Belief in evolution negates belief in the inerrant Word of God - Crusaders of the Immaculate Heart2024-03-28T23:26:38Zhttps://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/belief-in-evolution-negates-belief-in-the-inerrant-word-of-god?commentId=5691517%3AComment%3A214636&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHi, Mark, I'm sorry I don't r…tag:op54rosary.ning.com,2014-11-03:5691517:Comment:2146362014-11-03T02:51:45.595ZSue Khttps://op54rosary.ning.com/profile/SusanKephart
<p>Hi, Mark, I'm sorry I don't really have time to follow up your remarks; I'm getting ready for a 7 week trip.<br></br>I know a little about all this through my husband, who is, truly, a scholar; his expertise is philosophy, theology and the natural sciences. He wanted to be able to refute modern errors of science (most of which actually have their beginnings in the Greek 'philosophers') to defend the faith.<br></br>Robert Sungenis does a great job refuting heliocentric 'theory'. You can find him on…</p>
<p>Hi, Mark, I'm sorry I don't really have time to follow up your remarks; I'm getting ready for a 7 week trip.<br/>I know a little about all this through my husband, who is, truly, a scholar; his expertise is philosophy, theology and the natural sciences. He wanted to be able to refute modern errors of science (most of which actually have their beginnings in the Greek 'philosophers') to defend the faith.<br/>Robert Sungenis does a great job refuting heliocentric 'theory'. You can find him on the web. Solange Hertz has a good paper on that topic, also.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://archive.org/stream/catechismonmoder00lemiuoft/catechismonmoder00lemiuoft_djvu.txt" target="_blank">Catechism on Modernism</a> is a super little book explaining Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Here is an example of the errors of modernist theologians: </p>
<pre>A. Around this primitive formula secondary formulas, as We have already indicated, gradually come to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into one body, or one doctrinal construction, and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. Q. Do the Modernists distinguish dogma from theo logical speculations ? A. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians. </pre>
<pre>Q. Of what use are these theological speculations ? A. Although not alive with the life of dogma, these are not without their utility as serving both to <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>harmonize religion with science and to remove opposition between them</strong></span>, and to illumine and defend religion from without, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma.<br/><br/>Where would the devil have been in the context of human history if man wasn't created for thousands of years after he the devil's fall? Adam gave names to all the animals, but evolutionists say they weren't what they are today at the moment they were created. As St. Paul said, Faith is acknowledging the Flood and Noe, etc. Science ain't gonna help anyone with that, or the Resurrection, or the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Original Sin,or even the existence of the soul. Etc.<br/>And, ask the so-called christian evolutionist, who were Adam and Eve's parents? Very weird.<br/>Congratulations on your conversion! God bless you with lots of good books and a good priest. Our priest mentioned today, the Eternal Day, perhaps that is why there is no end to the 7th day of creation. God be with you.<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/></pre> Thanks, Sue. I think the Big…tag:op54rosary.ning.com,2014-11-02:5691517:Comment:2144392014-11-02T21:03:11.309ZMark Lecomberhttps://op54rosary.ning.com/profile/MarkLecomber
<p>Thanks, Sue. I think the Big bang theory (as well as evolution) provide us with good ways to engage atheists and scientists. Even if the philosophical outlook is wrong the logical conclusion of these theories is a creator God (and by extension the One True Church).</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, I will look at the references you provided. The question of philosophy sounds interesting and i must admit that it is an area that i need to learn more about. I've never thought that my framework of…</p>
<p>Thanks, Sue. I think the Big bang theory (as well as evolution) provide us with good ways to engage atheists and scientists. Even if the philosophical outlook is wrong the logical conclusion of these theories is a creator God (and by extension the One True Church).</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, I will look at the references you provided. The question of philosophy sounds interesting and i must admit that it is an area that i need to learn more about. I've never thought that my framework of beliefs is set within a philosophy of modernism but what i know of the Church and the world it wouldn't surprise me at all. As a convert i am aware that most of my life has been spent within another culture so this does make sense.</p>
<p></p> From Big Bang Theory
Big Bang…tag:op54rosary.ning.com,2014-11-02:5691517:Comment:2145032014-11-02T16:10:30.592ZSue Khttps://op54rosary.ning.com/profile/SusanKephart
<p><em><strong><br></br></strong></em><strong>From <a href="http://www.big-bang-theory.com/" target="_blank">Big Bang Theory</a></strong></p>
<p><em><strong>Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?</strong></em><br></br><em>I<strong>s the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the…</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong><br/></strong></em><strong>From <a href="http://www.big-bang-theory.com/" target="_blank">Big Bang Theory</a></strong></p>
<p><em><strong>Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?</strong></em><br/><em>I<strong>s the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."</strong><sup>4 </sup></em><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," </span><i style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Scientific American,</i><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><font color="#222222" size="2">Thanks, but I'll stick with the Church Father </font><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3201.htm" target="_blank" style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">St. Basil the Great Hexaemeron</a><font color="#222222" size="2"> and St Robert Bellarmine's condemnation of Galileo. The Church Scholastics all refuted the materialist atomic 'theory' through philosophy. The modernists ascribe God to their materialis theories.</font></p>
