened after the death of a beloved young daughter, much later.

Since the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that say evolution is consistent with the Bible, yours is a minority viewpoint. It certainly isn't an issue that determines your salvation, of course.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Majority isn't always right. But if you set yourself against His Church, that's a mistake. At very least, you see that better theologians than you or I disagree with you.


And the Eastern Orthodox churches. And the Anglicans. And all of the Lutherans, absent the Missouri Synod, and many others. Yours is a minority view among Christians.

Not a problem. The mixture of putting the biblical narrative downstream from science while at the same time holding science down stream from the church's extremely unscientific traditions is dissonance.
Things like the resurrection, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc. It is a very hodge-podge set of lets-go-with-science to no-lets-go-with-church-tradition.

You will discover that truth is never determined by having a majority. If that were the case Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.

 

[o_mlly]

You've confused theism with deism. Deism would be an issue with that, but not theistic evolution.

Deflection again? St. Thomas was not a Deist. Try again.

Your denial is simply refuted by the facts. Read the book and learn how Thomism is consistent with evolution. You may try again to refute St. Tom, but it's a futile effort. Better theologians than you and I disagree with you.

? I do not refute St. Thomas as I cited the Summa as my source. Deal with the primary source before googling what others might have to offer.

It also seems you do not read your own citations. An "imaginative" interpretation of St. Thomas' Summa is not as genuine as a literal one.

You might also want to read Communion and Stewardship; Human Persons Created in the Image of God by the International Theological Commission:
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

No problems with the title. What do you think is in the piece that refutes the Summa?

And maybe read a little more of Aquinas; you seem to have missed a great deal.

Possibly. However, it appears you may have missed even more ... like De pot., q. 3, a. 4. "Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature?"

Hence according to the Catholic Faith we hold that God immediately created all spiritual substances and corporeal matter, and deem it heresy to say that anything was created by an angel or by any creature. … Certain Catholic writers, however, have maintained that, although no creature can create, it could be granted to a creature that God should create a thing through its instrumentality. The Master favours this opinion (IV., D. 5). Some on the other hand hold that the creative act cannot in any sense be communicated to a creature: and this is the more common opinion.​

​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deflection again? St. Thomas was not a Deist. Try again.

? I do not refute St. Thomas as I cited the Summa as my source. Deal with the primary source before googling what others might have to offer.

It also seems you do not read your own citations. An "imaginative" interpretation of St. Thomas' Summa is not as genuine as a literal one.

No problems with the title. What do you think is in the piece that refutes the Summa?

Possibly. However, it appears you may have missed even more ... like De pot., q. 3, a. 4. "Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature?"

Hence according to the Catholic Faith we hold that God immediately created all spiritual substances and corporeal matter, and deem it heresy to say that anything was created by an angel or by any creature. … Certain Catholic writers, however, have maintained that, although no creature can create, it could be granted to a creature that God should create a thing through its instrumentality. The Master favours this opinion (IV., D. 5). Some on the other hand hold that the creative act cannot in any sense be communicated to a creature: and this is the more common opinion.​

​

So, what do you make of the fine folks at The Thomistic Institute? Are they all heretics and misusing the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, in your estimation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not a problem. The mixture of putting the biblical narrative downstream from science while at the same time holding science down stream from the church's extremely unscientific traditions is dissonance.
Things like the resurrection, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc. It is a very hodge-podge set of lets-go-with-science to no-lets-go-with-church-tradition.

You will discover that truth is never determined by having a majority. If that were the case Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.

I don't have any dissonance when applying something like Stephen J. Gould's Non-overlapping magisteria, especially when I apply Critical Analysis to both the sciences and the Bible by focusing on the fields of Historiography, The Philosophy of History, Archaeology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and the Philosophy of Science.

But hey, if you want to believe in a literal 7 day creation and generally ignore science, go ahead. I'm not the one who is going to tell you not to.

 

[Job 33:6]

He's just on a heretic hunt at this point, and due to this, I won't be commenting any further in this thread. The anti-intellectualism of some people who claim to be Christian is astounding to me.....

