Ophiolite, my mistake, the human race is much less than 30 million years old, I was thinking of the 30,000 year date postulated for human habitation of South America.
Evolution sparks high level debate in Catholicism!!!
- Thread starter Lawdog
- Start date
I am an evolutionary thinker. I am spiritual but not religious. And I don't see the need for a conflict between the theory of evolution and a belief in God. It's just that in order for them to fit together, the perspective on evolution has to shift a bit, and the perspective on God has to shift a bit.
On the evolution side, the view that it is purely random and accidental needs to be augmented by the perspective that in the long run, evolution is a highly intelligent process - if intelligence can be defined as the capacity to create relationships that give rise to novelty (and I think most psychologists and biologists would go along with that). I would even go so far as to say that emergence of sentient life in the cosmos was inevitable. (But of course, that's hard to disprove, since we're here
On the religion side, the notion of God as a being with human-like form with superhuman characteristics would need to give way to God as a kind of intelligence that pervades the universe. It can still be personal, since all is interconnected; it can still be considered a supreme intelligence, since the tendency to form relationships in a manner that is "unclouded" by the human propensity for objectification is indeed a more advanced intelligence than any person has. But it has to be non-personified. That is, the notion of "a God" has to give way to a more transcendent sense of God. But although certain theologians of the ages may have been ready for that, and indeed some of the more "mystical" sects of all major religions - perhaps the mainstream still need to cling to the idolized version.
So I think a bridge can be found down the road. Although intelligent design may be a thinly-veiled promotion of creation "science," it ironically may open the door to the kind of bridge that I'm talking about. If only those promoting intelligent design would acknowledge that intelligence may not be the deity-centered variety.
On a related note, you may wish to visit http://www.thedarwinproject.com. It suggests that Darwin may have been misinterpreted.
On the evolution side, the view that it is purely random and accidental needs to be augmented by the perspective that in the long run, evolution is a highly intelligent process - if intelligence can be defined as the capacity to create relationships that give rise to novelty (and I think most psychologists and biologists would go along with that). I would even go so far as to say that emergence of sentient life in the cosmos was inevitable. (But of course, that's hard to disprove, since we're here
On the religion side, the notion of God as a being with human-like form with superhuman characteristics would need to give way to God as a kind of intelligence that pervades the universe. It can still be personal, since all is interconnected; it can still be considered a supreme intelligence, since the tendency to form relationships in a manner that is "unclouded" by the human propensity for objectification is indeed a more advanced intelligence than any person has. But it has to be non-personified. That is, the notion of "a God" has to give way to a more transcendent sense of God. But although certain theologians of the ages may have been ready for that, and indeed some of the more "mystical" sects of all major religions - perhaps the mainstream still need to cling to the idolized version.
So I think a bridge can be found down the road. Although intelligent design may be a thinly-veiled promotion of creation "science," it ironically may open the door to the kind of bridge that I'm talking about. If only those promoting intelligent design would acknowledge that intelligence may not be the deity-centered variety.
On a related note, you may wish to visit http://www.thedarwinproject.com. It suggests that Darwin may have been misinterpreted.
I am in agreement with Onefinity as far as that there can be a meeting point between evolution and intelligent design. I am Catholic, and I hold both to the teaching of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI concerning the subject.
Pope John Paul II endorsed the fact that evolution is more than simply a hypothesis, that evolutionary processes do occur today. Pope Benedict XVI furthered that statement my affirming that the process of evolution is not by random mutations or survival of the fittest, even though we observe such principles in the world today. As I have said, I adhere to these beliefs. Evolution, in its most basic form, is growth. Growth is the process of life. Any advocate of the Christian God must also advocate life, which implies an advocation to growth. There can be no real conflict with evolution and God, as long as both God and evolution are defined and understood in particular fashions. Likewise, there can only be conflict between evolution and God if evolution and God are defined in other particular fashions.
