Creation Rediscovered - book by a Catholic author
Scott
LOL. So CS maybe you'd like to further explain what you mean by scientists'
"credibility" being "relative" and how this credibility is just like being
in the Soviet Union were every student was forced into a belief in
evolution.
CS, do I need to explain how this "credibility is relative" philosophy of
yours also applies to your "real" scientists at your beloved Creation
Science Institute.
To talk.origns readers. CS here has claimed to be Catholic creationist. I'm
believing he's really Pastor Chuch Smith of Calvery Chapel. (My reasoning
comes from a previous exhange.)
http://www.thewordfortoday.org/
http://www.calvarychapel.com/csn/
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c88e76d$1...@News.Destek.net...
> Credibility is relative. In todays society it's very hard to become a
scientist if you are a
> Creationist.
> It's like in the former Soviet Uniion. They boasted that every student
believed in evolution, BUT
> they were
> forced into it. Otherwise they'd kick them out of school.
>
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:lj5i8.64096$nq1.177...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > How about a book by a Catholic author who happens to be a published
> > scientist in respected journals?
> >
> >
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/
> > darwin.html
> > http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/author_xml.asp?authorID=6722
> > http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/books/00/03/23/GOD_AND_DARWIN.html
> > http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/science/kennethmiller.htm
> >
> >
> > You know, Chucky, I'm believing you have a serious case of cognitive
> > dissonance. I have given you Catholic links after link that are more
> > credible than any Catholic link you've come up with. Such as links to
Notre
> > Dame's college of biology, a book on the subject published by the
Vatican
> > Observatory and coming right out of Pontifical Academy of Sciences no
less,
> > http://www.libertynet.org/bvm/creed.htm ,etc. etc. Yet you discount
those
> > (the hallmark of cog diss) in favor of what you posted below.
> >
> > I have no doubt that you will find Catholic Creationists, even those
with
> > "Rev" attached to there names (hick Behe is Catholic). I've seen their
books
> > in Catholic book stores. The critical question comes down to: "How
credible
> > are any of these books and authors?" in relation to Catholicism. If I
had to
> > choose the difference between "Evolutionary and Molecular Biology" from
the
> > Pontifical Academy of Sciences or Gerard J. Keane SJ's "Creation
> > Rediscovered", as a Catholic <cough> CS, which do you think should hold
more
> > weight of influence?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > "CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c88c633$1...@News.Destek.net...
> > > http://www.tanbooks.com/books/crea1514.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > There are two fundamental but contradictory understandings of life and
all
> > physical reality from the
> > > point of view of their origins: Creation and Evolution. Creation
> > Rediscovered is primarily a study
> > > of Evolution, which carefully considers all basic aspects of that
belief
> > system - both "Natural
> > > Evolution" and "Theistic Evolution." The author covers the basic
question,
> > the two basic Evolution
> > > theories, the concept of "Special Creation," the discoveries of
science,
> > the fossil record,
> > > genetics, entropy (the conservation of energy, etc.) the age of the
> > universe, pointers to a Creator,
> > > the problems with "Theistic Evolution" and "Progressive Creation," and
a
> > number of other questions.
> > > The upshot is that there is not only no proof for Evolution, but that
the
> > proof from DNA shows that
> > > Evolution cannot occur! One of the great hallmarks of this important
book
> > is the author's discussion
> > > of the influence of Evolution on belief systems. He shows in the first
> > part of the book that
> > > Evolution as a belief system is not only unfounded, but is
contradicted at
> > every turn by the
> > > scientific facts. and yet Evolution forms the underlying belief
structure
> > of Nazism, Communism,
> > > Socialism, Existentialism, Humanism, and Modernism (the formally
condemned
> > heretical belief that is
> > > rife among today's Catholic clergy and hierarchy). Thus, many of the
> > leading "isms" in today's
> > > Church and world are based upon fundamental belief assumptions that
are
> > positively wrong! Creation
> > > Rediscovered is a pivotal book for all Catholics today because it puts
to
> > rest once and for all the
> > > possibility for Evolution and it shows that we face the erroneous
> > deductions and false policies of a
> > > host of deluded minds in both our Church and in our society. Not
enough
> > can be said for the
> > > importance of this book . . . to get the fundamentals right regarding
our
> > Origins, in order that the
> > > rest of our thought and all our actions are based upon the truth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
macaddicted
Sigh. Evolution is responsible for everything that is wrong with the
world today. Reading Darwin will make you blind and cause hair to grow
in the palm of your hands.
As Catholics we must constantly fight against the desire to stick our
heads in the sand because something is theologically uncomfortable.
Vatican II is not going away. We must recognize that the Church must
adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
live in those times.
This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
relevant to those people.
Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics? Yet we
readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
the Bible. But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM). Literal
interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic. And without a literal
interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
creation.
Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
constantly on the talk.origins group. It is about how new species come
into being. Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the statements of Pius XII
in 'Humani Generis' in stating that "almost half a century after the
publication of the Encyclical new knowledge has led us to realize that
the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis." (John Paul II,
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 23, 1996. As quoted
from 'Evolutionary and Molecular Biology', by Robert J. Russell, et.
al.)
He does go on to say that the MIND of man did not come about through
what would best be described as natural, evolutionary means. The leap
from the animate to the rational is one better measured through
philosophy than science. I am sure many in talk.origins will disagree.
'Providentissimus Deus' tells us that truth cannot contradict truth. We
have the revealed truth of God and the discovered truth of science.
From a Catholic perspective the leap from the evolutionary man to the
rational/responsive man is something still in need of further
exploration. But to abandon evolution is to abandon the discussion. It
would justly put us forward to be ridiculed.
Are there questions about evolution? Yes. Go up to someone knowledgable
about evolution and ask "Dawkins or Gould?" But while the PROCESS of
evolution is debated neither man would deny the FACT of evolution.
As a devout, lifelong Catholic I beg you. Please, don't allow yourself
to be pulled back into discredited scientific ideas for fear of
theological discomfort.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money but your money won't buy more time"
James Taylor
Scott
"macaddicted" <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:080320021507436535%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm...
> [snip]
>
snipped
>
> As a devout, lifelong Catholic I beg you. Please, don't allow yourself
> to be pulled back into discredited scientific ideas for fear of
> theological discomfort.
>
> --
> macaddicted
Well said.
Scott
A Pagano
<macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Sigh. Evolution is responsible for everything that is wrong with the
>world today. Reading Darwin will make you blind and cause hair to grow
>in the palm of your hands.
Pagano replies:
Ideas have consequences.
**********************************************
>As Catholics we must constantly fight against the desire to stick our
>heads in the sand because something is theologically uncomfortable.
>Vatican II is not going away.
Pagano replies:
A few encyclicals are quite clear about what is and is not acceptable.
Pope John Paul II's much misrepresented address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences reiterated these restrictions and guidelines. The
restrictions have been routinely ignored and violated. The Catechism
of the Catholic Church (para 295) teaches unequivocally that,"[the
world] is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate
or chance."
As Catholics these restrictions and teachings are not "theologically
uncomfortable" but clear and present guidance that the materialist
theories are, in part, misguided.
One wonders what, if anything, contained within the four corners of
Vatican II lent aid and comfort to the purely materialistic worldview
of Darwinism.
***************************************
> We must recognize that the Church must
>adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
>live in those times.
Pagano replies:
The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
is unknown.
***************************************
>
>This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
>traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
>For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
>relevant to those people.
Pagano replies:
This is Orwellian doublespeak.
**********************************************
>Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
>knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
>theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics?
Pagano replies:
My computer does not clash with the Church's doctrines any more than
my carpenter's hammer does. And as far as I know neither does the
theory of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics has a great many
successes it is not without its problems; its proximity to the truth
is not known. Why in the world would a Catholic be so willing to
ignore or alter Church doctrine whose truth is guarranteed for
"knowledge" whose proximity to truth is not known?
**************************************
>Yet we
>readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>the Bible.
Pagano replies:
Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
**********************************************
>But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
>(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
>and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
>(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
Pagano replies:
I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
from these documents which support your position.
*********************************************
> Literal
>interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic.
Pagano replies:
I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and
disabuse yourself of this. Paragraph 116 states unequivocally: "The
literal sense is conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by
exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other
senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
Most evolutionists (and apparently the writer) set up some caricature
of the creationist who takes a pure, unadulterated literal and only
literal view of Scripture. As far as I know no such person exists.
********************************************
> And without a literal
>interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
>communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
>creation.
Pagano replies:
Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
***********************************
>Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
>constantly on the talk.origins group.
Pagano replies:
This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure.
*****************************************
> It is about how new species come
>into being.
Pagano replies:
What is at issue in Origins research is not the capacity to produce
separated breeding populations but the capacity to create new organs
and new organisms; that is, to discover the origin of novelty and
diversity.
*************************************
> Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the statements of Pius XII
>in 'Humani Generis' in stating that "almost half a century after the
>publication of the Encyclical new knowledge has led us to realize that
>the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis." (John Paul II,
>Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 23, 1996. As quoted
>from 'Evolutionary and Molecular Biology', by Robert J. Russell, et.
>al.)
Pagano replies:
Unfortunately Russell failed to present the restrictions placed upon
Catholics with regard to the study of evolution in the same address.
And to claim that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis is simply
to acknowledge that it has garnered confirmations------so has every
falsified theory is the history of science. The Pope was not
suggesting that evolution is true and teaching that the faithful
should accept it. Otherwise his affirmation of the restrictions in
"Humani Generis" in the same address wouldn't make any sense.
**********************************
More to follow if time permits.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
<macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Sigh. Evolution is responsible for everything that is wrong with the
>world today. Reading Darwin will make you blind and cause hair to grow
>in the palm of your hands.
Pagano replies:
Ideas have consequences.
**********************************************
>As Catholics we must constantly fight against the desire to stick our
>heads in the sand because something is theologically uncomfortable.
>Vatican II is not going away.
Pagano replies:
A few encyclicals are quite clear about what is and is not acceptable.
Pope John Paul II's much misrepresented address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences reiterated these restrictions and guidelines. The
restrictions have been routinely ignored and violated. The Catechism
of the Catholic Church (para 295) teaches unequivocally that,"[the
world] is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate
or chance."
As Catholics these restrictions and teachings are not "theologically
uncomfortable" but clear and present guidance that the materialist
theories are, in part, misguided.
One wonders what, if anything, contained within the four corners of
Vatican II lent aid and comfort to the purely materialistic worldview
of Darwinism.
***************************************
> We must recognize that the Church must
>adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
>live in those times.
Pagano replies:
The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
is unknown.
***************************************
>
>This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
>traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
>For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
>relevant to those people.
Pagano replies:
This is Orwellian doublespeak.
**********************************************
>Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
>knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
>theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics?
Pagano replies:
My computer does not clash with the Church's doctrines any more than
my carpenter's hammer does. And as far as I know neither does the
theory of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics has a great many
successes it is not without its problems; its proximity to the truth
is not known. Why in the world would a Catholic be so willing to
ignore or alter Church doctrine whose truth is guarranteed for
"knowledge" whose proximity to truth is not known?
**************************************
>Yet we
>readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>the Bible.
Pagano replies:
Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
**********************************************
>But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
>(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
>and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
>(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
Pagano replies:
I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
from these documents which support your position.
*********************************************
> Literal
>interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic.
Pagano replies:
I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and
disabuse yourself of this. Paragraph 116 states unequivocally: "The
literal sense is conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by
exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other
senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
Most evolutionists (and apparently the writer) set up some caricature
of the creationist who takes a pure, unadulterated literal and only
literal view of Scripture. As far as I know no such person exists.
********************************************
> And without a literal
>interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
>communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
>creation.
Pagano replies:
Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
***********************************
>Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
>constantly on the talk.origins group.
Pagano replies:
This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure.
*****************************************
> It is about how new species come
>into being.
Pagano replies:
What is at issue in Origins research is not the capacity to produce
separated breeding populations but the capacity to create new organs
and new organisms; that is, to discover the origin of novelty and
diversity.
*************************************
> Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the statements of Pius XII
>in 'Humani Generis' in stating that "almost half a century after the
>publication of the Encyclical new knowledge has led us to realize that
>the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis." (John Paul II,
>Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 23, 1996. As quoted
>from 'Evolutionary and Molecular Biology', by Robert J. Russell, et.
>al.)
Pagano replies:
Max Phillips
Tony Pagano, please consider this statement of yours:
"This [assertion that evolution is not about the beginnings of life] is
nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure."
This statement is false.
1. Nowhere in the history of evolution experiments have scientists assumed
that "a biogenesis is a necessary initial condition for evolution to
proceed." People mistakenly think that the word "origin" in Charles Darwin's
"Origin of Species" refers to abiogenesis. It doesn't. It refers to one
species originating from another. Darwin's theory of evolution did not
address abiogenesis.
2. Nor has abiogenesis research benn a dismal failure. In fact, very recent
research has discovered sugars in outer space!
-Max
Scott
"A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com...
snipped
>
> More to follow if time permits.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
What's wrong Tony? You claim to being Catholic yet you deleted
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. Why? Don't you want your fellow
Catholics to learn what it is you know about Catholicism and Evolution? When
I asked CS if he was Catholic, he answered in the affirmative. Turns out he
really was the Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. Tony, have you been
lying all along about being Catholic, too?
Scott
Max Phillips
anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.08 7:18 PM:
Tony Pagano, you state:
"To claim that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis is simply to
acknowledge that it has garnered confirmations ------ so has every falsified
theory is the history of science."
Your statement above is untrue. If the Pope were to state that the theory of
cold fusion, for instance, is no longer a mere hypothesis, he would mean
more than just that it has garnered confirmations. But the Pope is not a
stupid man. He would not make such a statement about cold fusion.
Conclusion: The Pope truly has placed the blessing of the Roman Catholic
Church upon the theory of evolution as a legitimate and sanctioned field of
inquiry in the search for truth.
-Max
Scott
"Max Phillips" <obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8AEC5C5.2556%obscu...@earthlink.net...
WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE
http://www.libertynet.org/bvm/creed.htm
Creed
Ecclesiastical Approval
This book has been submitted to the Archdiocesan Censor Librorum who has
stated in writing that there is nothing in this book that is contrary to
faith or morals.
Creator
To believe that God created the world does not exclude evolution or change
over the centuries. Evolution presupposes that something existed which had
to be created
Scott
Mike Dunford
wrote:
>On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
><macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
[snip]
>> Literal
>>interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and
>disabuse yourself of this. Paragraph 116 states unequivocally: "The
>literal sense is conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by
>exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other
>senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
It would strike me that ignoring the possibility that Genesis 1 is
allegorical would be inconsistent with paragraph 110, which states
that, "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader
must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the
literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling,
speaking and narrating then current." Failing to consider that myth
and allegory were widespread among preliterate civilizations would be
simply irresponsible. It would also be poor exegesis.
>Most evolutionists (and apparently the writer) set up some caricature
>of the creationist who takes a pure, unadulterated literal and only
>literal view of Scripture. As far as I know no such person exists.
At least as far as the Genesis account goes, it would appear to me
that most of the membership of ICR and CRS take a completely literal
view. They do appear to be more willing to interpret other parts of
scripture (thou shall not suffer a witch to live is still good, but
that thing about cutting the hair near the ears can go) to suit modern
life, however.
>> And without a literal
>>interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
>>communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
>>creation.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
>Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
>the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
>corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
>fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
>
>As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
>retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
I am not aware that anyone has *specifically* addressed the 1909
document in question. It does, however, predate the Church's current
position on how to correctly interpret scripture, especially those
portions which emphasize giving attention to the literary forms in
common use at the time the particular book was written. This is
clearly outlined both in the Catechism and in the 1965 Dogmatic
Constitution Dei Verbum.
>>Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
>>constantly on the talk.origins group.
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
>evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
>the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure.
No. Abiogenesis is a sufficient intial condition. So is direct
creation of the first life form. Actually, I don't know why anyone
would expect to see a difference, but that's a whole different issue.
If you believe that abiogenesis is necessary, feel free to justify
your position.
>> It is about how new species come
>>into being.
>
> Pagano replies:
>What is at issue in Origins research is not the capacity to produce
>separated breeding populations but the capacity to create new organs
>and new organisms; that is, to discover the origin of novelty and
>diversity.
Ah, yes. Have you settled on a definition for novelty and diversity
yet? If so, please explain to me how exactly the new test chamber in
the foram species _Orbulina_universa_ fails to meet the definition for
novel. Also, please address how the net increase in the number of
foram species fails to demonstrate an increase in diversity.
[rest snipped]
--Mike Dunford
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
The question here is not "blind fate or chance" but contingency, which
is something God could make very good use of.
>
> > We must recognize that the Church must
> >adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
> >live in those times.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
> and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
> transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
> supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
> guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
> is unknown.
> ***************************************
As I said, the doctrines of faith do not change. But we must always
endeavor to make those truths relevant to the body of the faithful
today. Sometimes this requires that we re-present our body of faith in
a manner that is relatable to each culture. The Church of today is not
the Church of Augustine, Aquinas or even Pius XII.