<p></p>
<p><font color="#222222" size="2">Thanks also to Robert Sungenis.</font></p>
<p><sup><br/></sup></p> This might upset a few people…tag:op54rosary.ning.com,2014-11-02:5691517:Comment:2142762014-11-02T00:15:31.065ZMark Lecomberhttps://op54rosary.ning.com/profile/MarkLecomber
<div>This might upset a few people but...</div>
<p><span>The first thing to note about this article (after the obvious anti-Christian bias) is that it has been written from within a Protestant culture. Therefore, the author thinks that, by undermining the Bible, Christianity can be completely written off and consigned to history. What the author is ignorant of is that Catholic Christianity is not based (solely) on the Bible but on the person of Jesus Christ. For that reason almost all of the…</span></p>
<div>This might upset a few people but...</div>
<p><span>The first thing to note about this article (after the obvious anti-Christian bias) is that it has been written from within a Protestant culture. Therefore, the author thinks that, by undermining the Bible, Christianity can be completely written off and consigned to history. What the author is ignorant of is that Catholic Christianity is not based (solely) on the Bible but on the person of Jesus Christ. For that reason almost all of the criticisms that the author presents are irrelevant to his argument and simply demonstrate his ignorance.</span></p>
<div>He also demonstrates both his anti-Catholic bias and his ignorance again by suggesting that the Church is anti-science. Anyone who knows anything about the Church (rather than listening to silly stereotypes) knows that the Church has been at the vanguard of scientific advance for centuries (the true history of Galileo shows this).</div>
<div>Now for Lemaitre... we have to remember that all science is is a description of Creation. The Church has never declared on whether we should believe in the big bang or evolution or not. So we are free to believe them or not. </div>
<div>The Church declares that the way we should read the Bible is to understand the meaning of the text as the straightforward literal meaning unless there is reason not to. So, for example, when Christ says, 'I am the vine' he is not saying that he is a plant: it's metaphorical. So when we look at the biblical account of Creation we should ask ourselves if a snake actually spoke and examine the text further. The word translated 'day' in the creation story could equally be translated 'epoch' or 'era', therefore it is not necessary (and counterintuitive) to understand the 'days' in the account as 24-hour periods. Also, have you ever noticed that the Bible never states that the 7th day comes to an end? The other six days come to an end but not the seventh. If we read it literally it means that the seventh day hasn't ended yet - it's still ongoing: also supporting the interpretation that the 'days' of creation aren't 24-hours periods.</div>
<div>The most convincing reason for me, though, to support the Big Band and evolution is that the science behind the study of the universe provides such compelling evidence IN SUPPORT OF God as creator. Father Robert Spitzer, SJ did a series on EWTN, has written books and runs various apostolates (including websites like the Magis Centre) in which he describes how the universe is so utterly, incredibly, unbelievably precise that it must have been created by a 'super intelligent being' - and that doesn't leave a lot of room for anything other than God as Creator. We should be embracing this science that virtually PROVES God is the Creator rather than trying to argue against a very well established scientific theory which in turn makes us look like we are arguing against logic for the sake of faith when the opposite is true: there is no conflict between faith and reason, they are perfectly in tune with one another.</div>
<div>I am not saying that God was not able to create the entire universe in six days. In a way we could take the scriptural truth that, 'to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years are a day' and say that BOTH views are true. After all it is Protestantism that sets up false dichotmoies of either/or (e.g. faith and works) where the Catholic view is best represented as both/and.</div>
<div>These two theories also leave huge gaps where science hasn't found the answers (which we can exploit when talking to atheists). For example: Big Bang: scientists can describe what happened but they don't know why. They also have to admit that there was a 'first cause' (a something) that made the big bang happen. We can say that what they call the 'first cause' we know, personally, as God AND we can also answer the question of why regarding Creation that science can't.</div>
<div>As for evolution, there is a huge gap so well known and accepted that scientists have a name for it, "the missing link". This means that the complaint often voiced about evolution that 'Adam was descended from a monkey' is not something we need to worry about. The very bit of evolution that doesn't make sense to scientists is the bit where the line of increasingly intelligent monkey made a sudden "jump" and became human. Again, faith plugs this gap and provides not only the 'how' but also the 'why'. How did humans suddenly appear and were far more intelligent than former 'life forms'? Because God made man and 'breathed life into him'. Why? Science has no clue, but faith knows why, we don't even need to think about it.</div>
<div>These 'scientific' things are not affronts to our faith and, further still, do not disprove our faith. Bad science (and bad scientists) THINK that science disproves faith, but the opposite is true, and it has to be because, since faith and reason work hand in hand, science supports our faith. Just like when we encounter a Protestant (or a <u>c</u>atholic from the 'Church of Nice') our knowledge of Catholicism and the Bible will help us counter their arguments we MUST educate ourselves about science to refute scientists and atheists.</div>
<div>Anyone who says that evolution and the big band are anti-Catholic either doesn't understand the Church (and it's teaching) or doesn't understand the science behind these theories. </div>
<div>Now to explain Pope Francis: I think this is beyond faith and reason!</div>