As Onefinity has stated, God cannot be considered as a superhuman entity, particularly if all the different attributes which have been applied to God throughout Christian history are held. Attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, infinity, eternality, omniscience, omnibenevolence, supreme being, pure act, first cause, etc. Such a God as I have described can easily be compatible with the theory of evolution as the means of the biological step in creation.
What cannot, however, be the product of evolution, is the human soul. This I stand by, as my Church stands by it.
What is obvious is that there is a lot of work to do as far as closing the rift between "evolutionists" and "creationists."
Pope John Paul II endorsed the fact that evolution is more than simply a hypothesis, that evolutionary processes do occur today. Pope Benedict XVI furthered that statement my affirming that the process of evolution is not by random mutations or survival of the fittest, even though we observe such principles in the world today. As I have said, I adhere to these beliefs. Evolution, in its most basic form, is growth. Growth is the process of life. Any advocate of the Christian God must also advocate life, which implies an advocation to growth. There can be no real conflict with evolution and God, as long as both God and evolution are defined and understood in particular fashions. Likewise, there can only be conflict between evolution and God if evolution and God are defined in other particular fashions.
As Onefinity has stated, God cannot be considered as a superhuman entity, particularly if all the different attributes which have been applied to God throughout Christian history are held. Attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, infinity, eternality, omniscience, omnibenevolence, supreme being, pure act, first cause, etc. Such a God as I have described can easily be compatible with the theory of evolution as the means of the biological step in creation.
What cannot, however, be the product of evolution, is the human soul. This I stand by, as my Church stands by it.
What is obvious is that there is a lot of work to do as far as closing the rift between "evolutionists" and "creationists."
staples disconnected
Registered Senior Member
Excuse my interjecting but,
In particular fashions? Like reading the bible in a particular fashion? So that it is compatible with your beliefs??
Ah the soul. Personally I don't believe it exists. For if it did, what function would it serve...? I think the brain in all it's unlearned capacity contains what it is to be human.
Besides, how could a soul function? In a biological body? Why do we even need a soul (personally I think people need the concept of a soul)? I think we're far enough out of the dark ages or any prior age to give the brain it's full credit. Otherwise we're talking some dualist theory here. I've never heard of a sufficient argument backing up dualism.
Personally I don't think this...
Taken at their elements the two are not compatible. You could argue otherwise, but then you're just twisting the terminology.
I also have a problem with the Catholic Church. But anyone who advocates not using contraception in Africa to try and slow the aids epidemic obviously has their head in the sand.
Further, men and women, if created by a god, were created with reproductive organs, that when used, makes us feel damn good. Considering the sanctity Catholics place on marriage and the force with which they promote unsafe sex, makes me wonder why their priesthood aren't allowed wives. Contradiction anyone?
Anyway, I'm just procrastinating.
Peace!
In particular fashions? Like reading the bible in a particular fashion? So that it is compatible with your beliefs??
Ah the soul. Personally I don't believe it exists. For if it did, what function would it serve...? I think the brain in all it's unlearned capacity contains what it is to be human.
Besides, how could a soul function? In a biological body? Why do we even need a soul (personally I think people need the concept of a soul)? I think we're far enough out of the dark ages or any prior age to give the brain it's full credit. Otherwise we're talking some dualist theory here. I've never heard of a sufficient argument backing up dualism.
Personally I don't think this...
... is a problem that needs to be solved.
Taken at their elements the two are not compatible. You could argue otherwise, but then you're just twisting the terminology.
I also have a problem with the Catholic Church. But anyone who advocates not using contraception in Africa to try and slow the aids epidemic obviously has their head in the sand.
Further, men and women, if created by a god, were created with reproductive organs, that when used, makes us feel damn good. Considering the sanctity Catholics place on marriage and the force with which they promote unsafe sex, makes me wonder why their priesthood aren't allowed wives. Contradiction anyone?
Anyway, I'm just procrastinating.
Peace!