> >
> >This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
> >traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
> >For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
> >relevant to those people.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is Orwellian doublespeak.
> **********************************************
It's just what I said. People will look to God, and look to their
lives. If God is not presented in a way that they can bring him into
their EVERYDAY lives than we risk becoming irrelevant. That is the job
of religion, to bring faith to life.
>
>
> >Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
> >knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
> >theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics?
>
> Pagano replies:
> My computer does not clash with the Church's doctrines any more than
> my carpenter's hammer does. And as far as I know neither does the
> theory of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics has a great many
> successes it is not without its problems; its proximity to the truth
> is not known. Why in the world would a Catholic be so willing to
> ignore or alter Church doctrine whose truth is guarranteed for
> "knowledge" whose proximity to truth is not known?
> **************************************
>
>
>
> >Yet we
> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
> >the Bible.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
> painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
> background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
>
> The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
> direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
> Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
> **********************************************
>
See "contingency" above.
>
> >But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
> >and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
>
> Pagano replies:
> I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
> Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
> misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
> from these documents which support your position.
> *********************************************
From Providentissimus-
If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
must then suspend judgment for the time being
An example from Divino-
38. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present
needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in
demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make
a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the
manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer
may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be
convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without
serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention
only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred
Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of
facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those
customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients,
which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and
which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.
39. When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text,
which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice
demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in
the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact
appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the
ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the
veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less
efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous
understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.
>
> > Literal
> >interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and
> disabuse yourself of this. Paragraph 116 states unequivocally: "The
> literal sense is conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by
> exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other
> senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
>
> Most evolutionists (and apparently the writer) set up some caricature
> of the creationist who takes a pure, unadulterated literal and only
> literal view of Scripture. As far as I know no such person exists.
> ********************************************
And I suggest you read the paragraph again, focusing on the word
"exegesis" and then take a look at:
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm
which is the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 'The Interpretation of
the Bible in the Church.' Having completed several exegesis of Biblical
text for school this document was required reading. I can tell you that
none of the professors in the Biblical Studies department would hold to
a literal interpretation of the Scripture. They all understand that
there are many methods used in interpreting the Bible.
Providen\tissimus started the ball rolling and Pius XII locked the
Church on this path with Divino Afflante Spiritu as described below
from 'Interpretation':
----quote----
In this struggle the teaching office of the Catholic Church has taken
up positions several times. First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical
Providentissimus Deus of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the
exegetical map. At a time when liberalism was extremely sure of itself
and much too intrusively dogmatic, Leo XIII was forced to express
himself in a rather critical way, even though he did not exclude that
which was positive from the new possibilities. Fifty years later,
however, because of the fertile work of great Catholic exegetes, Pope
Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Sept. 30, 1943,
was able to provide largely positive encouragement toward making the
modern methods of understanding the Bible fruitful. The Constitution on
Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, of Nov.
18, 1965, adopted all of this. It provided us with a synthesis, which
substantially remains, between the lasting insights of patristic
theology and the new methodological understanding of the moderns.
----quote----
The point I am trying to make is that the Church does not look upon the
Bible as a history in the manner we understand history today.
Providentissimus cracked the door open for the historical-critical
method. Divino shoved it aside. Dei Verbum locked it open.
>
> > And without a literal
> >interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
> >communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
> >creation.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
> Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
> the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
> corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
> fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
>
> As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
> retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
> ***********************************
This would be news to my professors of Biblical Studies. Most of the
first class in Genesis-Kings was just on how Genesis is not literally,
historically true. The sixth grade text that I taught out of in
Religious Ed in my parish also made the same point.
>
>
> >Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
> >constantly on the talk.origins group.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
> evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
> the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure.
> *****************************************
>
I am really not knowledgable enough in Evolution to debate you on this
point.
The Pope makes very clear in his speech, which is what I quoted, that
there is a discontinuity between the 'evolution' of man and the
'creation' of the thinking, rational beings that we are. He takes great
pains to express that we are rational, and our rationality is a gift
from God, not something that just happened.
Max Phillips
at macaddicte...@fastmail.fm wrote on 2002.03.09 8:32 AM:
> Unfortunately Russell failed to present the restrictions placed upon
>> Catholics with regard to the study of evolution in the same address.
Tony says, "Unfortunately Russell failed to present the restrictions placed
upon Catholics with regard to the study of evolution in the same address."
Max asks, What are these restrictions?
David Smith
<obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
1. Russell did not comment directly on the Pope's address. The
translation and commentary was done by George V. Coyne, SJ. Russell did
contribute and paper ("The Immanent Direcionality of the Evolutionary
Process, and its Relationship to Teleology") and was the first editor
named.
2. The part he probably means is the following, from parts 5 & 6 of the
address: (edited somewhat-- go here for the entire text:
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html )
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure
means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has
value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is
capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and
self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to
God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his
relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's
relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a.
5, ad 1).
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the
forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are
incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the
dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological
difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the
posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical
continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution
in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used
in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two
points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of
observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life
with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The
moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this
kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the
experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is
specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical
knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience,
freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within
the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology
brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.
What he seems to be troubled by the the "ontological leap." Which
brings us back to the part of Provedentissimus Deus I quoted:
If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
must then suspend judgment for the time being
Namely, if science is certain of something, and it contradicts our
interpretation of scripture, then we must reinvestigate not the science
but the scripture. If we are satisfied that both the science and our
interpretation are correct and there is still discord between them then
we "must then suspend judgement for the time being." I snipped the
first two paragraphs from JPII somewhat, but left the final paragraph
intact on purpose. These are the questions we are meant to investigate.
Note that he states that the two sides SEEM irreconcilable. They may
be, or they may not be. That is what we are left to learn.
So, after a long time, the short answer to your question is not that
there are areas we are not meant to investigate. Instead we have clear
direction as to what areas, from a theological standpoint, we are meant
to investigate. Remember always, truth cannot contradict truth!
--
"Time may be money but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
bugeye
> On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
> <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >Sigh. Evolution is responsible for everything that is wrong with the
> >world today. Reading Darwin will make you blind and cause hair to grow
> >in the palm of your hands.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Ideas have consequences.
> **********************************************
Yes, it is important to keep the masses ignorant and cowed to the church.
They teach Latin in high school though, so you may need to translate the
Book of Holy Armaments to a more obscure language.
>
>
(compreseed straman argument) [.]
>
>
> > We must recognize that the Church must
> >adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
> >live in those times.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
> and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
> transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
> supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
> guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
> is unknown.
> ***************************************
Faith and salvation, even for the "holy roller" bibolators, is hardly
dependant upon yelling LA LA LA and refusing to hear about reality. I don't
suspect that God fears reality, so why should his church?
> >
> >This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
> >traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
> >For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
> >relevant to those people.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is Orwellian doublespeak.
> **********************************************
Do you really think that the number of legs on a grasshopper has anything at
all to do with giving of forgiveness 7 times 70 times?
>
>
> >Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
> >knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
> >theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics?
>
> Pagano replies:
> My computer does not clash with the Church's doctrines any more than
> my carpenter's hammer does. And as far as I know neither does the
> theory of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics has a great many
> successes it is not without its problems; its proximity to the truth
> is not known. Why in the world would a Catholic be so willing to
> ignore or alter Church doctrine whose truth is guarranteed for
> "knowledge" whose proximity to truth is not known?
> **************************************
Our knowledge and understanding of biological evolution is far more robust
than our grasp on QED and its relation to GR/SR.
>
>
>
> >Yet we
> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
> >the Bible.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
> painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
> background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
>
> The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
> direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
> Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
> **********************************************
>
Maybe if you got past the bizzare conceipt that human life is just *too*
special to be possible without devine fiat you will find biology easier to
handle.
>
>
> >But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
> >and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
>
> Pagano replies:
> I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
> Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
> misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
> from these documents which support your position.
> *********************************************
>
>
> > Literal
> >interpretation of the Bible is not Catholic.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and
> disabuse yourself of this. Paragraph 116 states unequivocally: "The
> literal sense is conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by
> exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other
> senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
>
> Most evolutionists (and apparently the writer) set up some caricature
> of the creationist who takes a pure, unadulterated literal and only
> literal view of Scripture. As far as I know no such person exists.
> ********************************************
I have met a couple, but I tend to agree that they are fairly rare. What
many people seem to have trouble dealing with is that thre are different
orders of "truth" and that something may be both false and absolutely true
at one time.
I have a little book written early last century by a man named Kahill
Gibrain. It is 100% fiction and 100% true. If you have trouble accepting
this I suggest getting the thing (a pocket edition costs aout $6) yourself.
You can read it in under an hour.
>
>
> > And without a literal
> >interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
> >communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
> >creation.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
> Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
> the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
> corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
> fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
>
> As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
> retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
> ***********************************
Uh, so?
>
>
> >Evolution is not about the beginnings of life. That point is made
> >constantly on the talk.origins group.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for
> evolution to proceed. Evolutionists have distanced themselves from
> the beginnings because abiogenesis has been a dismal failure.
> *****************************************
Abiogenesis is a neccesary initial process for life to proceed. I do actualy
agree that abiogenesis has a place in the body of evolutionary theory, but
it is still a difficult nut to crack; current theorys offer valid
explanation for how abiogenesis *can* occur, they are not robust enough to
explain how it *did* occur.
On the other hand; the evolution of species is observable, trackable and
quantifiable. No matter how the early replicators progressed (or were
"shazamed") towards bio-systems; the evolution within those biosystems is
readily apearant.
So -- Yes, evolution should take a wack at abiogenesis, but a failure to
sufficiently define abiogenesis does not invalidate the evolution of
species.
>
>
>
> > It is about how new species come
> >into being.
>
> Pagano replies:
> What is at issue in Origins research is not the capacity to produce
> separated breeding populations but the capacity to create new organs
> and new organisms; that is, to discover the origin of novelty and
> diversity.
> *************************************
No, it isn't. (provide a non-gratuitous claim and I may provide a
non-gratuitous response.)
Max Phillips
Thanks, David. Do you think, then, that Tony Pagano, was floating a trial
hot-air balloon with his reference to these restrictions? I don't find the
restrictions very restrictive myself, but rather a call to converge the two
disciplines of the metaphysical enterprise with the physical. So what else
is new? The Pope is only being realistic. -Creationist Max
Steven J.
>
> >Part of that relevance is a recognition of the advacement of the
> >knowledge of man. Would you abandon your computer because of a
> >theological question over indeterminacy in quantum mechanics?
>
> Pagano replies:
> My computer does not clash with the Church's doctrines any more than
> my carpenter's hammer does. And as far as I know neither does the
> theory of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics has a great many
> successes it is not without its problems; its proximity to the truth
> is not known. Why in the world would a Catholic be so willing to
> ignore or alter Church doctrine whose truth is guarranteed for
> "knowledge" whose proximity to truth is not known?
>
don't think you'd be interested in my take on the magisterium and the
catechism. But this paragraph caught my attention.
If the truth of a doctrine is "guaranteed," it would seem to imply,
logically, that the "proximity to truth" of any theory which
contradicts that doctrine must be known -- the theory must be false.
Yet you choose this prolix locution rather than simply say, "why trade
truth for error?" which suggests that you aren't using "guaranteed" in
quite the sense I first took it. That is, you aren't claiming some
sort of strict proof of, say, creationism. You implicitly acknowledge
that volition and faith, rather than evidence and reason, dictate that
you find these propositions "guaranteed truth."
Rather, you seem to be asking, why abandon an explanation of origins
which allows you to believe your explanation is certain and
unalterable, to take one which demands that you hold it tentatively,
and virtually assume that some details of it are mistaken and will be
superceded? Why CHOOSE to be uncertain and tentative, when certainty
and constancy are available options? Now, the standard answer to that
is that we would like our account of origins to be based on, and
consistent with, the actual evidence, and that the evidence doesn't
leave us a choice. You don't accept this.
Indeed, this, along with other clues (such as your reference, in the
thread on empirical effects of supernatural causes, to "guessing" the
effects which the Big Bang might produce, and to the all overturned
theories accumulating confirmations) suggests that you don't think
that scientific theories actually get closer to truth with the passing
of time. Theories are like images seen in fire or clouds, changing as
one discards one possibility after another, but never actually
converging on truth. The actual universe is beyond understanding;
science only "works" in the sense of collecting a set of engineering
tricks that it doesn't really understand, but only repeatedly deludes
itself into believing it understands. Science is simply one arbitrary
belief system, and one can validly choose some other system if one
finds it more emotionally and morally compelling.
Now, I would think that nuclear reactors, on the one hand, and several
thousand dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggest some inadequacies in
this view, but that is not my point. My point is that if you think
this way, then you don't really believe in science -- and shouldn't be
insulted to be told so. You shouldn't see any point to creation
"science" any more than to any other kind. Yet you repeatedly insist
that science can be done under your assumptions, and point out that
creationists accept most of mainstream science (and not, I would
assume, out of sheer laziness and lack of imagination). Why this
inconsistency?
You have asserted in the past that your (main) quarrel is with
attempts to reconstruct "unobserved, unique events in the prehistoric
past." Now, I have tried, on several occasions, to point out that:
(a) All events are unique in some respect; how else could we tell they
were even different events? OTOH, the events which the theory of
evolution deals with are not utterly unlike current and observed
events.
(b) Reliance on inference from evidence is necessary even when we have
observers, since witnesses can lie or be mistaken, and sense even our
own observations can be in error.
(c) The "prehistoric past" is just an arbitrarily isolated subset of
the entire range of unobserved phenomena; the whole point of doing
science is precisely the assumption that what is discovered in the lab
applies outside the lab, both in distant places and distant times.
You seem to regard some areas of, and theories in, science as having
some real connection to the real world, and others as being purely
subjective and arbitrary -- to be taken or rejected on faith. But
your ONLY criterion for this distinction is whether or not the
findings of science in these areas is compatible with your theology.
This is not logically consistent.
By the way, quantum mechanics (and you say there are problems with the
theory -- what do you think they are?) implies (inasmuch as decay
rates are a property of atoms dictated by the quantum properties of a
given combination of protons and neutrons) that radioisotope decay
rates are not significanty variable. This would seem to contradict
Church doctrine, assuming that (as you seem to) Church doctrine
actually teaches what Answers in Genesis teaches.
>
-- [snip]
>
> More to follow if time permits.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
David Smith
<obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I have no idea. What is clear is that the Pope would much rather have
the defenition of what man is come from the metaphysical rather than
the scientific realm.
David Smith
bugeye <mar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:h6aj8u8u3d10cvbv4...@4ax.com...
> > On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
> > <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >Sigh. Evolution is responsible for everything that is wrong with the
> > >world today. Reading Darwin will make you blind and cause hair to grow
> > >in the palm of your hands.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > Ideas have consequences.
> > **********************************************
>
> Yes, it is important to keep the masses ignorant and cowed to the church.
> They teach Latin in high school though, so you may need to translate the
> Book of Holy Armaments to a more obscure language.
Um. I carry a Bible with three (well, two and a sorta) approved
translations of the Bible in English with me to the Seminary. The New
American (NAB), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and the New Jerusalem (the
sorta). The NAB and NRSV are recommended for doing exegesis (biblical
studies) for class work, but only because the purpose behind those
translations was to capture the meaning of the words as well as
possible. The NJB is more focused on trying to capture the purpose of
the stories and is less true to the actual text, but is easier to read.
>
> >
> >
>
> (compreseed straman argument) [.]
>
> >
> >
> > > We must recognize that the Church must
> > >adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
> > >live in those times.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
> > and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
> > transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
> > supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
> > guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
> > is unknown.
> > ***************************************
>
> Faith and salvation, even for the "holy roller" bibolators, is hardly
> dependant upon yelling LA LA LA and refusing to hear about reality. I don't
> suspect that God fears reality, so why should his church?
It shouldn't. It doesn't. But it took this Pope to come right out and
say it. Take a look at one of my later posts in this tread and read the
part about 'Providentissimus Deus'. It says "truth cannot contradict
truth."
That is one area I can pretty much guarantee the Church will not change.
--
"Time may be money but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
Max Phillips
david...@mac.com wrote on 2002.03.10 8:45 AM:
[snip]
>> Thanks, David. Do you think, then, that Tony Pagano, was floating a trial
>> hot-air balloon with his reference to these restrictions? I don't find the
>> restrictions very restrictive myself, but rather a call to converge the two
>> disciplines of the metaphysical enterprise with the physical. So what else
>> is new? The Pope is only being realistic. -Creationist Max
>>
>
> I have no idea. What is clear is that the Pope would much rather have
> the defenition of what man is come from the metaphysical rather than
> the scientific realm.
