Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='scardella' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:32 AM']Nature is a miracle. So there. [right][snapback]920095[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:54 AM']So that means we can also check off the tower of babal as having never happened? That's fine. Thank you for addressing the issue. As someone mentioned, common sense tells us that the resurrection did not happen. It is against everything that science tells us about living organisms. Doesn't common sense tell us that the Jesus story teaches us truths about the love God has for us, but truly is not a historical event? [right][snapback]920117[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Do not belittle [i]me[/i] Adam. I answered your question in exactly the way that you wanted it answered. My response in no way calls into question either the Resurrection or the veracity of the miraculous Incarnation. Were those to be called into question, I would be two steps ahead of you in getting there to defend them. If you take issue with my stance, please, I invite you to enter into dialogue with me. But I'd ask you, in all Christian Charity, not to connect my response with one that questions dogma. We both know I would never do that. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:56 AM']Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"? [right][snapback]920118[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As Cardinal Schonborn discussed in his most recent article in First Things, to look for Final Causes within the realm of Efficient Causes is a philosophical Category mistake. To say that evolution implies an unreasoned, uncaused Creation is to fail to grasp the difference between Material & Efficient Causality (science) and Final Causality. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) Why do people see this as belittlement? All I see these answers are as avoiding the issue completely. I am connecting them because they are rightfully connected. Did I say that you didn't believe in the resurrection? No! I didn't! I asked a question. The question was asked in complete Christian charity. If we can scientifically deny events of the Old Testament, I see no reason why we cannot scientifically deny events of the New. It is not a question of Dogma, it is a question of logic. Edited March 24, 2006 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:18 AM']As Cardinal Schonborn discussed in his most recent article in First Things, to look for Final Causes within the realm of Efficient Causes is a philosophical Category mistake. To say that evolution implies an unreasoned, uncaused Creation is to fail to grasp the difference between Material & Efficient Causality (science) and Final Causality. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [right][snapback]920125[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Right. He is simply "inserting God" into evolution. "Here is evolution, now we are going to simply say 'God did it'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Azriel' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:21 AM'] [right][snapback]920132[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Did I miss out on the free popcorn somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Its next to the Taco Stand - ..... ranch dressing mix optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:56 AM']Sorry, but evolution states that there is no reason for nature to be a miracle. Just the opposite actually. Think about this, is a Christians understanding of the scientific process of evolution, those like snarf who fully affirm it, any different than an athiest, other than saying "God did it"? [right][snapback]920118[/snapback][/right] [/quote] BTW, I've stated my lack of conviction in any one of the many theories of How We Came to Be™. I do know that God created nature. He created, directly or indirectly, man. Maybe I'm going all Byzantine on this, but nature itself being a miracle makes everything a miracle. Every good and perfect gift comes from God... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:19 AM']If we can scientifically deny events of the Old Testament, I see no reason why we cannot scientifically deny events of the New. It is not a question of Dogma, it is a question of logic. [right][snapback]920127[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1- No one here is denying the events of the New. 2- It doesn't follow in any way that because the old can be explained by science the new is automatically also explained by science. 3- The logical jump you're making is huge. If Some A (old testment mircales are explained by scince) then All A (all miracles explained by science). Thats not logic, just a bad premise. 4- I haven't seen anyone challege the resurrection or the like through science in this thread. If you're whole religion is based on the literal interpretation of the first stories, you run into problems like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote]1- No one here is denying the events of the New. [/quote] Who said anyone did? [quote]2- It doesn't follow in any way that because the old can be explained by science the new is automatically also explained by science.[/quote] Sure it does. Why wouldn't it? [quote]3- The logical jump you're making is huge. If Some A (old testment mircales are explained by scince) then All A (all miracles explained by science). Thats not logic, just a bad premise.[/quote] It isn't a huge jump at all. It's quite reasonable. If we are going to arbitrarily state that God used myths in the old to teach truths, there is no reason to think he didn't in the new. [quote]4- I haven't seen anyone challege the resurrection or the like through science in this thread. If you're whole religion is based on the literal interpretation of the first stories, you run into problems like these.[/quote] Either have I. And I'm not quite sure I follow. The Catholic Church considers several various interpretations. Read the first few hundred paragraphs of the Catechism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 09:21 AM']Right. He is simply "inserting God" into evolution. "Here is evolution, now we are going to simply say 'God did it'". [right][snapback]920130[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Have you even read the article by Schonborn? That is precisely what he is [i]not[/i] saying, and it is precisely the kind of thinking that he is guarding Catholics from falling into. Within Thomistic (and Aristotelian) philosophy, there are distinguished to be Four Causes for any one thing. Material Cause Formal Cause Efficient Cause Final Cause Using the cliche example of a marble statue of a woman, its Material Cause is the marble block from whence it comes, its Formal Cause is the shape, or form, of woman that it takes, its Efficient Cause is the sculptor's act of sculpting, and its Final Cause is the purpose for which it came to be, namely, to be admired. Now, Cardinal Schonborn's point is that the science of today concerns itself [i]only and exclusively[/i] with Material and Efficient Causes. So what is Schonborn's point? He says [i]of course[/i] you aren't going to find God's purposiveness [i]in[/i] evolution, because evolution is science and science omits, [i]a priori[/i] Final Cause. Trying to find purposiveness in evolution will never happen because that is to try to find Final Causality within Material and Efficient Causality. That's impossible. So, does believing in evolution mean that you have to give up purposiveness in creation? No. It means you give up trying to find purposiveness in [i]evolution[/i], or any other scientific account of reality, because that's impossible. God's power, plan, and purpose can be seen in creation, and easily too, but it involves moving outside of a purely scientific account of the universe and embracing a more whole, more complete, philosophical account of the universe. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 Right, I understand what you are saying, essentially, science, through evolution, is the 'how", and God is the "who" and "why". I understand that evolutionists think God controls and designs the evolutionary origins of the universe, but I don't see how this system doesn't clash with the nature of God as both loving and personally concerned (the daisies of the field analogy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 [quote name='Azriel' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:25 AM']Its next to the Taco Stand - ..... ranch dressing mix optional. [right][snapback]920139[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You can choose ranch or... taco seasoning.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now