Nothing new under the sun.

But I would reframe it. The hunters have become the hunted. And they don't stand a chance.

 

[The Barbarian]

You've confused theism with deism. Deism would be an issue with that, but not theistic evolution.

St. Thomas was not a Deist.

Deflection again? St. Thomas was a theist, which is why evolutionary theory would not be a problem for him. As you see, the theistic outlook of Thomist theology is consistent with theistic evolution.

I do not refute St. Thomas as I cited the Summa as my source.

And yet you disagree with his conclusions.

An "imaginative" interpretation of St. Thomas' Summa is not as genuine as a literal one.

My point precisely:

So, what do you make of the fine folks at The Thomistic Institute? Are they all heretics and misusing the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, in your estimation?

Possibly. However, it appears you may have missed even more ... like De pot., q. 3, a. 4. "Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature?"
Hence according to the Catholic Faith we hold that God immediately created all spiritual substances and corporeal matter, and deem it heresy to say that anything was created by an angel or by any creature. … Certain Catholic writers, however, have maintained that, although no creature can create, it could be granted to a creature that God should create a thing through its instrumentality. The Master favours this opinion (IV., D. 5). Some on the other hand hold that the creative act cannot in any sense be communicated to a creature: and this is the more common opinion.

And here, you've veered off into deism, again. Theism would be accepting that God (for example) created the Earth to bring forth living things, as He tells us in Genesis. Why not accept it as it is.

The hunters have become the hunted. And they don't stand a chance.

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not a problem. The mixture of putting the biblical narrative downstream from science

That's something some IDers do, not real scientists or Christians.

while at the same time holding science down stream from the church's extremely unscientific traditions is dissonance.

Which is why Newton, Darwin, and other great scientists didn't address God at all in their theories. You're close to something important here.

Things like the resurrection, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc. It is a very hodge-podge set of lets-go-with-science to no-lets-go-with-church-tradition.

Would be, if Newton, Darwin, et al actually did that. But as you see, they did not. You've confused a very useful method with faith and doctrine. Which is why ID is so hodge-podgey.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is this not just open to anyone's interpretation.

Of course it us. We all have the responsibility to discern for ourselves what makes most sense to us and then to honestly and authentically live it out as best we can.

There are so many voices out there claiming to have THE correct interpretation. They cannot all be right on everything. Nor should any of us try to live something we do not believe.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Of course it us. We all have the responsibility to discern for ourselves what makes most sense to us and then to honestly and authentically live it out as best we can.

There are so many voices out there claiming to have THE correct interpretation. They cannot all be right on everything. Nor should any of us try to live something we do not believe.

You can die following what you believe. "Give me that screw driver. Don't worry, I flipped the breaker..."

 

[Mercy Shown]

That's something some IDers do, not real scientists or Christians.

Of course many Christians do. Should we put science down stream from the bible? Yes, if you are an atheist.

Which is why Newton, Darwin, and other great scientists didn't address God at all in their theories. You're close to something important here.

Newton's entire work was undergirded by his belief in God.
In Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or Principia, Isaac Newton's 1687 masterpiece that laid the foundation for classical mechanics, introducing his three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation in a unified mathematical framework he wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
— Principia Mathematica, General Scholium (1713)

Darwin inserted his quote about God being the creator in the 2nd edition his most famous tome, On the Origin of Species to appease critics, though in his private writings he hinted at a naturalistic origin of life, seeing the "Creator" as a metaphor for the initial laws that set life in motion rather than a direct intervener. This addition allowed for a divine origin of a few primordial forms from which all life evolved, fitting with the idea of a law-abiding universe, but it didn't reflect his deeper belief in a fully naturalistic process for life's emergence, which he explored in other documents.

Would be, if Newton, Darwin, et al actually did that. But as you see, they did not. You've confused a very useful method with faith and doctrine. Which is why ID is so hodge-podgey.

As you can see, you were incorrect in your assumption.