Agreed that that is crystal clear. I myself believe that virtually all of
the good new evidence will come from scientific research. It will then be up
to theologians of all stripes to modify their positions to keep pace. This
is exactly what happened during the Copernican revolution. It's going to be
tough sledding for the Roman Catholic (RCC) theolgians, God bless them,
since they have to hang on to all of that "infallible tradition." I wouldn't
sell them short, though. They're definitely good at what they do best. For
example, they finally managed to "de-heresy" Galileo's "heresy" without
sacrificing too much. -Max
Max Phillips
[snip]
Dear Tony Pagano: Seminary? What seminary? -Max, a creationist
darth_versive
I don't know about Russell's position, but my own would be very much
at odds with the above paragraph. I do understand why JPII and the
Catholic Church would hold to this position, though, given their
theology. To me, theories of evolution involving a concept of the
mind as emerging from the forces of living matter is the only position
which is compatible with the truth about man, and it is also well able
to ground the dignity of the person. To me, there's nothing more
dignified than the idea of the human mind being a full participant in
the awesome grandeur of the universe. To me, it's a blow against
human dignity to suppose that we are somehow apart from nature. But
then I'm not a Catholic. They have another definition of human
dignity, which, while I respect their right to hold to it, I certainly
don't share. But I'm all for the free exchange of ideas on these
kinds of subjects in a non-coercive environment, which I hold to be an
important manifestation of the respect for human dignity (and which,
incidentally, the Catholic Church has not always held to be so).
DV
David Jensen
That was David Smith you were responding to.
Max Phillips
David Smith
darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Part of what I clipped goes to what you are saying. When looking at
Christian Anthropology (the study of man in the world from a
theological standpoint) there are two places you can start. One is with
God, which has been the common starting place for much of Church
history. A somewhat more recent view, one that was expounded by Karl
Rahner, is starting with man. The important thing for Rahner is man's
rationality and his ability to conceive, if not understand, the
infinite. To REALLY oversimplify, under Rahner man's interaction with
the infinite is a step towards man's interaction with God. God is the
"infinite horizon." This places man as part of the world around him,
yet seperates him through his rationality and his ability to respond to
God. That rationality is a core understanding of what man is and will
not change in the Church any time soon.
As to the awesome grandeur of the universe. You are right. When I teach
in Religious Ed I make a point of telling my kids to look around them.
I always ask: "Have you ever seen a prayer in a sunset or a rose?"
--
macaddicted
David Smith
<obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
That was me, macaddicted, Max. I attend St. John's Seminary in
Camarillo, CA, which is the seminary for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
(and several other dicoese and orders). I am a masters candidate in
systematic theology.
My laptop died, and I had to move everything to my desktop to keep on
the ng. Somehow the preferences got messed up, so my post name changed
to my real name rather than my sig.
--
macaddicted
Max Phillips
Cool, David. I have a master's in systematic theology also. -Max
John Wilkins
If the _Living Bible_ was good enough for Jesus, then it should be good
enough for you :-) [I have actually sat through "Bible study classes"
where the LB was discussed in minute detail. *shudder* One can only
explain the meaning of "paraphrase" so many times.]
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Dear Tony Pagano: Seminary? What seminary? -Max, a creationist
> >
> That was me, macaddicted, Max. I attend St. John's Seminary in
> Camarillo, CA, which is the seminary for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
> (and several other dicoese and orders). I am a masters candidate in
> systematic theology.
>
> My laptop died, and I had to move everything to my desktop to keep on
> the ng. Somehow the preferences got messed up, so my post name changed
> to my real name rather than my sig.
Sorry to hear that. Are you going to get one of the new Titaniums?
Drool...
Couldn't you have had a more memorable name than Smith? Macaddicted it
shall have to remain.
Please hang around, David. I like your posts, and it is refreshing to
have one more theologically literate participant here. Pagano is some
sort of undergraduate postmodern philosophy student, and he gets very
tiresome.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
pz
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
You mean you don't have one yet? They're really sweet...
>
> Couldn't you have had a more memorable name than Smith? Macaddicted it
> shall have to remain.
Nobody is going to misspell Smith, at least.
>
> Please hang around, David. I like your posts, and it is refreshing to
> have one more theologically literate participant here. Pagano is some
> sort of undergraduate postmodern philosophy student, and he gets very
> tiresome.
You are a master of understatement.
--
pz
John Wilkins
> In article <1f8vggi.bwwhc1k0ydvyN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>,
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > David Smith <david...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
...
> > > My laptop died, and I had to move everything to my desktop to keep on
> > > the ng. Somehow the preferences got messed up, so my post name changed
> > > to my real name rather than my sig.
> >
> > Sorry to hear that. Are you going to get one of the new Titaniums?
> > Drool...
>
> You mean you don't have one yet? They're really sweet...
Bastard. No, I have to wait to win a laptop, like I did the Wall Street
G3 I now use. I can't *buy* the things...
>
> >
> > Couldn't you have had a more memorable name than Smith? Macaddicted it
> > shall have to remain.
>
> Nobody is going to misspell Smith, at least.
Unlike, say, Miers.
>
> >
> > Please hang around, David. I like your posts, and it is refreshing to
> > have one more theologically literate participant here. Pagano is some
> > sort of undergraduate postmodern philosophy student, and he gets very
> > tiresome.
>
> You are a master of understatement.
I've been told.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
I am nothing like this - no, really:
<http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html>
Scott
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1f8vggi.bwwhc1k0ydvyN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> David Smith <david...@mac.com> wrote:
> Please hang around, David. I like your posts, and it is refreshing to
> have one more theologically literate participant here. Pagano is some
> sort of undergraduate postmodern philosophy student, and he gets very
> tiresome.
I'm having doubts that Pagano is actually Catholic.
Pagano, are you or are you not a Roman Catholic?
On your honor, a simple "yes" or "no".
I've already asked you this and you didn't answer.
If you choose not to answer, I think it's fare to believe you've been
leading everyone on.
Scott
macaddicted
<wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
I tried to disassemble the PB to fix it, but the power card seems to be
shot. I would love a G4 PB but you can imagine what a theology student
makes.
> Couldn't you have had a more memorable name than Smith? Macaddicted it
> shall have to remain.
Yeah, will at least my cousin got John (but different last name).
>
> Please hang around, David. I like your posts, and it is refreshing to
> have one more theologically literate participant here. Pagano is some
> sort of undergraduate postmodern philosophy student, and he gets very
> tiresome.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I have been careful to stay out of the
discussions involving evolution- I am still learning there. But when
theological questions arise I like to jump in with both feet. Actually
this subject is somewhat ironic. My thesis advisor and I settled on a
discussion of the place and value of man in both evolutionary and
Catholic thought as my thesis topic. I get to see if I can reconcile
the apparently irreconciliable. Rahner vs. Dawkins, it should be
interesting.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
Scott
"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.com> wrote in message
news:110320020808408543%
> Thank you. I appreciate it. I have been careful to stay out of the
> discussions involving evolution- I am still learning there. But when
> theological questions arise I like to jump in with both feet. Actually
> this subject is somewhat ironic. My thesis advisor and I settled on a
> discussion of the place and value of man in both evolutionary and
> Catholic thought as my thesis topic. I get to see if I can reconcile
> the apparently irreconciliable. Rahner vs. Dawkins, it should be
> interesting.
Interesting. I'd like to know the outcome of that when you've finished
Scott
darth_versive
<snip>
> Part of what I clipped goes to what you are saying. When looking at
> Christian Anthropology (the study of man in the world from a
> theological standpoint) there are two places you can start. One is with
> God, which has been the common starting place for much of Church
> history. A somewhat more recent view, one that was expounded by Karl
> Rahner, is starting with man. The important thing for Rahner is man's
> rationality and his ability to conceive, if not understand, the
> infinite. To REALLY oversimplify, under Rahner man's interaction with
> the infinite is a step towards man's interaction with God. God is the
> "infinite horizon." This places man as part of the world around him,
> yet seperates him through his rationality and his ability to respond to
> God. That rationality is a core understanding of what man is and will
> not change in the Church any time soon.
>
> As to the awesome grandeur of the universe. You are right. When I teach
> in Religious Ed I make a point of telling my kids to look around them.
> I always ask: "Have you ever seen a prayer in a sunset or a rose?"
Yes. This latter view is closer to my own position. I myself
wouldn't put either God or man at the starting place, however, but
nature. But there are parallels between Rahner's conception of God as
the "infinite horizon" and modern scientific ideas of a vast universe,
which is perhaps infinite, perhaps not. Either way, it is beyond our
"horizon" of understanding, and therefore both theists and naturalists
can share the feelings of humility before that which is greater than
our powers of comprehension. Now the task is to figure out a way to
arrive at a perspective of mutual respect for each other's views.
Compared to conceiving the infinite or unravelling the mysteries of
the universe, this seems like a pretty tall order. ;)
DV
Scott
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:LV3j8.1151$PN1.58...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I'm having doubts that Pagano is actually Catholic.
> Pagano, are you or are you not a Roman Catholic?
> On your honor, a simple "yes" or "no".
c'mon tony. fess up. this enquiring mind would rather positively know.
Scott
macaddicted
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.0 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 37
X-Abuse-Report: Send abuse reports to ab...@onlynews.com
Organization: http://www.cyclonews.com
In article <PDoj8.10857$864.249...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:LV3j8.1151$PN1.58...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> >
> > I'm having doubts that Pagano is actually Catholic.
> > Pagano, are you or are you not a Roman Catholic?
> > On your honor, a simple "yes" or "no".
>
> c'mon tony. fess up. this enquiring mind would rather positively know.
>
>
I don't think he will answer. At least not in this thread. You might
try re-starting the thread with a new name (like "PAGANO! ARE YOU
CATHOLIC?) . He accused my of misquoting from a couple encyclicals and
asked for proof. I gave it to him and he disappeared.
We spend a lot of time at school discussing how to speak to parishoners
(this being a seminary after all). Assuming Pagano is Catholic (and I
am willing to take him at his word for now), he represents the "drag
them kicking and screaming into the modern Church" group. They thank
God daily for EWTN and catholic.com, otherwise the parish might be
taken over by the charismatics. :-)
He does know what paragraphs to pull from the Cathechism, but we have
both seen that. I used to spend a lot of time in the Catholic
alt.religion group, but I got tired of constantly banging my head
against the wall of the SDA'ers and all the rest that troll there.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
Scott
> newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
> Mail-Copies-To: nobody
> User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.0 (Carbon/OS X)
> Lines: 37
> X-Abuse-Report: Send abuse reports to ab...@onlynews.com
> Organization: http://www.cyclonews.com
>
> In article <PDoj8.10857$864.249...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:LV3j8.1151$PN1.58...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm having doubts that Pagano is actually Catholic.
> > > Pagano, are you or are you not a Roman Catholic?
> > > On your honor, a simple "yes" or "no".
> >
> > c'mon tony. fess up. this enquiring mind would rather positively know.
> >
> >
> I don't think he will answer. At least not in this thread. You might
> try re-starting the thread with a new name (like "PAGANO! ARE YOU
> CATHOLIC?) . He accused my of misquoting from a couple encyclicals and
> asked for proof. I gave it to him and he disappeared.
I have my doubts too but I think I'll take your advice and try a new thread.
>
> We spend a lot of time at school discussing how to speak to parishoners
> (this being a seminary after all). Assuming Pagano is Catholic (and I
> am willing to take him at his word for now), he represents the "drag
> them kicking and screaming into the modern Church" group. They thank
> God daily for EWTN and catholic.com, otherwise the parish might be
> taken over by the charismatics. :-)
I have a pretty good memory (at least I think so :-)). I can't remember Tony
ever actually calling himself a Roman Catholic and/or one in good standing
with the Holy See. And, yea, I've met those EWTN types at a.r.c.r-c. They
think it's their duty to tell the Bishops what should be taught.
>
> He does know what paragraphs to pull from the Cathechism, but we have
> both seen that. I used to spend a lot of time in the Catholic
> alt.religion group, but I got tired of constantly banging my head
> against the wall of the SDA'ers and all the rest that troll there.
>
I've learned to poke fun at many of them. This past week we had the <cough>
excuse me <cough> esteemed Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel
http://calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/index.htm and The Word for
Today national radio host start threads at a.r.c.r-c. He posted anonymously
as "CS" for a creationism video. After I challenged him he began telling us
what we should believe as Catholics about the Bible, evolution, and
creationism. When I asked him if he was Catholic, he answered to the
affirmative. If you're interested as to how I figured out who he actually
was, do a googel search for author "CS" or the tread "Scott".
Tony's being Catholic for some reason reminds me of Chucky. I can't quite
put my finger on why other than to call it a hunch. Tony, however, is much
better than Chuck at searching Catholic info such as the Catechism. Maybe
him and Chucky need to team up. Tony does however have the same problem that
Chucky does. When you give them a quote such as the following, he
discounts/disregards it:
WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE
http://www.libertynet.org/bvm/creed.htm
Creed
Ecclesiastical Approval
This book has been submitted to the Archdiocesan Censor Librorum who has
stated in writing that there is nothing in this book that is contrary to
faith or morals.
Creator
To believe that God created the world does not exclude evolution or change
over the centuries. Evolution presupposes that something existed which had
to be created
Scott
David Sienkiewicz
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
> Mail-Copies-To: nobody
> User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.0 (Carbon/OS X)
> Lines: 37
> X-Abuse-Report: Send abuse reports to ab...@onlynews.com
> Organization: http://www.cyclonews.com
>
> In article <PDoj8.10857$864.249...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:LV3j8.1151$PN1.58...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm having doubts that Pagano is actually Catholic.
> > > Pagano, are you or are you not a Roman Catholic?
> > > On your honor, a simple "yes" or "no".
> >
> > c'mon tony. fess up. this enquiring mind would rather positively know.
> >
> >
> I don't think he will answer. At least not in this thread. You might
> try re-starting the thread with a new name (like "PAGANO! ARE YOU
> CATHOLIC?) . He accused my of misquoting from a couple encyclicals and
> asked for proof. I gave it to him and he disappeared.
That's our Tony!
Mike Dunford
wrote:
>In article <PDoj8.10857$864.249...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
>Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> c'mon tony. fess up. this enquiring mind would rather positively know.
>>
>>
>I don't think he will answer. At least not in this thread. You might
>try re-starting the thread with a new name (like "PAGANO! ARE YOU
>CATHOLIC?) . He accused my of misquoting from a couple encyclicals and
>asked for proof. I gave it to him and he disappeared.
[snip]
That's not surprising. In the several years that I've been reading
and/or posting on this group, my personal religious beliefs have
shifted from lapsed Catholic to agnostic and finally back to
practicing Catholic. Despite my personal shifts in belief, I sometimes
wound up in debates with him over what the current church teachings
are. He was usually unresponsive, especially to any argument drawn
from Vatican II documents.
You managed to use the two words which virtually gurantee that he will
not reply in your response to him: Dei Verbum. If he does reply, he
will edit that portion out.
--Mike Dunford
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Mike Dunford" <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c8e40bb.70683730@news-server...
I particularly want to know what the pope would think of Tony's argument
that leads to the conclusion that Creation is reversible without outside
influences.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Max Phillips
Max Phillips
Being a confessor, the Pope would probably forgive Tony. -Max
A Pagano
>
>"A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
>> <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>snipped
>>
>> More to follow if time permits.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>What's wrong Tony? You claim to being Catholic yet you deleted
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. Why? Don't you want your fellow
>Catholics to learn what it is you know about Catholicism and Evolution?
Pagano replies:
I, generally speaking, find cross posting bad form. I am not alone in
this feeling. As a result I almost always reset my replies to
talk.origins alone.
**************************************
> When
>I asked CS if he was Catholic, he answered in the affirmative. Turns out he
>really was the Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.
Pagano replies:
Don't recall reading any of Chuch Smith's posts at talk.origins and I
have no idea was his position is about anything.
**********************************
> Tony, have you been
>lying all along about being Catholic, too?
>
>Scott
Pagano replies:
There are no boundaries on the categories of people misrepresenting
the Catholic Church's position on evolution. In my experience in this
group I've found that usually those calling themselves Catholic
misrepresent the Church's position the most.
Is the fact that I challenge the frequent misrepresention of the
Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences causing you to
question my religious affiliation? If so I suggest you read the whole
address (it's only three pages long) and read "Humani Generis" which
the Pope affirms in that address.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
A Pagano
>> >As Catholics we must constantly fight against the desire to stick our
>> >heads in the sand because something is theologically uncomfortable.
>> >Vatican II is not going away.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> A few encyclicals are quite clear about what is and is not acceptable.
>> Pope John Paul II's much misrepresented address to the Pontifical
>> Academy of Sciences reiterated these restrictions and guidelines. The
>> restrictions have been routinely ignored and violated. The Catechism
>> of the Catholic Church (para 295) teaches unequivocally that,"[the
>> world] is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate
>> or chance."
>>
>> As Catholics these restrictions and teachings are not "theologically
>> uncomfortable" but clear and present guidance that the materialist
>> theories are, in part, misguided.
>>
>> One wonders what, if anything, contained within the four corners of
>> Vatican II lent aid and comfort to the purely materialistic worldview
>> of Darwinism.
>> ***************************************
>>
macaddicted replied:
>The question here is not "blind fate or chance" but contingency, which
>is something God could make very good use of.
