tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post2217298412282040714..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Special Creation and the State of CompletionBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-3918593786482995422015-01-13T09:57:18.877-05:002015-01-13T09:57:18.877-05:00Jim, now that is a good point, although it would n...Jim, now that is a good point, although it would not prove light was not created en route, only that it was not created en route <i>recently</i>.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-59304201129969167202015-01-13T00:26:08.565-05:002015-01-13T00:26:08.565-05:00There is a problem with the creation of light en-r...There is a problem with the creation of light en-route explanation. Some of the light we are receiving is of events 100s of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago, such as supernovae. If light were created en-route that would include the light of these supposed distant and long ago event. We would not be seeing real things, but only appearances that God put in the light en-route.Jim J. McCreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04790492811937831878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-80932713785751320572014-08-29T15:10:53.703-04:002014-08-29T15:10:53.703-04:00Very good post. I might add to your Garden of Eden...Very good post. I might add to your Garden of Eden scenario that the uninformed spectator would also sees trees that appeared to be decades old even though they were just created. The "God would be lying" scenario might have some plausibility except for the fact that God already told us the truth in Genesis. If people won't listen to this and insist, despite the witness of Scripture, on figuring out how He did it by using materialistic assumptions, then it's their own fault if they come up with the wrong answer. In other words they're deceiving themselves. <br /><br />If the literal sense of Genesis is a problem for theistic evolutionists, what about the case of the Eucharist? In this instance the Church tells us we can't believe the evidence of our own eyes. Is God deceiving us? Clearly not.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04848175152886768003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-38689534500927550212014-08-29T09:18:38.636-04:002014-08-29T09:18:38.636-04:00Wenceslas,
Yawn. Difference between micro and mac...Wenceslas,<br /><br />Yawn. Difference between micro and macro evolution. I don't think anybody denies that within a substance there can be a certain elasticity with regards to potential small changes/adaptations over time. This is inherent in the nature of various substances. But for one substance to change into another...well, the only place that happens is at Mass.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-57726537698041380872014-08-28T20:52:46.339-04:002014-08-28T20:52:46.339-04:00Evolution claims nothing other than change with th...Evolution claims nothing other than change with the most successful reproducers edging out those who are lesser successful. The lay imagination that there is such a thing as an evolutionary ascent or descent are completely wrong.<br /><br />As for never happening, that's also wrong: If you want a modern example, there's a species of lizard which has undergone rapid phenotypic changes after transplantation to another island. Potentially it may involve epigenetic changes rather than true speciation of course. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.htmlWenceslasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-58560279773631371922014-08-27T17:09:34.417-04:002014-08-27T17:09:34.417-04:00Joe, well, from an empirical standpoint, that'...Joe, well, from an empirical standpoint, that's a problem, since it has never happened. <br /><br />Also, evolution claims an ascent, not a descent. Please see here for more on the Church's objections to evolution:<br /><br />http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/451-catholic-solemn-enthronement-of-evolution.htmlBonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-66161434444301164742014-08-27T16:33:30.767-04:002014-08-27T16:33:30.767-04:00for evolution to be true, all that has to happen i...for evolution to be true, all that has to happen is for an offspring to be born with one or more organs neither of its parents had<br /><br />what's so difficult to believe about that?<br /><br />O, and Adam was The smartest man ever; and there has been a steady descent since then.<br /><br />The descent of man; not the ascent of manMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-11361397770651488312014-08-19T03:35:46.840-04:002014-08-19T03:35:46.840-04:00Agreed, on both points.
