The pope recently made statements about evolution that raised eyebrows in the media. Yet the RCC has held these views for some fifty years. I remember grappling with the evolutionary implications to the Gospel as a teenager, and being dissatisfied with the answers I received from my priest.
When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But that is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and arrive at their fullness of being. … And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. ~ Pope Francis (Emphasis mine)
One wonders what the pope means by "magus" and "magic wand." Is he really placing limitations on a God who created the universe ex nihilo? What does that say about the other dogmas supported by the R.C.C.?
One serious problem I've had with the R.C.C. - and especially this pope - is in comprehending its expansive and ambiguous language. At least one cardinal has recently admitted that:
"I'm sure he's [Pope Francis] not confused, himself. It's confusing for a lot of people, including myself at times. For someone who appreciates clarity I would like to get a few things clear so I can cooperate."
Creation Ministries International has responded to the pope HERE
In light of all this I found the following C.M.I. review of Fr. Victor P. Warkulwiz's book on creation fascinating. Here is an excerpt:
Blending this diversity of fields, Fr Warkulwiz has written a 519 page book not only on the scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added a lot of history, philosophy, and theology. The book consists of 16 doctrines derived from Genesis 1–11, such as God created the world from nothing, God created each thing in the world immediately, God created each living creature according to its kind, God created the world in six natural days, God created the world several thousand years ago, the whole human species descended form the first man and woman and God destroyed the world that was with a worldwide Flood. He quotes extensively from the early and medieval fathers of the church, especially Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. He drives home the main point that traditional Catholic teaching has always been young-earth creationism. It is only under the influence of the so-called Enlightenment that Catholic theologians and scholars have strayed. The influence of evolution culminated in the teachings of Jesuit priest, Pièrre Teilhard de Chardin, who mesmerized numerous Catholics to believe in evolution with his ‘theological fiction’.
Read it HERE
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Saturday, July 12, 2014
A Universe from Nothing?
A Creation Ministries International review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book:
Atheists insist that all of nature can be explained on its own terms without invoking a supernatural creator. Some argue, as does Lawrence Krauss in his recent book A Universe from Nothing, that modern science has now made it plausible that space-time, matter-energy, and even the universe can emerge from nothing. As we shall see, these ideas are self-contradictory and not aligned with current thinking—even in the secular scientific community—concerning the possibility of a universe existing in the eternal past...keep reading
Atheists insist that all of nature can be explained on its own terms without invoking a supernatural creator. Some argue, as does Lawrence Krauss in his recent book A Universe from Nothing, that modern science has now made it plausible that space-time, matter-energy, and even the universe can emerge from nothing. As we shall see, these ideas are self-contradictory and not aligned with current thinking—even in the secular scientific community—concerning the possibility of a universe existing in the eternal past...keep reading
Saturday, January 11, 2014
One response to Darwin's Doubt
I thought this was a great article. Note what Rev. James Miller says about hostile reviewers:
Excerpt:
So here's how I find my way into a conversation on subjects that are not my primary field of study. I read the reviews that are antagonistic to the source and just look at the logic that's employed. I find that this often gives me the best read on a work. If the critics are sincere, the reviews are usually precise.
The New Yorker's review began with a genetic fallacy, presented arguments that Meyer had refuted without mentioning that Meyer had addressed them, and then deferred to another blogger for the scientific content of the review. It then called Meyer "absurd," which, given how shoddy the review actually is, was an absurd thing to do.
Then I read the review from which the New Yorker piece got its "science," which was actually written by a grad student at Berkeley. Now I have to say that Berkeley is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise, and I know exactly how Berkeley grad students go about their "work." Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I'm not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That's what we did.
What's interesting about the grad student's review is that it was posted 24 hours after the release of Meyer's book, and it's filled with snark. He's not having an intelligent conversation, he's insulting Meyer in order to defend something religiously. In a later, defensive review, the grad student says that he read the book "during lunch." He read over 400 pages of scientific material during lunch, and then posted an insulting review...keep reading
Excerpt:
So here's how I find my way into a conversation on subjects that are not my primary field of study. I read the reviews that are antagonistic to the source and just look at the logic that's employed. I find that this often gives me the best read on a work. If the critics are sincere, the reviews are usually precise.
The New Yorker's review began with a genetic fallacy, presented arguments that Meyer had refuted without mentioning that Meyer had addressed them, and then deferred to another blogger for the scientific content of the review. It then called Meyer "absurd," which, given how shoddy the review actually is, was an absurd thing to do.
Then I read the review from which the New Yorker piece got its "science," which was actually written by a grad student at Berkeley. Now I have to say that Berkeley is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise, and I know exactly how Berkeley grad students go about their "work." Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I'm not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That's what we did.
What's interesting about the grad student's review is that it was posted 24 hours after the release of Meyer's book, and it's filled with snark. He's not having an intelligent conversation, he's insulting Meyer in order to defend something religiously. In a later, defensive review, the grad student says that he read the book "during lunch." He read over 400 pages of scientific material during lunch, and then posted an insulting review...keep reading
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Touching On Evolution & Hermeneutics
I’ve already mentioned that I was raised in the RCC. My first years were spent being taught by the nuns and I must admit they actually did a fine work of presenting the Gospel message to me and I understood Christ died for my sins, and that He was my savior. It was there I was taught that the OT sacrifices – especially the Abraham-Isaac story – pictured Christ’s future sacrifice. It was also there I was taught a literal Adam and Eve.
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