Pagano replies:
Historical contingency is certainly one of the doctrines upon which
secular evolutionary biology is built, but it is not the principle or
most critical doctrine. Modern evolutionary biology is purely
materialistic and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
random ones) are responsible for all creative activity. Random and
chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
diversity not historical contingency. And no evolutionist has ever
been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
system.
In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
trying to avoid it. This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
[snip]
more to follow if time permits.
Regards,
T Pagano
Scott
Since you hit on materialistic, I'll reply here:
WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE
http://www.libertynet.org/bvm/creed.htm
Creed
Ecclesiastical Approval
This book has been submitted to the Archdiocesan Censor Librorum who has
stated in writing that there is nothing in this book that is contrary to
faith or morals.
Creator
To believe that God created the world does not exclude evolution or change
over the centuries. Evolution presupposes that something existed which had
to be created
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0005.html
A GOD OF GAPS?
The proper lesson was at long last drawn by the Catholic Church when she
left Darwin alone. Darwin is still resisted by many Christians on the ground
that god made all plants and animals according to their kind. They resist
for the wrong reasons a Darwin who himself failed to realize that the
strongest reasons on behalf of evolution were offered by the metaphysical
abilities of the human mind which he tried to discredit once and for all.
For only that mind can see an interlocking unity across all time and space:
from subatomic particles on to the human body itself, with no gaps in
between whatsoever.
Of course, evolutionary biology is far from having filled all those gaps.
Some of them, buried in the past, it may never bridge. But to try to fill
those gaps with a recourse to God and to the Bible, would be a most
unbiblical thing. First, the history of science has provided countless
examples of filling gaps of knowledge, each time exposing to ridicule a God
whom some ill-advised Christians let perch over this or that gap in their
science. They took improbabilities for impossibilities, which is an
elementary fallacy in reasoning.
One can indeed make an impressive sport of calculating the improbability of
this or that physical process. But time and again science performs the
"impossible." It should be enough to think of the synthesis of urea by
Wohler in 1828, who in one stroke eliminated the allegedly absolute
difference between inorganic and organic matter. After he did that the
laughter of some materialists reached high heaven.
Another reason for holding evolution to be true relates to the emphatic
affirmations in the Bible that all matter is good. By saying that matter is
good, the Bible certainly implies that matter is not evil, but it also says
that the edifice raised by God is as good as any other edifice which is
good. But an edifice is good only insofar as it is compact, solid,
consistent in its working. In other words, such a material edifice fully
obeys the rationality of its architect. Why not say all of this, and in a
superlative sense about the material universe made by God? Is God a
second-rate architect, is God a second rate materials physicist or chemist,
or molecular biologist who always has to improve on what he has done
already?
Indeed, all the praises accorded by materialists to matter should pale
beside the praises which Christians should accord to that same matter.
Herein lies the reason why a Christian should be an all-out materialist,
provided the human mind is excepted. This is why a Christian should be an
all-out evolutionist, provided the human mind and the human mind alone is
considered as a special creation of God.
Anything short of this would add to the materialists' laughter that reaches
to high heaven. I hope that Carl Sagan is now in heaven. So God has the last
laugh, that God whose infinite mercy has souls for its object. Even Almighty
God cannot be merciful with mere matter. But Carl Sagan has the next-to-last
laugh. This chief village atheist of our times, or rather the chief atheist
performer of the village called evolutionary science, now can laugh fully,
knowing that there is no Christian physics, no Christian chemistry, no
Christian evolutionary science as long as these are science and not
philosophies. But Sagan also laughs at his folly of having promoted the
cause of an atheistic science.
This shows that nothing is so dangerous as to latch philosophies to purely
quantitative considerations, which are the exclusive business of science.
For unless we grant science everything which is its right, we cannot deny
anything to science which it cannot rightfully claim.
once again you loose
are you sure you're Catholic?
Scott
Max Phillips
sc...@nospam.net wrote on 2002.03.14 8:29 PM:
>
> "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:mnu29ukeod5fic08c...@4ax.com...
> anything to science which it cannot rightfully claim.
>
> once again you loose
If Pagano is once again loose, Scott, then don't you think it prudent to tie
him back up?
Max Phillips
Scott
"Max Phillips" <obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8B6B9AC.3034%obscu...@earthlink.net...
> in article CMek8.2605$9v4.92...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com, Scott at
> sc...@nospam.net wrote on 2002.03.14 8:29 PM:
>
> >
> > "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:mnu29ukeod5fic08c...@4ax.com...
> > anything to science which it cannot rightfully claim.
> >
> > once again you loose
>
> If Pagano is once again loose, Scott, then don't you think it prudent to
tie
> him back up?
LOL sorry my bad typos.
Let me fix it: once again, pagano, you lose.
I'm gone for a several days. I'll let you have him, Mac.
Scott
Scott
Max
Max Phillips
anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.14 6:06 PM:
> Pagano replies:
> Historical contingency is certainly one of the doctrines upon which
> secular evolutionary biology is built,
Any evidence to back up this assertion?
> but it is not the principle or
> most critical doctrine. Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> materialistic
Any evidence beyond your personal opinion?
> and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> random ones) are responsible for all creative activity.
How do you know this?
> Random and
> chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
> diversity not historical contingency.
Ever heard of gene duplication?
> And no evolutionist has ever
> been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
> in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
> system.
How do you know?
> In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
> para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
> trying to avoid it. This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
>
> [snip]
>
> more to follow if time permits.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Tony, are you a Roman Catholic or not?
Max, a Pauline Christian and a Darwinian evolutionist
Max Phillips
anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.14 5:35 PM:
> On 8 Mar 2002 22:40:58 -0500, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>> What's wrong Tony? You claim to being Catholic yet you deleted
>> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. Why? Don't you want your fellow
>> Catholics to learn what it is you know about Catholicism and Evolution?
>
> Pagano replies:
> I, generally speaking, find cross posting bad form. I am not alone in
> this feeling. As a result I almost always reset my replies to
> talk.origins alone.
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
> **************************************
>
>
>> When
>> I asked CS if he was Catholic, he answered in the affirmative. Turns out he
>> really was the Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Don't recall reading any of Chuch Smith's posts at talk.origins and I
> have no idea was his position is about anything.
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
> **********************************
>
>
>> Tony, have you been
>> lying all along about being Catholic, too?
>>
>> Scott
>
> Pagano replies:
> There are no boundaries on the categories of people misrepresenting
> the Catholic Church's position on evolution.
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
> In my experience in this
> group I've found that usually those calling themselves Catholic
> misrepresent the Church's position the most.
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
> Is the fact that I challenge the frequent misrepresention of the
> Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences causing you to
> question my religious affiliation?
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
> If so I suggest you read the whole
> address (it's only three pages long) and read "Humani Generis" which
> the Pope affirms in that address.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
David Sienkiewicz
Tony has never demonstrated that anyone is misrepresenting the Church
that *I* have seen. He makes references and even quotes material, but
it's usually wrongly interpreted.
I think Tony is a very confused and frightened Catholic.
David Sienkiewicz
Yes.
Tony refuses to couch his responses in simple terms, Max. That's part
of his "charm," if you will.
The reason that Tony does this is so that he can provide the illusion
of intelligence, wit and deep thought.
So Tony will always use as many words as possible on those rare
occasions when he responds at all.
Tony at least believes he's a Catholic. That's good enough.
David Sienkiewicz
> in article mnu29ukeod5fic08c...@4ax.com, A Pagano at
> anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.14 6:06 PM:
>
> > Pagano replies:
> > Historical contingency is certainly one of the doctrines upon which
> > secular evolutionary biology is built,
>
> Any evidence to back up this assertion?
Nope.
> > but it is not the principle or
> > most critical doctrine. Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> > materialistic
>
> Any evidence beyond your personal opinion?
Nope.
> > and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> > random ones) are responsible for all creative activity.
>
> How do you know this?
He doesn't.
> > Random and
> > chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
> > diversity not historical contingency.
>
> Ever heard of gene duplication?
He may have heard the phrase somewhere, but he has no clue how it
works.
He also doesn't know about mutation, crossing-over or any other basic
piece of knowledge taught in elementary biology.
And he won't look them up.
He's unteachable, you see. He's said so himself.
> > And no evolutionist has ever
> > been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
> > in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
> > system.
>
> How do you know?
He doesn't. It's an assertion - an argument from his own authority.
> > In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
> > para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
> > trying to avoid it. This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > more to follow if time permits.
> >
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> Tony, are you a Roman Catholic or not?
Yes.
Tracy P. Hamilton
> macaddicted wrote:
> >> >As Catholics we must constantly fight against the desire to stick our
> >> >heads in the sand because something is theologically uncomfortable.
> >> >Vatican II is not going away.
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> A few encyclicals are quite clear about what is and is not acceptable.
> >> Pope John Paul II's much misrepresented address to the Pontifical
> >> Academy of Sciences reiterated these restrictions and guidelines. The
> >> restrictions have been routinely ignored and violated. The Catechism
> >> of the Catholic Church (para 295) teaches unequivocally that,"[the
> >> world] is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate
> >> or chance."
> >>
> >> As Catholics these restrictions and teachings are not "theologically
> >> uncomfortable" but clear and present guidance that the materialist
> >> theories are, in part, misguided.
> >>
> >> One wonders what, if anything, contained within the four corners of
> >> Vatican II lent aid and comfort to the purely materialistic worldview
> >> of Darwinism.
Psst. Nobody has to be a materialist to accept Darwinism.
You have been hoodwinked by Philip Johnson.
> >> ***************************************
> >>
>
> macaddicted replied:
> >The question here is not "blind fate or chance" but contingency, which
> >is something God could make very good use of.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Historical contingency is certainly one of the doctrines upon which
> secular evolutionary biology is built, but it is not the principle or
> most critical doctrine. Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> materialistic
as materialistic as all science is. So why single out evolution?
(this also applies to Johnson, and guess what? No response!)
> and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> random ones) are responsible for all creative activity. Random and
> chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
> diversity not historical contingency.
Tony, the mutations are of already existing DNA. A mutation does
not make a completely new DNA sequence totally unrelated to anything
previous.
> And no evolutionist has ever
> been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
> in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
> system.
What is meant by unique events in history? Identifying the mutation
as happening in animal X on date MM/DD/YY?
What is meant by "biological structure", and how do you think they
are made during *development* in an individual organism? I think
you don't even understand this, much less understand how a
change in the development process results in a changed "biological
structure".
When are you going to answer Andy Groves questions about nascent
beaks (for the lurkers of course)?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
David Sienkiewicz
What do you mean by "historical contingency," Tony?
You say it's "one of the doctrines upon which secular evolutionary
biology is built." Now, neither you nor I are experts in biology, but
I've read a number who are, and I've never seen this claimed by ANYONE
as "one of the doctrines upon which secular evolutionary biology is
built."
I do find a reference to historical contingency here:
http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/what_is_evo_biology.htm
And here's what it says:
"A fundamental principle of evolutionary science is that living
systems owe their properties to an interplay between stochastic
(random) events and deterministic (consistent, predictable) processes.
Random mutations, asteroid impacts, and other such events have greatly
influenced the course of species' evolution. Therefore, evolutionary
biologists have developed probabilistic theories that describe the
likelihood of various evolutionary trajectories. An important
corollary of random events is historical contingency. Although some
adaptations to environmental factors are reasonably predictable, other
characteristics of organisms are the consequence of "historical
accidents" that launched evolution along one path rather than others.
The modifications of the forelimbs for flight, for example, are very
different in birds, bats, and pterodactyls, presumably because
different mutations presented natural selection with different options
in these lineages."
I see "historical contingency" listed as a corollary, but not as a
fundamental doctrine. It also makes sense that it would serve as a
corollary.
So I suspect that you made up the claim that it's a doctrine and less
a corollary. You might even be using "contingency" in some unstandard
way, as you often do when you try to bamboozle the reading audience.
> Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> materialistic and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> random ones) are responsible for all creative activity. Random and
> chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
> diversity not historical contingency.
And this proves what, Tony?
> And no evolutionist has ever
> been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
> in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
> system.
As has been noted before, Tony, you tend to make a great deal of
rhetorical hay out of what science is unable to do versus what it can
do or has done. The fact is that, as I recall, there are several
theories with respect to how certain structures have originated or
have been derived.
Your argument here is similar to the argument you tried with the
discussion of the HOX gene. You tried to misdirect so that the
argument would actually be how the HOX gene arose in the first place -
or something like that. But that wasn't the point. The fact is that
the limitations of knowledge and science do not eliminate what IS
known nor do those limitations invalidate what is known.
> In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
> para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
> trying to avoid it. This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
Well, as long as you intend to presume to publicly judge and castigate
a fellow Catholic - and do so in a public forum - by all means,
present the paragraph you cite.
Let's all have a look at it.
Elmer Bataitis
> Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> materialistic....
As is all science Tony.
> and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> random ones) are responsible for all creative activity.
And say Tony, how does one distinguish between "naturalistic" random
processes and "naturalistic" random processes that are supernaturally
directed?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Tracy P. Hamilton
> in article kfu29ukcbeob7cg2c...@4ax.com, A Pagano at
> anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.14 5:35 PM:
>
> > On 8 Mar 2002 22:40:58 -0500, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> What's wrong Tony? You claim to being Catholic yet you deleted
> >> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. Why? Don't you want your
fellow
> >> Catholics to learn what it is you know about Catholicism and Evolution?
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > I, generally speaking, find cross posting bad form. I am not alone in
> > this feeling. As a result I almost always reset my replies to
> > talk.origins alone.
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
> > **************************************
> >
> >
> >> When
> >> I asked CS if he was Catholic, he answered in the affirmative. Turns
out he
> >> really was the Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > Don't recall reading any of Chuch Smith's posts at talk.origins and I
> > have no idea was his position is about anything.
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
> > **********************************
> >
> >
> >> Tony, have you been
> >> lying all along about being Catholic, too?
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > There are no boundaries on the categories of people misrepresenting
> > the Catholic Church's position on evolution.
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
> > In my experience in this
> > group I've found that usually those calling themselves Catholic
> > misrepresent the Church's position the most.
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
> > Is the fact that I challenge the frequent misrepresention of the
> > Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences causing you to
> > question my religious affiliation?
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
> > If so I suggest you read the whole
> > address (it's only three pages long) and read "Humani Generis" which
> > the Pope affirms in that address.
> >
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> Are you Roman Catholic, Tony?
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
See Matthew 26, although Tony is running the rooster hoarse compared
to Peter.
Tracy P. Hamilton
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Pagano replies:
> There are no boundaries on the categories of people misrepresenting
> the Catholic Church's position on evolution. In my experience in this
> group I've found that usually those calling themselves Catholic
> misrepresent the Church's position the most.
Tony,
I would, respectfully, ask you to tell me what positions you think are
being misrepresented. You may be right that Catholic's are
misinterpreting Church doctrine. If I cannot give a proper response I
can forward the question to any of the three professors that are
teaching the class on evolution and the Church at school. All three
hold doctorates in theology.
It seems that would be the best way to clear this up.
Andy Groves
<snip>
> Modern evolutionary biology is purely
> materialistic
Indeed. Like all other areas of science, it uses methodological
naturalism.
> and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
> random ones) are responsible for all creative activity.
Coupled with selection.
> Random and
> chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
> diversity not historical contingency. And no evolutionist has ever
> been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
> in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
> system.
And no evolutionist has claimed such a direct causal relationship
either. In order to do so, one would constantly have to monitor the
genomes of all individual organisms, chart every mutation, and then
follow the modified population to see if a new structure emerges. Any
hypotheses that biologists make about such things are necessarily
retrospective. There are plenty of such examples, as you know full
well.
Andy
A Pagano
macaddicted wrote:
>> > We must recognize that the Church must
>> >adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
>> >live in those times.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
>> and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
>> transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
>> supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
>> guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
>> is unknown.
>> ***************************************
macaddicted responds:
>As I said, the doctrines of faith do not change. But we must always
>endeavor to make those truths relevant to the body of the faithful
>today. Sometimes this requires that we re-present our body of faith in
>a manner that is relatable to each culture. The Church of today is not
>the Church of Augustine, Aquinas or even Pius XII.
Pagano replies:
This again is Orwellian doublespeak. On the one hand macaddicted
claims the doctrines of Faith don't change while on the other he says
that we must "adapt" the doctrines and "make them relevent." If the
doctrines are unchangeable TRUTHS then they are timeless and their
relevence is independent of our fallible human background knowledge
and our lifestyle.
One would ask macaddicted to identify the point or points in history
where the doctrines of Faith became irrelevent or less relevent than
they were during the time of St. Augustine.
***************************************
>
>> >
>> >This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
>> >traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
>> >For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
>> >relevant to those people.
Pagano re-responds to this:
If one is of the faith then abandoning the doctrines of Faith is not
an option. Why does macaddicted even imply that it is an option for a
practicing Catholic?
Doctrines or dogmas of faith are independent of the changes in the
world and changes in lifestyle. While theologians may deduce or
deductively infer new statements from the body of unchangable faith to
answer new questions this has nothing to do with the timeless
relevence of the doctrines of faith.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> This is Orwellian doublespeak.