In general, permit me to ...Agreed, on both points.<br /><br />In general, permit me to say that I find your articles on this issue refreshingly <i>Catholic</i>. There are far too few Catholic voices out there supporting the traditional teaching of the Church on these matters. When the topic is raised, it is not uncommon to hear shouts of "anti-intellectualism" and "irrationalism" – even and most disappointingly from institutions claiming to specialize in Catholic apologetics. Your website is one of the few to which faithful Catholics can turn for honest, open and engaging discussion on the issues involved.<br /><br />Also, I would like to recommend some readings of early Church Fathers which have given me much to consider in regards to these matters. In particular, the following:<br /><br />- Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum 7,11-13 (A.D. 203)<br />- Hilary of Poiters, De Trinitate 10,70 (A.D. 356/359)<br />- Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 32,25-26 (A.D. 379)<br />- Ambrose, De Fide 1,5,34-42 (A.D. 378/380)<br />- Ephrem of Syria, Sermones De Fide 2, 91-109; 487-509; 541-545; 557 (A.D. 357/358)<br />- Zeno of Verona, Tractatus 2,3,1-6 (A.D. 360/380)<br /><br />Of course, I am not proposing any form of Fideism – which is contrary to the true faith – but rather a renewed investigation of the points of contact between faith and reason in light of the Fathers' experience of the secular 'wisdom' of their day. The rampant intellectual conceit of our age could profit from some classic Catholic counter-culture in this regard. As it is written: <br /><br />"Better is a man that hath less wisdom, and wanteth understanding, with the fear of God, than he that aboundeth in understanding, and transgresseth the law of the most High." (Ecclus 19:21)<br /><br />Pax et bonum! <br />Mathewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-60959535364305257312014-08-18T16:06:26.423-04:002014-08-18T16:06:26.423-04:00That is a great point, although I would agree also...That is a great point, although I would agree also that revelation cannot contradict what we see in nature in the strict sense, though it should serve as an "interpretive norm" for reading the book of nature.<br /> Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-25258699366620201022014-08-18T10:29:38.320-04:002014-08-18T10:29:38.320-04:00The argument that 'special creation makes God ...The argument that 'special creation makes God a deceiver/liar' rests upon the premise that the empirically observable world is all that we have been given to discern the truth about creation, as though the gift of divine revelation – which specifically dispels misconceptions regarding creation – counts for nothing.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-49193327092967237932014-08-15T22:25:33.754-04:002014-08-15T22:25:33.754-04:00Well the Vatican I definition applies to ALL subst...Well the Vatican I definition applies to ALL substances in the world. If there is evolution, then there is no substance in the classical sense, simply because there is no "being", only perpetual "becoming."<br /><br />See: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/451-catholic-solemn-enthronement-of-evolution.htmlBonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-78916875234456133312014-08-15T22:22:52.345-04:002014-08-15T22:22:52.345-04:00"If anyone does not confess that the world an..."If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God;"<br /><br />The "according to their whole substance" clause has different implications for substances with a spiritual "form" (in the hylemorphic sense), i.e. angels or humans, on one side, and for purely material substances on the other.<br /><br />The case of angels, who are just a spiritual form, and humans, who have a spiritual form, involve a special creation "out of nothing" of each said form. In the case of angels all at the beginning, while in the case of humans along time, starting 200,000 years ago (or 6,000 if you so prefer).<br /><br />But the case of material substances is completely different. E.g. the Bible says that the body of Adam was not "produced out of nothing by God", but that "God formed the man of dust from the ground", i.e. from matter that was already existing at that moment. Obviously that matter had its origin in the matter that God had first created "out of nothing".<br />Johannesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-58201753385311396072014-08-15T21:00:10.927-04:002014-08-15T21:00:10.927-04:00Good post. Plus there's also this begging the ...Good post. Plus there's also this begging the question with the idea that the evidence for evolution is so "overwhelming" that if it weren't true it would be tantamount to God "lying" to us by providing all this extremely convincing evidence for evolution.<br /><br />Then you start to look at all this "overwhelming" evidence and suddenly it is not quite so awe inspiring. <br /><br />Microevolution, or variation within Kinds? Absolutely.<br /><br />Macroevolution, the transformation of one Kind, such as lizards into birds over time, not so much. Not in the fossil record, and there certainly isn't a believably adequate mechanism, such as Natural Selection acting on random mutations, or genetic drift, to account for the colossal amount of changes, both on the internal and external level, to go from one Kind to another.Brennanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992011209844007299noreply@blogger.com