>> **********************************************
>
>It's just what I said. People will look to God, and look to their
>lives. If God is not presented in a way that they can bring him into
>their EVERYDAY lives than we risk becoming irrelevant. That is the job
>of religion, to bring faith to life.
Pagano replies:
This is the common statement of the "cafeteria" Catholic. That is,
the kind of Catholic who takes from the body of Faith that which is
convenient and either discard or ignore the rest. The real goal of
the Catholic is to follow Christ's timeless example and the dogmatic
guidance provided by the doctrines preserved by the Church. God and
His teachings are not bent to fit your lifestyle; you are required to
conform your life to His example.
Tracy P. Hamilton
> [This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
Hey, Tony.
While rooting around in the Roman Catholic catechism, I found this:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been
the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched
our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the
development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These
discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of
the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for
the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.
With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge
of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the
elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121
121 Wis 7:17-22.
They ain't talking about creationists here! Why did you omit this from
your earlier quotation of the RC catechism? You shouldn't have, because
18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic
faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.
Numerous
cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a
sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as
well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to
view
each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
Maybe the understanding of the truths change over time. Humans are
fallible, you know. Why else would the catechism be changed every
so often? Why have an invocation of infallibility for a very select parts,
if the whole is TRUTH (TM)?
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> This is the common statement of the "cafeteria" Catholic. That is,
> the kind of Catholic who takes from the body of Faith that which is
> convenient and either discard or ignore the rest.
What kind of Catholic quotes paragraph 295 but not 283? A
"cafeteria" Catholic, perhaps?
Maybe you ought to judge not, lest you be judged. (paraphrasing
some guy)
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Dunford
wrote:
[snip]
>macaddicted replied:
>>The question here is not "blind fate or chance" but contingency, which
>>is something God could make very good use of.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Historical contingency is certainly one of the doctrines upon which
>secular evolutionary biology is built, but it is not the principle or
>most critical doctrine. Modern evolutionary biology is purely
>materialistic and it presupposes that stochastic process (that is
>random ones) are responsible for all creative activity. Random and
>chance mutations are asserted to be the source of novelty and
>diversity not historical contingency.
Modern evolutionary biology has revealed the importance of mutation in
evolution, and can tell us that there is no apparent pattern of
mutations -- that is, as far as we can tell through purely
materialistic methods, they occur more or less randomly.
The decision on how to interpret these scientific results, however, is
one which is purely driven by personal philosophical/religious belief.
Materialists will see the apparent randomness demonstrated by science,
and conclude that the process is indeed random. There is nothing,
however, which forces anyone (including scientists) to be a
materialist. _Science_ is limited to studying the physical universe,
but _scientists_ are not compelled to believe that the physical
universe is all that exists.
Instead of addressing this in abstract terms, I will use my own
belief. I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, creator of
heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I cannot justify
this belief through scientific explanation, or through the cold
analysis of logic. There is absolutely no evidence I can think of
within the universe, other than the presense of the universe itself,
which leads me to this belief. I do not expect to find any, either.
In fact, for the last few years, I've been very painfully aware that
there is no scientific or logical reason to believe in God. As
recently as a month or two ago, I'd probably have identified myself as
a deist rather than a Catholic. I can't say with any certainty (or
clarity) exactly why I went back to church, except to say that while
Darwin might have made it possible to be an *intellectually* fulfilled
athiest, I never really felt that an athiest, agnostic, or even
deistic worldview was truly fulfilling. Accepting Catholicism feels
right for me. The other worldviews did not.
This doesn't mean that I am renouncing science, and jumping into the
YEC, OEC, ID, or other science-denying camps. My view of the history
of life and of the earth has not changed much (if at all). I have
simply decided that I cannot accept a purely materialistic worldview.
I do not expect to find evidence for God in nature -- I think that
nature itself is the evidence.
In fact, on reflection, I think that creationists and IDers are
actually in danger of falling into a materialistic trap of their own.
They cannot accept that God might act in ways which do not leave
empirical evidence. They are not content to accept nature as it is, as
a work art, unless they find the fingreprint of the artist on the
canvas. In many ways, they appear to have the faith of Thomas.
> And no evolutionist has ever
>been able to draw a direct causal relationship between unique events
>in history and the creation of a single biological structure or
>system.
I will now ask you a question I have asked repeatedly over the last
several months, but which you have not answered. Why is a new chamber
in the test of a foram not a new structure?
>In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
>para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
>trying to avoid it.
Actually, the more I read the Catechism and other Church documents,
the clearer it becomes that you are the one who is trying desperately
to avoid current church teachings, including parts of the Catechism.
However, there is no part of paragraph 295 which is incompatable with
any aspect of modern science. Paragraph 295 is incompatable with
philosophical materialism, and warns against it, but science does not
demand that philosophical position.
> This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
That accusation doesn't sit well with me, coming from you. I've lost
count of the number of times over the last few years that I've
referred you to Dei Verbum, yet you consistently refuse to acknowledge
the document and the instructions for the interpretation of scripture
it outlines when questioned about your belief in a literalistic
interpretation of Genesis 1.
--Mike Dunford
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
Apparently I was insufficiently clear. I did not mean that the
doctrines themselves change. I meant that the way in which they are
presented and the way in which each age, and even each society within
an age engages them must change just as those societies change.
Take for example the ideas put forth in the Council of Nicaea. The
manner in which we speak of Jesus as devine was defined by that
council, yet the terms used by Nicaea do not carry the same basic
meaning today that the did then. Also, the ideas behind Nicaea are very
dependent on Johanine theology, most especially the idea of christology
from above. But changes in philosophy and advances in science have led
many theologians to change the starting point of christology from God
to man. This has led to a christology from below. Each lead to the same
place, but use different methods in their approach. That christology
from below is used much more in modern theology does not discount or
dismiss Nicaea, but it does require that Nicaea be re-interpretted in
light of this new theological method.
> >
> >> >
> >> >This does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs or surrender our
> >> >traditions. It does mean that we must recognize that the world changes.
> >> >For the Church to act in the lives of the faithful it must remain
> >> >relevant to those people.
>
> Pagano re-responds to this:
> If one is of the faith then abandoning the doctrines of Faith is not
> an option. Why does macaddicted even imply that it is an option for a
> practicing Catholic?
That modes of expression of faith change. Even societies in the same
age have different approaches to God. Take liberation theology that
came out of Central America. This is a theology based very much in the
times and circumstances of the originators of the theology. Or the
Virgin of Guadalupe. She is of tremendous importance to the people of
Mexico, but is little thought of outside that community. There are many
people who are devoted to Mary, but few cultures that show the wide
devotion to Mary that the hispanics do. These are examples of the
Church expressing the hopes and desires of the people in a manner
relevant to those people.
> Doctrines or dogmas of faith are independent of the changes in the
> world and changes in lifestyle. While theologians may deduce or
> deductively infer new statements from the body of unchangable faith to
> answer new questions this has nothing to do with the timeless
> relevence of the doctrines of faith.
I am not saying that doctrine changes. I am saying that the manner in
which doctrine is portrayed and presented to the people changes. You
must re-present the unchanging doctrine in a manner that is relevant to
the people you are presenting it to, or it will have little relevance
in their lives. Saying to someone they must believe something because
"that's the way it is" may be true, but it will bring little comfort
and much confusion.
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> This is Orwellian doublespeak.
> >> **********************************************
> >
> >It's just what I said. People will look to God, and look to their
> >lives. If God is not presented in a way that they can bring him into
> >their EVERYDAY lives than we risk becoming irrelevant. That is the job
> >of religion, to bring faith to life.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is the common statement of the "cafeteria" Catholic. That is,
> the kind of Catholic who takes from the body of Faith that which is
> convenient and either discard or ignore the rest. The real goal of
> the Catholic is to follow Christ's timeless example and the dogmatic
> guidance provided by the doctrines preserved by the Church. God and
> His teachings are not bent to fit your lifestyle; you are required to
> conform your life to His example.
>
>
And then you get hit with: But why? Why should I believe in these
things? What do the mean? Why are they important to me today? How do I
make use of them in my life? Saying that God and Jesus are
consubstantial is true, but confusing to many people. Saying that the
wafer becomes the Body of Christ through transubstantiation is belied
by the fact that it still tastes like bread. Pray, pay, obey just
doesn't cut it anymore. The laity will not let us keep the latern under
the basket anymore.
It is our reason which makes us men. It is with our reason that we are
able to respond to the call of God. It is through our reason, and with
the help of the Holy Spirit, that we investigate not only the world
around us but the deposit of faith that God, through Jesus and the
Chruch, has left to us.
You are mistaken if you think that I believe that dogma changes. Of
course it does not. But people do. Societies do. It is an inescapable
force of history that the way we look at the world today will be
different fromt he way it is seen fifty, five hundred, or even two
thousand years from now. The doctrine, the deposit of faith will remain
the same, but the people will be different.
That is all I am saying, that the way in which we tell the people what
it is that we believe as Catholics must change to meet their level of
understanding. I do not speak to my sixth grade Religious Ed class
using the same terms as I do when I speak to my thesis advisor. But the
ideas that underlie each conversation are the same.
As to my "lifestyle" and if I am a "cafeteria" Catholic I will simply
say that the first is not your concern, it is between Jesus and myself.
To the second I would ask, why do you think there are cafeteria
Catholics? Is it perhaps, at least in some cases, that the laity does
not sufficiently understand the theological ideas they are dismissing?
And if so, would it not be prudent to explain to them, in means they
can understand, what it is that they fail to understand and why it is
important to their lives?
macaddicted
<che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
> "A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:p5359uk2ja1n0eo63...@4ax.com...
> > [This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
>
[snip]
The truths don't change (at least if you are speaking of doctrine), but
the manner in which we understand those truths do because people and
societies change.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Pagano replies:
> > This is the common statement of the "cafeteria" Catholic. That is,
> > the kind of Catholic who takes from the body of Faith that which is
> > convenient and either discard or ignore the rest.
>
> What kind of Catholic quotes paragraph 295 but not 283? A
> "cafeteria" Catholic, perhaps?
>
> Maybe you ought to judge not, lest you be judged. (paraphrasing
> some guy)
>
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
>
>
--
A Pagano
On 9 Mar 2002 11:32:45 -0500, macaddicted
> >Yet we
> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
> >the Bible.
Pagano replies:
First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
macaddicted wrote:
>> >But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
>> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
>> >and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
>> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
>> Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
>> misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
>> from these documents which support your position.
>> *********************************************
macaddicted responded:
>From Providentissimus-
>If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
>made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
>consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
>passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
>weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
>discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
>cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
>made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
>polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
>must then suspend judgment for the time being
Pagano replies:
As I suspected macaddicted has been quote mining out of context.
Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
"adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
all, of Scripture was myth.
The quote offered by macaddicted was immediately preceeded by the
following: [BEGIN QUOTE] "Let [Catholic Defenders] loyally hold that
God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the
Scriptures----and that, therefore, nothing can be proved either by
physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the
Scriptures." [END QUOTE]
The quote from Pope Leo XIII offered by macaddicted directs loyal
Catholic defenders of Scripture to thoroughly investigate any apparent
contradictions offered by enemies of the Church and to make every
effort to remove such contradictions. And that such efforts must
never be abandoned.
In no way did Pope Leo XIII state explicitly or imply that the
contradictions between Scripture and the science of the late 1800s had
been resolved, that Genesis had been reinterpreted as purely
allegorical or that Scripture had in any way been made subordinate to
infallible science.
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven J.
>
>
> macaddicted wrote:
> >> > We must recognize that the Church must
> >> >adapt to modern times in order to remain relevant to the people who
> >> >live in those times.
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The relevence of the Church was made clear during Christ's public life
> >> and during the evangelization of the Apostles. This relevence is not
> >> transitory. The writer here seems to be implying that we should
> >> supercede the unchangable doctrines of the Faith whose truth is
> >> guarranteed in favor of man-made theories whose proximity to the truth
> >> is unknown.
>
logically, that the "proximity to truth" of any theory which
contradicts that doctrine must be known -- the theory must be false.
Yet you choose this prolix locution rather than simply say, "why trade
truth for error?" which suggests that you aren't using "guaranteed" in
quite the sense I first took it. That is, you aren't claiming some
sort of strict proof of, say, creationism. You implicitly acknowledge
that volition and faith, rather than evidence and reason, dictate that
you find these propositions "guaranteed truth."
Rather, you seem to be asking, why abandon an explanation of origins
which allows you to believe your explanation is certain and
unalterable, to take one which demands that you hold it tentatively,
and virtually assume that some details of it are mistaken and will be
superceded? Why CHOOSE to be uncertain and tentative, when certainty
and constancy are available options? A
And certainly, one can attain a great deal of certainty, if one can
simply declare that facts which don't conform to one's interpretations
don't exist, and that evidence which can't be ignored can be dismissed
as irrelevant to the quest for truth. If you hold that "science" is
nothing but a set of cookbook tricks for making clever gadgets, and
that actual human understanding of the universe hasn't increased since
the bronze age, one can justify a demand that theory bow to theology.
If one suspects that the increase in technological ability owes
something to an improved knowledge of reality, though, and that the
methods of science work because their underlying assumptions are
sound, then one must work out of way of reconciling science and faith
without gutting or lying about science.
> >> ***************************************
>
> macaddicted responds:
> >As I said, the doctrines of faith do not change. But we must always
> >endeavor to make those truths relevant to the body of the faithful
> >today. Sometimes this requires that we re-present our body of faith in
> >a manner that is relatable to each culture. The Church of today is not
> >the Church of Augustine, Aquinas or even Pius XII.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This again is Orwellian doublespeak. On the one hand macaddicted
> claims the doctrines of Faith don't change while on the other he says
> that we must "adapt" the doctrines and "make them relevent." If the
> doctrines are unchangeable TRUTHS then they are timeless and their
> relevence is independent of our fallible human background knowledge
> and our lifestyle.
>
I think maccaddicted might disagree with you over your careless
assumption that every generation of the faithful sees them the same
way. Consider: in the earliest days of Christianity, no Christian
viewed the gospel through the lens of Platonic or Aristotelian
philosophy. When Paul's readers pondered the nature of the Son of
God, they didn't think in terms of "metastatic unions of the Second
Person of the Trinity with a fully human nature." Or, what was
Thomistic theology, if not an "adaption" of doctrines to make them
"relevant?"
He might also disagree with your assesment of what, exactly, the
doctrines of the Church *are.* That God is behind creation, and acts
through the processes of the natural world to enact His will is, I
think, Catholic doctrine; that He did not use evolution, over billions
of years, to do so, is your doctrine but not neccesarily that of the
Church. There was a time when many Catholics held that a
geostationary, geocentric view of the universe was a timeless and
unchangeable TRUTH. There seem to be very few such Catholics today.
>
> One would ask macaddicted to identify the point or points in history
> where the doctrines of Faith became irrelevent or less relevent than
> they were during the time of St. Augustine.
>
I don't know. When, exactly, did geocentricity become irrelevant or
less relevant? Please don't dodge the question. You have defended
the Church's attacks on Galileo, for challenging the church's
theological assessment of a scientific theory with what you regarded
as insufficient evidence. When did the evidence for heliocentricity
become sufficiently compelling that the Church was required (or
permitted) to "adapt" its doctrine? What evidence with regard to
common descent and naturalistic mechanisms for it would be sufficient,
in your eyes, to justify another adaption of church doctrine? Please
note that for many Catholic leaders, that point has evidently long
since been reached.
What do you know of macaddicted's lifestyle? What do you know of
macaddicted's convenience? He disagrees with you on a version of the
dogma of creation which even the Pope does not share with you, and you
pretend that this is some sort of rejection of Catholic morality and
theology. He is not picking and choosing moral teachings to suit his
"lifestyle;" he is trying to reconcile his faith with his science
without slipping into self-indulgent, inconsistent epistomological
nihilism.
>
> more to follow if time permits.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Elmer Bataitis
> The
> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
> all, of Scripture was myth.
And this is wrong because...??
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Steven J.
events, any more than necessity is the cause of any event.
Contingency is the state of not being a necessary outcome; of having
been able to occur in some other manner. As such, contingency is not
a principle upon which evolutionary theory is built, but a consequence
of the working of those principles.
>
Now, contingency is, in a sense, the cause of *something.* The nested
hierarchy of homologies which is the central evidence of evolution is
the result of the contingent nature of evolution. Even if the
selective pressures on different populations are effectively
identical, the different histories of those species before adaption to
that environment commences, and the different random mutations that
arise (and at different stages) will tend to prevent evolution from
producing identical complex solutions to the same problems. Thus,
e.g. pterosaurs, birds, and bats have readily distinguishable wings.
Note that this is also an argument against special creation, since the
Designer could borrow the most successful adaptions for a particular
niche and use them on all species in that niche (the "panda's thumb"
argument).
>
Depending on how elaborate or "sticky-out" you want your "system," and
how narrowly specified you want your "unique events," your last
statement may be wrong. There exist several peer-reviewed reports of
the evolution of new functions in bacteria as the result of
accumulating specifically identified mutations. As Andy Groves
pointed out, this is not possible for, say, the adaptions that altered
basal archosaurs into birds, nor is it a reasonable thing to demand
before accepting that such evolution has occurred.
>
> In other words macaddicted has not escaped the Catholic teaching in
> para295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church even though he is
> trying to avoid it. This is typical of "cafeteria" Catholics.
>
> [snip]
>
> more to follow if time permits.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Max Phillips
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote on 2002.03.15 10:10 PM:
> A Pagano wrote:
>
>> The
>> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
>> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
>> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
>> all, of Scripture was myth.
>
> And this is wrong because...??
Historically it's close to meaningless. As sheer unevidentiated, undefined,
unpindownable opinion, nothing's wrong with it. We do have a First Amendment
in operation from sea to shining sea, after all, and T.O is incredibly
tolerant and lenient. But venturing to answer it would be like trying to
nail jello to the wall. Or keep a wheelbarrow loaded with bullfrogs. Or herd
grizzlies. Or . . . forget it . . . I just shudder to think how it would
make a sharp, educated Jesuit feel. Or Dominican for that matter. Not to
mention the Pope. Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit. -Max
A Pagano
>In article <vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com>, A Pagano
><anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
>> <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:[This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
>> >Yet we
>> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>> >the Bible.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
>> painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
>> background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
>>
>> The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
>> direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
>> Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
>> **********************************************
>>
>See "contingency" above.
Pagano replies:
Historical contingency according to evolutionary biologists has some
influence on the direction of evolution, but exact nature of that
influence is vague. To date the doctrine of historical contingency
has absolutely no predictive value. Even employing a posteriori
reasoning doesn't give much insight into the precise causal
relationship between unique events (including environmental
conditions) and evolutionary change. In other words the doctrine of
historical contingency is too vague to be in conflict with anything
much less Catholic Doctrine.
macaddicted is apparently under the misguided belief that historical
contingency is either the only or the most important pillar of
evolutionary biology. It is not; the source of all novelty,
creativity and diversity is random and chance mutations. The
beginnings of life is proposed to be the result of stochastic
processes (that is random ones) not the result of an intelligent
agent. This is in direct conflict with paragraph 295 of the
Catechism.
************************************************
A Pagano
macaddicted wrote:
>> >Yet we
>> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>> >the Bible.
snip
>> >But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
>> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
>> >and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
>> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
>> Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
>> misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
>> from these documents which support your position.
>> *********************************************
snip
macaddicted responds to the challenge:
>An example from Divino-
>38. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present
>needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in
>demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make
>a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the
>manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer
>may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be
>convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without
>serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention
>only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred
>Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of
>facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those
>customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients,
>which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and
>which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.
>39. When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text,
>which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice
>demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in
>the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact
>appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the
>ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the
>veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less
>efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous
>understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.
Pagano replies:
I suspect that macaddicted hasn't a clue what this about. If he did
he would not have presented it as evidence that the doctrines of Faith
or the historicity of Scripture does not conflict purely materialistic
evolutionism. 'Divino Afflante Spiritu' was written by Pope Pius XII
and disseminated to the faithful in Sep 1943. It was an extension of
Pope Leo XIII's call in 'Providentissimus Deus' for the careful study
and defense of the inspiration, truth, and historicity of Holy
Scripture against her enemies.
The paragraphs quoted by macaddicted are from a section of the
encyclical entitled "Importance of mode of writing." In this section
the Pope did nothing more than instruct Catholic exegetes to consider
the mode of writing of the inspired authors; that is, the Pope
suggested that they should consider the literary style that may have
been in use by writers and speakers of the time when engaging in
Scriptural studies. The sections quoted by macaddicted neither state
explicitly nor do they imply that all or even some of the apparent
conflicts offered by her secular enemies had now disolved.
This is additional evidence that macaddicted went quote mining to
defend purely materialistic evolution not to present the accurate
position of the Catholic Church.
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
>
David Sienkiewicz
> [This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2002 11:32:45 -0500, macaddicted
>
> > >Yet we
> > >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
> > >the Bible.
>
> Pagano replies:
> First let's be clear.
How many irony meters went through melt-down after that?
> Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone.
In a general sense, yes, but that's not what is generally under
discussion here.
> What is disputed by
> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> stochastic processes
Which is NOT evolution, but abiogenesis - the origin of life.
> and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> result of random and chance mutations.
Which IS evolution and IS disputed by you and your religious brethren,
Tony.
So you've tossed in a couple of misdirections and led us right back
to...nowhere.
> This is in conflict with
> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
Personally, I don't care if evolution or any part of science is in
conflict with the Catholic Church or any other religious authority.
(Cue Tony telling us that this discussion is between him and
macaddicted and is about the conflict - as he sees it - between
evolution and the Catholic Church. Extra points if he tosses in a few
comments about ignorance and failing to read the article and
understand what the article is about.)
Seems fine to me.
> Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
> guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
> attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
> historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
> "adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
> conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
> all, of Scripture was myth.
Misdirection.
You claimed that the quote was taken out of context, Tony.
I've read macaddicted's points and I don't see where the specific
application of the lessons taught in this document demonstrate that
the quote was taken out of context. Your failure to understand or
agree with a given application of a directive does not mean that the
quote was taken out of context.
> The quote offered by macaddicted was immediately preceeded by the
> following: [BEGIN QUOTE] "Let [Catholic Defenders] loyally hold that
> God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the
> Scriptures----and that, therefore, nothing can be proved either by
> physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the
> Scriptures." [END QUOTE]
And this shows an out-of-context application in what way?
> The quote from Pope Leo XIII offered by macaddicted directs loyal
> Catholic defenders of Scripture to thoroughly investigate any apparent
> contradictions offered by enemies of the Church and to make every
> effort to remove such contradictions. And that such efforts must
> never be abandoned.
And this shows an out-of-context application in what way?
> In no way did Pope Leo XIII state explicitly or imply that the
> contradictions between Scripture and the science of the late 1800s had
> been resolved, that Genesis had been reinterpreted as purely
> allegorical or that Scripture had in any way been made subordinate to
> infallible science.
And this shows an out-of-context application in what way?
A Pagano
macaddicted continues:
>They all understand that
>there are many methods used in interpreting the Bible.
>Providen\tissimus started the ball rolling and Pius XII locked the
>Church on this path with Divino Afflante Spiritu as described below
>from 'Interpretation':
>
>----quote----
>In this struggle the teaching office of the Catholic Church has taken
>up positions several times. First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical
>Providentissimus Deus of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the
>exegetical map. At a time when liberalism was extremely sure of itself
>and much too intrusively dogmatic, Leo XIII was forced to express
>himself in a rather critical way, even though he did not exclude that
>which was positive from the new possibilities. Fifty years later,
>however, because of the fertile work of great Catholic exegetes, Pope
>Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Sept. 30, 1943,
>was able to provide largely positive encouragement toward making the
>modern methods of understanding the Bible fruitful. The Constitution on
>Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, of Nov.
>18, 1965, adopted all of this. It provided us with a synthesis, which
>substantially remains, between the lasting insights of patristic
>theology and the new methodological understanding of the moderns.
>----quote----
>
>
>The point I am trying to make is that the Church does not look upon the
>Bible as a history in the manner we understand history today.
>Providentissimus cracked the door open for the historical-critical
>method. Divino shoved it aside. Dei Verbum locked it open.
Pagano replies:
While the documents referred to by macaddicted did encourage exegetes
to use a number of methods in pursuit of the truth, in no instance did
any of the documents state explicity or imply that the literal sense
of Scripture or its historicity was to be abandoned. These documents
where written in part to defend against those who would do just that.
There is nothing contained in the quote above that teaches Catholic
exegetes to abandon the literal, historical meaning of Scripture.
****************************************
macaddicted wrote:
>> > And without a literal
>> >interpretation the Genesis myths are better understood as God
>> >communicating with man and not a retelling of the specifics of
>> >creation.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> Where do you get this nonsense from? On June 30, 1909 the Biblical
>> Commission while it was still a part of the Magisterium declared that
>> the first three chapters of Genesis contained an account of real facts
>> corresponding to objective reality and historical truth and are not
>> fiction derived from ancient mythologies and cosmogonies...
>>
>> As far as I can determine no other arm of the Magisterium has ever
>> retracted, modified or nullified this teaching.
>> ***********************************
>
macaddicted wrote:
>This would be news to my professors of Biblical Studies. Most of the
>first class in Genesis-Kings was just on how Genesis is not literally,
>historically true. The sixth grade text that I taught out of in
>Religious Ed in my parish also made the same point.
Pagano replies:
I doubt this would be news to all of them. There are a sizable number
of Catholic professors in the Catholic universities who have been
intentionally teaching that which is contrary to doctrine under the
guise of academic freedom. It had gotten so bad that Pope John Paul
II issued a directive to all Catholic Universities.
This directive requires that all theology professors at Catholic
Universities obtain a mandate from the local Bishop certifying that
they will not teach contrary to the Church. Many professors have
been whining about this new directive which is a strong indication
that they have been in violation. I don't know what teeth the
Catholic Bishops have placed in their implementation of the Holy See's
directive. This is scheduled to be initiated in the United States
shortly.
The Church has made quite clear over the years that it has no
intention of reinterpreting Genesis or any other part of Scripture
based upon vague and unproven theories (like the Big Bang, abiogenesis
and evolutionism) whose proximity to the truth is unknown. So those
Catholic professors who teach that the chapters of Genesis are merely
useful fictions and myths borrowed from other cultures would be
teaching contrary to the Church. You can no longer claim ignorance of
this.
A Pagano
Sienkiewicz) wrote:
Pagano wrote:
>> Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
>> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone.
Sienkiewcz replied:
>In a general sense, yes, but that's not what is generally under
>discussion here.
Pagano responds:
Evolutionists take advantage of the ambiguity in such an over arching
label. They point to changes which are observable and are not
disputed by anyone as evidence of the disputed claims. It is
important to point out that only a very small number of naturalistic
claims conflict with Church doctrine.
*********************************
Pagano wrote:
>> What is disputed by
>> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
>> stochastic processes
Sienkiewcz replies:
>Which is NOT evolution, but abiogenesis - the origin of life.
Pagano responds:
Since abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for neoDarwinism it
is inseparable from evolutionism. Evolution is, in the broadest
sense, any change. Evolutionists have recently treated abiogenesis as
a black box and distanced themselves from it because of its dismal
failures. Sienkiewcz has yet to provide all the good answers to the
shortfalls I presented.
************************************************
Pagano wrote:
>> and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
>> result of random and chance mutations.
Sienkiewcz replied:
>Which IS evolution and IS disputed by you and your religious brethren,
>Tony.
>
>So you've tossed in a couple of misdirections and led us right back
>to...nowhere.
Pagano replies:
As usual Sienkiewcz never reads very closely. macaddicted implied
that historical contingency was the only component of evolution and
did not conflict with Catholic Doctrine. I countered (and Sienkiewcz
agreed) that novelty and diversity is the result of random and chance
events which does conflict with para 295 of the Catechism.
******************************************
Pagano wrote::
>> This is in conflict with
>> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
Sienkiewcz replied:
>Personally, I don't care if evolution or any part of science is in
>conflict with the Catholic Church or any other religious authority.
>
>(Cue Tony telling us that this discussion is between him and
>macaddicted and is about the conflict - as he sees it - between
>evolution and the Catholic Church. Extra points if he tosses in a few
>comments about ignorance and failing to read the article and
>understand what the article is about.)
Pagano replies:
The "cue" doesn't save you. The fact that you fully recognized the
foolishness of your behavior yet proceeded anyway speaks for itself.
******************************************
>> macaddicted responded:
>> >From Providentissimus-
>> >If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
>> >made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
>> >consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
>> >passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
>> >weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
>> >discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
>> >cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
>> >made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
>> >polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
>> >must then suspend judgment for the time being
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> As I suspected macaddicted has been quote mining out of context.
Siekiewcz replies:
>Seems fine to me.
Pagano replies:
What looks fine? Not much of a defense of macaddicted.
*******************************************
Pagano wrote:
>> Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
>> guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
>> attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
>> historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
>> "adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
>> conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
>> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
>> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
>> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
>> all, of Scripture was myth.
Sienkiewcz responded:
>Misdirection.
>
>You claimed that the quote was taken out of context, Tony.
Pagano responds:
What you characterized as "misdirection" (undoubtedly out of complete
ignorance) WAS the context of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical. I strongly
suggest that you have your daughter proof read your posts before you
send them. I suspect this will prevent future embarassment.
[The rest snipped as more of the same.]
Regards,
T Pagano
Dave Oldridge
> [This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2002 11:32:45 -0500, macaddicted
>
>> >Yet we
>> >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>> >the Bible.
>
> Pagano replies:
> First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
Let's also be clear:
Science is basically the study of material things and forces and their
relationships. As such, it has a certain built-in materialism that it
cannot even be expected to transcend.
Catholic Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that God's sovereignty is
universal over all aspects of reality, including the material. The fact
that science is unable to discern the proximate means of divine intervention
does not mean that it is not occurring or even that it is not continuous.
The only thing that the Church need legitimately require of science is that
it refrain from using this lack of discernment on its own part as the basis
for unwarranted theological speculations that are then promulgated on the
authority of science. This is precisely what the scripture means by science
"so-called."
The Church need NOT attempt to rationalize some kind of anti-science or
pseudoscience of its own making. This only happens when churchmen move out
of the ambience of sound theology and start making the same mistake as their
opposite numbers and indulging in unwarranted scientific speculations, often
based on theological speculations as unwarranted and untraditional as those
of the scientists mentioned above.
The main error of young-earth creationists is theological. They assume that
the literal interpretation of Genesis is the only permissible one and often
teach (contrary to both scripture and Christian tradition) that this belief
is necessary to salvation. Moreover, in doing so, they fail to acknowledge
the universality of God's sovereignty.
Scripture always has been capable of more than one interpretation, and it is
a principle of theology that truth is never heresy and that whatever suborns
an untruth is, ipso facto, a heresy.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
============================================================================
==================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Bob Pease
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:127ccf2e.02031...@posting.google.com...
I don't know how to react to Pagano.
I find his style so tedious that I can't ( too lazy??) follow it.
Pagano seems to working from the premise that the Magisterium has the
absolute last say in matters of religious faith for Catholics.
The whole issue appears to be a long series of diatribes over whether
dissenters to Magisterium have a right to represent themselves as
"Catholics"
I don't know the answer to this.
I used to be a "Cafeteria Catholic" until there was nothing on the menu that
I could order.
I don't intend to publish any statements of Apostasy, but feel the need to
make complicated explanations if someone asks me if I am "Still" a Catholic
or not.
An unqualified "yes" seriously misrepresents my basic Agnosticism and
Positivism. yet I hold emotional ties to many parts of the RCC.
Usually I can find a tactful way to get the person who asked the Question to
talk about his/her OWN beliefs.
I would like to place a Gentleman's Wager to Pagano ( no dough involved)
I bet that the Catholic Universities in the USA are not going to risk being
demoted to Bob Jones intellectual status.
This means being VERY slow about firing "Heretics" or muzzling them.
I am not going to hold my breath until Notre Dame or Regis University or
Boston College ( to name a very few) actually are threatened with
disaffiliation to the RCC by any Bishop, no matter how long they delay any
action to implement the Vatican Policy.
As an aside, I taught Physics and Math at several Catholic Schools in
Denver and Vallejo Ca.
I was asked to sign statements about not teaching by precept or example
anything that was contrary to the Official Teachings of the Church.
When I asked to principal about this, I was asked to use my own judgment
about this as no particular statement about specifics was included in the
document.
I was obvious that if I advocated abortion, I might be asked to leave, but
it would be a cold day in Hell before anyone would hassle me about teaching
modern big-bang cosmology or openly declaring that the Bible contains
allegory and Myth as well as some historical truth.
Obviously I don't think I will live long enough to see this become a major
issue in the RCC.
Celibacy, Ordination of Women and Sexuality are my candidates for top
runners.
RJ Pease
BTW it isn't important whether Pagano is a Catholic or just a Devil's
advocate, his arguments for a need of Consistency in the RCC are not
without merit
Max Phillips
anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.16 3:38 AM:
> On 9 Mar 2002 11:32:45 -0500, macaddicted
> <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> In article <vs4j8u8onc3vppjb0...@4ax.com>, A Pagano
>> <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Mar 2002 18:07:27 -0500, macaddicted
>>> <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:[This is a continuing reply to
>>> macaddicted.]
>
>
>
>>>> Yet we
>>>> readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
>>>> the Bible.
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> Evolution is an over arching label and as a resutl the writer is
>>> painting a misleading picture. There is a great deal concerning our
>>> background knowledge which is not disputed by anyone.
>>>
>>> The purely materialist presuppositions of modern evolution is in
>>> direct conflict with Christian teaching. Paragraph 295 of the
>>> Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of that conflict.
>>> **********************************************
>>>
>> See "contingency" above.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Historical contingency according to evolutionary biologists
Which ones? Where published? Are you representing them correctly? If so do
your examples represent the mainstream thought of evolutionary biologists?
> has some
> influence on the direction of evolution, but exact nature of that
> influence is vague. To date the doctrine of historical contingency
> has absolutely no predictive value.
What do you mean by "contingency"?
> Even employing a posteriori
> reasoning doesn't give much insight into the precise causal
> relationship between unique events (including environmental
> conditions) and evolutionary change. In other words the doctrine of
> historical contingency is too vague to be in conflict with anything
> much less Catholic Doctrine.
>
> macaddicted is apparently under the misguided belief that historical
> contingency is either the only or the most important pillar of
> evolutionary biology.
What makes you think so?
> It is not; the source of all novelty,
> creativity and diversity is random and chance mutations.
Ever heard of evidence as a way of supporting conclusory statements?
> The
> beginnings of life is proposed to be the result of stochastic
> processes (that is random ones)
Alone? Or also in concert with natural laws which aren't random?
> not the result of an intelligent
> agent. This is in direct conflict with paragraph 295 of the
> Catechism.
Does the Pope agree with you?
>
> ************************************************
>
> more to follow if time permits.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Regards,
Max, creationist by faith alone, evolutionist by evidence alone
Max Phillips
I read the excerpt, and I think it is evidence that the doctrines of faith
do not conflict with science. The fact that you mis-characterize science as
a metaphysical human endeavor ("purely materialistic evolutionism") doesn't
mean "that macaddicted hasn't a clue what this about." Science is a human
process, yes, and prone to human errors -- as is theology, by the way -- but
science is not a metaphysical human endeavor.
> 'Divino Afflante Spiritu' was written by Pope Pius XII
> and disseminated to the faithful in Sep 1943. It was an extension of
> Pope Leo XIII's call in 'Providentissimus Deus' for the careful study
> and defense of the inspiration, truth, and historicity of Holy
> Scripture against her enemies.
Your peimise -- that evolutionary science is a metaphysical process -- is
mistaken. The theory of evolution is neither the enemy of Scripture, nor of
the Catholic faith, nor Christianity, nor faith.
> The paragraphs quoted by macaddicted are from a section of the
> encyclical entitled "Importance of mode of writing." In this section
> the Pope did nothing more than instruct Catholic exegetes to consider
> the mode of writing of the inspired authors; that is, the Pope
> suggested that they should consider the literary style that may have
> been in use by writers and speakers of the time when engaging in
> Scriptural studies. The sections quoted by macaddicted neither state
> explicitly nor do they imply that all or even some of the apparent
> conflicts offered by her secular enemies had now disolved.
So what? The fact that the Pope rightly wants everybody -- not just Catholic
exegetes -- to treat Scripture fairly doesn't mean that evolutionary science
is a metaphysical process. It's not. Nor has the Pope ever said it is. There
are plenty of excellent evolutionary scientists, witness Ken Miller, among
the Roman Catholic faithful. And when they do evolutionary science they are
not practicing metaphysics of any kind, much less metaphysical materialism.
> This is additional evidence that macaddicted went quote mining to
> defend purely materialistic evolution not to present the accurate
> position of the Catholic Church.
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
As far as I can tell, only anti-evolutionists, and particularly the ID
people, are insisting that the process of science is a metaphysical one.
Show T.O how science is metaphysical. When he reached his conclusions about
special and general relativity, Albert Einstein didn't just state a
conclusion. He showed his work. Show yours.
Regards,
-Max, creationist by faith alone, evolutionist by evidence alone.
Max Phillips
Dear Tony,
Isn't delving into the problems that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) faces
with its university professors just a bit of a red herring? People have been
misrepresenting RCC teaching for centuries and will continue to do so (not
that that's what I think macaddicted is doing, I don't). So what else is
new? The RCCs problem in this regard is not what T.O is all about.
Cut to the chase. The issue is whether or not science is a metaphysical
enterprise. You seem to be saying that it is, that it is a form of
metaphysical materialism. And you're entitled to your opinion, whatever it
may be. But if you're going to convince T.O folk, then do as Copernicus,
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and good old Charlie Darwin did: SHOW
YOUR WORK.
Regards,
Mike Dunford
wrote:
>[This is a continuation of a reply to macaddicted.]
[snip]
>>The point I am trying to make is that the Church does not look upon the
>>Bible as a history in the manner we understand history today.
>>Providentissimus cracked the door open for the historical-critical
>>method. Divino shoved it aside. Dei Verbum locked it open.
>
> Pagano replies:
>While the documents referred to by macaddicted did encourage exegetes
>to use a number of methods in pursuit of the truth, in no instance did
>any of the documents state explicity or imply that the literal sense
>of Scripture or its historicity was to be abandoned. These documents
>where written in part to defend against those who would do just that.
>
>There is nothing contained in the quote above that teaches Catholic
>exegetes to abandon the literal, historical meaning of Scripture.
The documents warn Catholics to be cautious, careful, and reasonable
in determining what the literal sense of scripture actually is, and
provide guidance in how to determine the literal sense.
From "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm
The literal sense is not to be confused with the
"literalist" sense to which fundamentalists are
attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word
for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must
understand the text according to the literary
conventions of the time. ... When it is a question of
a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply
belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for
a story need not belong to the genre of history but
be instead a work of imaginative fiction.
There is a section earlier in that document explicitly warning against
a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. That section is one you
should read, Pagano. It's too long to reproduce here in full, but
there is one paragraph in the section which sticks out:
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon
the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts,
especially in what concerns historical events or
supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes
material which from the start never claimed to be
historical. It considers historical everything that is
reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense,
failing to take the necessary account of the possibility
of symbolic or figurative meaning.
While these statements do not explicitly mention Genesis, they
certainly do not exclude it from these instructions, either.
I am curious to know, Pagano, how you justify holding a literallist
interpretation of Genesis as a Catholic who is so obviously
knowledgeable about Church doctrine in light of all the instructions
for proper exegesis which have been provided this century.
[snip]
>macaddicted wrote:
>>This would be news to my professors of Biblical Studies. Most of the
>>first class in Genesis-Kings was just on how Genesis is not literally,
>>historically true. The sixth grade text that I taught out of in
>>Religious Ed in my parish also made the same point.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I doubt this would be news to all of them. There are a sizable number
>of Catholic professors in the Catholic universities who have been
>intentionally teaching that which is contrary to doctrine under the
>guise of academic freedom. It had gotten so bad that Pope John Paul
>II issued a directive to all Catholic Universities.
>
>This directive requires that all theology professors at Catholic
>Universities obtain a mandate from the local Bishop certifying that
>they will not teach contrary to the Church. Many professors have
>been whining about this new directive which is a strong indication
>that they have been in violation. I don't know what teeth the
>Catholic Bishops have placed in their implementation of the Holy See's
>directive. This is scheduled to be initiated in the United States
>shortly.
In light of Dei Verbum, with its clear instruction to consider
literary forms, and the material quoted above from a 1993 Pontifical
Biblical Commission document, I somehow don't see bishops declaring
that such teaching is contrary to doctrine.
At the same time, if I were a theology professor at a Catholic
university, I'd be concerned about such a directive as well. By
placing the mandate solely at the discression of the local bishop, the
directive creates a strong possibility for a situation where the
bishop can use his authority to stifle not just material which is
clearly contradictory to doctrine, but also meaninful theological
debate. Not to mention the potential for a bishop to run a theologian
he has other problems with out of town.
>The Church has made quite clear over the years that it has no
>intention of reinterpreting Genesis or any other part of Scripture
>based upon vague and unproven theories (like the Big Bang, abiogenesis
>and evolutionism) whose proximity to the truth is unknown.
I did not see anything in any of the documents which suggested that
any document be reinterpreted as a result of scientific results. The
documents presented _theological_ reasons -- good ones -- to interpret
scripture using new tools. The biblical commission did not warn
against a literalistic, fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture in
the 1993 document quoted above because such an interpretation runs
contrary to science. Rather, they warned against literalistic
interpretations because, "[F]undamentalism actually invites people to
a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false
certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the
biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations." (Among
other reasons presented there.)
>So those
>Catholic professors who teach that the chapters of Genesis are merely
>useful fictions and myths borrowed from other cultures would be
>teaching contrary to the Church.
That would clearly be contrary to Church teaching. However, teaching
that Genesis is inspired scripture, expressed by the human authors
through the literary tradition of storytelling, and which has a
literal sense distinct from the literalistic reading is consistent
with current Church teaching on Scripture.
> You can no longer claim ignorance of this.
I don't think he did.
--Mike Dunford
Max Phillips
Many T.O folk think supporting one's claims with evidence is a pretty good
idea. -Max, creationist by faith alone, evolutionist by evidence alone
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
Contingency is not the most important element of evolution. But the
events that happen on earth are contingent. What follows is not
necessarily doctrinal, but all of it is founded in Catholic doctrine. I
readily admit that some of the ideas may be surprising to some, but
that does not make them wrong.
For a contingent event take the crucifixion. God created us as free
individuals. As such, the events that led up to the crucifixion were
dependent upon each individuals activity. These include Jesus' decision
to go up to Jerusalem, his prophecy in the temple, his betrayal by
Judas, his condemnation by the religious authourities, and his
execution by Pilate. Each was dependent upon the free actions of those
who participated.
Yet mysteriously, through God's purpose and action, those acts are
converted from something of brutality and cruelty to the source of life
for all creation. Christian faith is based on the fact that God can act
through unpredictable and contigent events, even events that seem in
and of themselves to be evil.
All of this is dependent on the idea that God works persuasively and
not coercively in creation.
Paragraph 295 states that the world is "not the product of any
necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." Yet what if God makes
use of chance? We speak of purpose. But when we speak of God we must
use analogies. His very being is beyond our comprehension, so we are
dependent on trying to relate to God using human terms and ideas. So
when we speak of the "purpose" of God we are speaking in HUMAN terms.
This doctrine of divine transcendence implies that God might achieve
purposes in a way that radically transcends mans ideas of achieving
purposes.In this way the world comes into being not in spite of chance,
but through God use of it.
As I stated at the beginning, this is not doctrine. But it is also not
in opposition to doctrine. It is a developing theology that is being
explored by those who, as directed by 'Provenditissimus Deus', see that
truth cannot contradict truth.
Elmer Bataitis
> Evolutionists have recently treated abiogenesis as
> a black box and distanced themselves from it because of its dismal
> failures.
Abiogenesis is a scientific fact Tony. Deny all you want but you can't
avoid this. Heck, it's even biblical to boot. But since you claim
naturalism is false, why should evidence mean anything to you?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by A Pagano
<anthony...@verizon.net>:
>On 16 Mar 2002 07:49:36 -0500, david.si...@attbi.com (David
>Sienkiewicz) wrote:
<snip>
>Sienkiewcz replies:
>>Which is NOT evolution, but abiogenesis - the origin of life.
>
> Pagano responds:
>Since abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for neoDarwinism it
>is inseparable from evolutionism.
Incorrect; sorry (even allowing for the implication of a
belief system implied by "evolutionism"). Evolutionary
theory (as contrasted with evolution, which has been
observed) makes no distinction between special creation by a
deity, natural abiogenesis, panspermia and creation by
aliens as the origination of life on Earth. The theory is
mute on the origin of life; it concerns itself solely with
the changes over time observed in already-extant
populations.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
David Sienkiewicz
A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<po679uc42k6pdg1l2...@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Mar 2002 07:49:36 -0500, david.si...@attbi.com (David
> Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
> Pagano wrote:
> >> Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> >> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone.
>
> Sienkiewcz replied:
> >In a general sense, yes, but that's not what is generally under
> >discussion here.
>
> Pagano responds:
> Evolutionists take advantage of the ambiguity in such an over arching
> label.
Ummm...no.
My experience is that "evolutionists," that is, those in the know
(more than either of US, Tony) are quite specific in many ways. They
tell us that evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a
population" over time.
It's the general public (that's you and me, Tony) who turn these
things into ambiguities and it's sophists like YOU who exploit those
ambiguities.
> They point to changes which are observable and are not
> disputed by anyone as evidence of the disputed claims.
Which "disputed claims?"
> It is
> important to point out that only a very small number of naturalistic
> claims conflict with Church doctrine.
But my point would be what difference it makes. If the FACTS
demonstrates by what is seen in nature "conflict with Church
doctrine," then it's bye-bye to Church doctrine.
Of course, this gets back to the previous exchange about how
religionists sometimes substitute fact with faith.
> Pagano wrote:
> >> What is disputed by
> >> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> >> stochastic processes
>
> Sienkiewcz replies:
> >Which is NOT evolution, but abiogenesis - the origin of life.
>
> Pagano responds:
> Since abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for neoDarwinism it
> is inseparable from evolutionism.
Utterly false, and you've been told this many, many times before.
(Substituting "evolution" for "evolutionism," which are the same thing
to you, Tony.)
Whether life arose through natural means, was created in the first
place by some all-powerful entity (separate from the falsified claims
of a literalistic interpretations of scripture) or was planted here by
space aliens, life had to be here first before it could evolve.
Now we can forget for the moment that you haven't the vaguest idea of
what constitutes neoDarwinism. It is still not true that "abiogenesis
is a necessary initial condition" for it. Regardless as to how the
first living things formed, evolution still acts on them.
> Evolution is, in the broadest
> sense, any change.
Says who? You?
That's an argument from authority, isn't it, Tony?
> Evolutionists have recently treated abiogenesis as
> a black box and distanced themselves from it because of its dismal
> failures. Sienkiewcz has yet to provide all the good answers to the
> shortfalls I presented.
Well, one way or another, Tony, we have a lie from you here.
You claim that you don't read the articles generated in response to
your postings. However, I *did* provide a response to your claims and
I never saw a response from you. If you never read it, you can't
claim that no "good answers" have been presented.
If, on the other hand, you DID read it, Google shows no record of a
response by you. You ignored it. Since you never responded - likely
because you COULDN'T - you cannot claim that "good answers" were not
provided. You didn't show that they weren't "good."
Even if my responses were somehow deficient, which is entirely
possible given that I am not a specialist, there were several other
responses that thoroughly refuted your claims as we see them above,
Tony. Evolutionists have not distanced themselves from abiogenesis
and it has not been demonstrated to be a "dismal failure."
You either refused to read the responses or you had no answer for
them. But it is a lie either way to claim that answers were not
provided, and then to simply repeat your claims as if they were never
answered.
> Pagano wrote:
> >> and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> >> result of random and chance mutations.
>
> Sienkiewcz replied:
> >Which IS evolution and IS disputed by you and your religious brethren,
> >Tony.
> >
> >So you've tossed in a couple of misdirections and led us right back
> >to...nowhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
> As usual Sienkiewcz never reads very closely. macaddicted implied
> that historical contingency was the only component of evolution and
> did not conflict with Catholic Doctrine. I countered (and Sienkiewcz
> agreed) that novelty and diversity is the result of random and chance
> events which does conflict with para 295 of the Catechism.
Whoa, Hoss! I didn't agree with anything about the Catechism.
The plain face is that I don't know what's in the Catechism, Tony; and
therein lies your downfall with respect to your haughtly little
response.
You see, Tony, I am not a Catholic. So, in this case, I am commenting
on your responses back and forth as a lurker in your debate with
macaddicted.
You remember "lurkers," don't you, Tony? "Lurkers" are one of two
groups of people you have alternatively said you are trying to
convince.
The point here is that, through your campaign of misrepresentation,
evasion and misdirection, you have failed to convince me.
The fact is that I've read this exchange quite closely. All that you
have demonstrated is that there is a difference in application of the
"Provenditissimus Deus."
But I challenged you to show specifically where there was
misrepresentation of that document or where it was quoted "out of
context."
Not surprisingly, you failed to do that and you've misdirected to
cover that up.
> Pagano wrote::
> >> This is in conflict with
> >> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
>
> Sienkiewcz replied:
> >Personally, I don't care if evolution or any part of science is in
> >conflict with the Catholic Church or any other religious authority.
> >
> >(Cue Tony telling us that this discussion is between him and
> >macaddicted and is about the conflict - as he sees it - between
> >evolution and the Catholic Church. Extra points if he tosses in a few
> >comments about ignorance and failing to read the article and
> >understand what the article is about.)
>
> Pagano replies:
> The "cue" doesn't save you.
I don't need to be saved from you, Tony. The point here, as
demonstrated so far by your response, is that you just didn't get it
and your responses are very predictable.
> The fact that you fully recognized the
> foolishness of your behavior yet proceeded anyway speaks for itself.
But that's not a fact, Tony. I entered a side comment and figured
you'd jump on it.
And you did.
> >> macaddicted responded:
> >> >From Providentissimus-
> >> >If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
> >> >made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
> >> >consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
> >> >passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
> >> >weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
> >> >discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
> >> >cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
> >> >made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
> >> >polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
> >> >must then suspend judgment for the time being
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> As I suspected macaddicted has been quote mining out of context.
>
> Siekiewcz replies:
> >Seems fine to me.
>
> Pagano replies:
> What looks fine? Not much of a defense of macaddicted.
I'm not trying to defend macaddicted, Tony. He's doing a fine job, in
my opinion. Try reading closer yourself. "Seems fine to me" simply
means that I don't see that anything has been taken out of context,
and you haven't shown that it has.
That sentence was only four words, Tony. None of the words were
larger than one syllable. How much simpler could it have been?
> Pagano wrote:
> >> Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
> >> guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
> >> attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
> >> historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
> >> "adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
> >> conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
> >> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
> >> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
> >> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
> >> all, of Scripture was myth.
>
> Sienkiewcz responded:
> >Misdirection.
> >
> >You claimed that the quote was taken out of context, Tony.
>
> Pagano responds:
> What you characterized as "misdirection" (undoubtedly out of complete
> ignorance) WAS the context of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical. I strongly
> suggest that you have your daughter proof read your posts before you
> send them. I suspect this will prevent future embarassment.
I am not at all embarassed, Tony; and these little potshots you keep
taking at my daughter only serve to show what a petty, pathetic little
man you truly are.
You have not explained where the out of context quoting was. What you
did was apply your own interpretation to the document; and the
document IS open to interpretation.
You're arguing from authority, Tony.
> [The rest snipped as more of the same.]
More of the same was simply me asking a few more times where
macaddicted qouted out of context. Tony, you failed to show that he
did so above. It's not surprising that you, in your typical
cowardice, would snip away and run away.
So far, this "lurker" gives all points to macaddicted (as well as to
those others who have shown that your peculiar interpretation is, to
be kind, at least out of touch with the times.).
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Thus endeth another "drubbing," I take it.
I seem to be unscathed...again.
A Pagano
>> Pagano replies:
>> First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
>> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
>> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
>> stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
>> result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
>> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
Oldridge wrote:
>Let's also be clear:
>
>Science is basically the study of material things and forces and their
>relationships. As such, it has a certain built-in materialism that it
>cannot even be expected to transcend.
Pagano replies:
The doctrines of materialism and naturalism are metaphysical not
scientific. And there is no logical necessity which requires the
presupposition of materialism/naturalism to study matter and its
properties. If there is please provide the argument establishing its
necessity.
Materialism/naturalism are metaphysical doctrines which are necessary
to fulfill a particular world view of individuals. The particles of
matter don't know whether they are all that exist or that forces
outside of our universe have, are or will act upon them.
Materialism/naturalism are unscientific doctrines of people imposed
upon the methodology of science to guide the scientist towards the
kinds of theories that are acceptable and restrict those that are not.
If the guidance is wrong then scientists will sometimes be guided away
from the truth and towards falsity.
**************************************************
Oldridge continued:
>Catholic Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that God's sovereignty is
>universal over all aspects of reality, including the material.
Pagano replies:
I find this a little puzzling. Oldridge accepts the metaphysical
doctrine of materialism which is clearly incompatible with Christian
doctrine and (at best) limits God's "sovereignty" to the creation of
matter. Either God's sovereinty is universal or it isn't. According
to "materialism" it is not.
**********************************************
Oldridge continued:
> The fact
>that science is unable to discern the proximate means of divine intervention
>does not mean that it is not occurring or even that it is not continuous.
Pagano replies:
If so, then the possibility of supernatural action (when warranted)
should not be ruled out of scientific court. For example, it should
be acceptable to assume that supernatural action initiated a short
term, world wide, catastrophic flood, a few thousand years ago, that
we guess at the empirical consequences of such an event, and search
for those observable consequences.
*************************************************
Oldridge continues:
>The only thing that the Church need legitimately require of science is that
>it refrain from using this lack of discernment on its own part as the basis
>for unwarranted theological speculations that are then promulgated on the
>authority of science. This is precisely what the scripture means by science
>"so-called."
Pagano replies:
When Darwin arrived at what he thought was a purely materialistic
solution to novelty and diversity he abandoned his belief in God
completely. The majority of practicing scientists in the world today
do not believe in God. These non believers have engaged in
unwarranted theological speculations and been successful in teaching
their brand of "theology" in the schools as fact. In this case
children are taught the religion of naturalsim. This religion is
veiled in the language of science but it is nontheless metaphysics.
******************************************************
Oldridge continues:
>The Church need NOT attempt to rationalize some kind of anti-science or
>pseudoscience of its own making. This only happens when churchmen move out
>of the ambience of sound theology and start making the same mistake as their
>opposite numbers and indulging in unwarranted scientific speculations, often
>based on theological speculations as unwarranted and untraditional as those
>of the scientists mentioned above.
Pagano replies:
The Catholic Church is the keeper of Revealed Truths and it is
obligated to point out to the faithful whenever the world offers
statements which are inconsistent with those truths particularly when
scientific statements of the world are not fully proved or known to be
true.
The Catholic Church has fostered education in all fields including the
sciences throughout the centuries. And the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences is made up of approximately 80 scientists many of which are
Nobel Prize winners (and some non Catholics) to advise the Holy See.
Then one wonders what Oldridge is referring to.
*******************************************
Oldridge continues:
>The main error of young-earth creationists is theological. They assume that
>the literal interpretation of Genesis is the only permissible one
Pagano replies:
If this is an error then evolutionists are in error when they assume
that the only permissible interpretation of Genesis is that it is a
useful myth.
************************************************
Oldridge continues:
>and often teach (contrary to both scripture and Christian tradition)
>that this belief is necessary to salvation. Moreover, in doing so,
>they fail to acknowledge the universality of God's sovereignty.
Pagano replies:
Since belief that God is the Creator of everything is the first and
central belief of every Christian sect of which I am aware I wonder
why you think this belief is optional or dispensable..
If you are a christian and are aware of this Truth, and chose instead
to believe in Materialism then you have made a choice to disbelieve at
worst and at best to limit the sovereignty of God which you claim is
universal.
****************************************
Oldridge continues:
>Scripture always has been capable of more than one interpretation, and it is
>a principle of theology that truth is never heresy and that whatever suborns
>an untruth is, ipso facto, a heresy.
Pagano replies:
While there are at least four senses of Scripture (according to
Catholic tradition) there is only one true interpretation.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> And there is no logical necessity which requires the
> presupposition of materialism/naturalism to study matter and its
> properties. If there is please provide the argument establishing its
> necessity.
Hmmm, how would postulating supernaturalism improve our study of matter?
> Pagano replies:
> If so, then the possibility of supernatural action (when warranted)
> should not be ruled out of scientific court.
I've asked before, but you never answer: if there is a natural result to
any type of action it is by definition a natural action. A supernatural
action cannot, by definition, be natural.
Herb Huston
Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
}"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.com> wrote in message
}news:110320020808408543%
}> I get to see if I can reconcile
}> the apparently irreconciliable. Rahner vs. Dawkins, it should be
}> interesting.
}
}Interesting. I'd like to know the outcome of that when you've finished
Here's the outcome of Habgood vs. Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins, well-known for his books on evolution, took
part in a debate with the Archbishop of York, Dr John Habgood,
on the existence of God at the Edinburgh science festival last
Easter. [Easter '92 ed.] The science correspondent of The Observer
reported that the "withering" Richard Dawkins clearly believed
the [sic] "God should be spoken of in the same way as Father
Christmas or the Tooth Fairy". He [the correspondent] overheard
a gloomy cleric comment on the debate: "That was easy to sum up.
Lions 10, Christians nil".
For more, see
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/religion.htm
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
Elmer Bataitis
> Either God's sovereinty is universal or it isn't. According
> to "materialism" it is not.
If God's soverenity *IS* universal, then it *IS* material. It doesn't
matter what "materialism" claims.
Joe Cummings
wrote:
After Pagano's usual mendacious confusion of metaphysical
materialism with methodology, we read this
>Oldridge continued:
>> The fact
>>that science is unable to discern the proximate means of divine intervention
>>does not mean that it is not occurring or even that it is not continuous.
>
> Pagano replies:
>If so, then the possibility of supernatural action (when warranted)
>should not be ruled out of scientific court. For example, it should
>be acceptable to assume that supernatural action initiated a short
>term, world wide, catastrophic flood, a few thousand years ago, that
>we guess at the empirical consequences of such an event, and search
>for those observable consequences.
>*************************************************
Now what on earth can "supernatural action (when warranted)
should not be ruled out of scientific court." mean?
" When warranted?" By whom?
Oldridge is repeating an old truth that science is unable to
detect the supernatural. In his usual confused way, Tony wants to
bring in the supernatural into science.
Up to now, he has never said how this is to be done. But
today is historic: today Tony tells us - admittedly not with a blare
of trumpets, rather more an attempt to smuggle it in in brackets.
The supernatural is introduced into science "when warranted."
Think about it. Roll the words around your mouth. "When
warranted." Hmmm. Now it's perfectly obvious that scientists won't
bring in supernaturalism, because it runs counter to their
methodology.
So, th question arises: "who is going to warrant it???" Who
is going to authorise or instruct people to study the supernatural?
"When warranted." Well, the church isn't going to, that's
for sure. As far as the Church is concerned, science is an autonomous
activity, whch says nothing about the supernatural ( the church makes
the normal distinction between methodology and metaphysics).
"When warranted." It can't be the creationists either, because
they don't understand science as is shown here by their postings.
So who is the authority that instructs science to study the
supenatural? Why, it must be none other than A. Pagano, the
self-styled scourge of the Darwinists, and hammer of secularists!
But wait a minute, wait a minute...Isn't this the brave
advocate of the scientific supernatural who suddenly came over all
coy when he was invited to study two claimed suernatural events - the
eggplant with the name of Allah, and the eternally-fresh flowers??
Isn't he the audacious thinker who has never yet been able to
say what a transitional from is??
Isn't he the all- wise guru of Talk.Origins who is incapable
of examining anything is specific detail?
Isn't he the doughty critic of evolution who is never able to
stay in a thread long enough to answer the points made? In fact, who
always disappears, and the returns a short time later, probably after
he's been rewound, to repeat already shot-down claims?
Isn't he the great persuader who has never yet won a convert
to creationism?
Why, yes, I think it is.
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
Steven J.
> On 16 Mar 2002 07:49:36 -0500, david.si...@attbi.com (David
> Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
> Pagano wrote:
> >> Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> >> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone.
>
> Sienkiewcz replied:
> >In a general sense, yes, but that's not what is generally under
> >discussion here.
>
> Pagano responds:
> Evolutionists take advantage of the ambiguity in such an over arching
> label. They point to changes which are observable and are not
> disputed by anyone as evidence of the disputed claims. It is
> important to point out that only a very small number of naturalistic
> claims conflict with Church doctrine.
>
"disputed claims" of common descent, or descent with (extensive)
modification, evolutionists generally point to morphological, genetic,
and biochemical homologies, and the (entirely unnecessary from a
design standpoint, but required by common descent) nested hierarchies
into which they fall, and the way (entirely unnecessary from a design
standpoint, but required by common descent) the morphological,
biochemical, and genetic hierarchies agree with one another. They
point to vestigial organs and the fossil record, and to biogeography.
The observed changes are not pointed to as evidence for common
descent, but rather for the existence of mechanisms which can explain
common descent. Creationists, in turn, make the arbitrary assumption
that something limits these changes from accumulating past either (a)
the amount of change one can observe over a human lifetime, or (b) the
amount of change the particular creationist is comfortable with -- and
it seems to me, by the way, that creationists routinely take advantage
over the ambiguity between those two.
> *********************************
>
>
> Pagano wrote:
> >> What is disputed by
> >> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> >> stochastic processes
>
> Sienkiewcz replies:
> >Which is NOT evolution, but abiogenesis - the origin of life.
>
> Pagano responds:
> Since abiogenesis is a necessary initial condition for neoDarwinism it
> is inseparable from evolutionism. Evolution is, in the broadest
> sense, any change. Evolutionists have recently treated abiogenesis as
> a black box and distanced themselves from it because of its dismal
> failures. Sienkiewcz has yet to provide all the good answers to the
> shortfalls I presented.
>
The existence of life is a necessary initial condition for evolution.
Come now, Tony, if we conceded that life originated miraculously, as
single-celled organisms (or, indeed, at the Cambrian explosion as
primitive precursors of each phylum) which only subsequently evolved
according to naturalistic mechanisms, would the difference between
"abiogenesis" and "evolution" be clearer to you? If we allowed no
naturalistic explanation for the origin of basal prokaryotes (or even
for _Pikaia gracilens_), would it be clearer to you that that in no
way precludes either a branching progression from _Pikaia_ to trout,
sharks, sparrows, geckos, box tortoises, kangaroos, and us, or a
naturalistic process that drives that procession?
It is simply false that scientists have distanced themselves from
abiogenesis, or treated it as a black box. Evolutionists tend to
ignore it, for the same reasons that historians of the American Civil
War tend to ignore the crusades -- it may be the prequel to their own
specialty, but it ISN'T their specialty.
> ************************************************
>
> Pagano wrote:
> >> and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> >> result of random and chance mutations.
>
> Sienkiewcz replied:
> >Which IS evolution and IS disputed by you and your religious brethren,
> >Tony.
> >
> >So you've tossed in a couple of misdirections and led us right back
> >to...nowhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
> As usual Sienkiewcz never reads very closely. macaddicted implied
> that historical contingency was the only component of evolution and
> did not conflict with Catholic Doctrine. I countered (and Sienkiewcz
> agreed) that novelty and diversity is the result of random and chance
> events which does conflict with para 295 of the Catechism.
>
I think that you, yourself, never read very closely. Para 295 of the
Catechism seems to me to indicate that God chose, freely, to create;
He was neither compelled to, nor was the universe as a whole uncaused,
or arising independent of His will. Nothing in that paragraph
prevents the belief that God (as human engineers sometimes do) could
use random events as part of His creative process.
macaddicted, for his part, surely did not imply that "historical
contingency was the only component of evolution." Only someone who
has problems understanding both the theory of evolution and the
meaning of English text could say such a thing. His point, rather, is
that evolutionary theory implies contingency in nature (things need
not be the way they are, but might -- given appropriate circumstances
in other times -- have been different) but that such contingency was
consistent with God's creation.
I don't think much of a defense is needed. You seem unable to see
that any text might mean something other than what you want it to
mean. I've seen you, time after time, turn the obvious meanings of
the posts you quote on their head, to make them easier to refute (an
example, though not the most outrageous one, being your treatment of
macaddicted's point about contingency). Now you seek to find,
somewhere in _Providentissimus_, some assertion that "if the
conclusions of secular science seem in conflict with the teachings of
scripture, those theories must be rejected." I think that, if the
Pope had *meant* that, he could have *said* that. I can see that he
would be more judicious about phrasing what I see to be his actual
point -- if the theories seem to contradict the Bible, try to find a
reading of the Bible that they *don't* conflict with.
> *******************************************
>
> Pagano wrote:
> >> Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
> >> guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
> >> attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
> >> historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
> >> "adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
> >> conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
> >> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
> >> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
> >> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
> >> all, of Scripture was myth.
>
> Sienkiewcz responded:
> >Misdirection.
> >
> >You claimed that the quote was taken out of context, Tony.
>
> Pagano responds:
> What you characterized as "misdirection" (undoubtedly out of complete
> ignorance) WAS the context of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical. I strongly
> suggest that you have your daughter proof read your posts before you
> send them. I suspect this will prevent future embarassment.
>
I suggest you get his daughter (or someone's daughter) to proofread
*your* posts. Sienkiewcz has already stated that he *DOES NOT CARE*
if the findings of modern ("secular") science contradict the Bible.
Now, one corollary of that is that he does not *object* to modern
theories being compatible with the Bible, or the Bible being more than
myth and legend. That is, if Leo XIII's encyclical was addressed to
direct assaults on scripture, then nothing he is advocating is
addressed by it, since he is not attacking scripture; he is
indifferent to it. He just wants to do science.
_Providentissimus_ seems to address the problem of those who just want
to do science; it points out that science is likely to approach the
truth, and since the Bible is truth, and truth cannot contradict
truth, attempts must be made, not to supplant scientific theories with
theology, but to reconcile them.
>
> [The rest snipped as more of the same.]
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Ian H Spedding
anthony...@verizon.net says...
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> >> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
> >> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> >> stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> >> result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
> >> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
In which case creationists can have no objection to the theory of
evolution since it has nothing to say about how life might have begun.
Furthermore, creationists acknowledge that microevolution can and does
occur while failing to demonstrate that it cannot lead to
macroevolution. Instead, they impose by religious fiat an arbitrary
limit on the extent to which evolution can occur.
[...]
> Pagano replies:
> The doctrines of materialism and naturalism are metaphysical not
> scientific. And there is no logical necessity which requires the
> presupposition of materialism/naturalism to study matter and its
> properties. If there is please provide the argument establishing its
> necessity.
Can you cite any examples of peope who have argued that the
metaphysical doctrines of naturalism and materialism are a _necessary_
consequence of the scientific method?
It is possible, however, to argue that, since we have no evidence of
supernatural intervention in the natural world, there is no
requirement to assume the existence of a supernatural agency.
> Materialism/naturalism are metaphysical doctrines which are necessary
> to fulfill a particular world view of individuals. The particles of
> matter don't know whether they are all that exist or that forces
> outside of our universe have, are or will act upon them.
>
> Materialism/naturalism are unscientific doctrines of people imposed
> upon the methodology of science to guide the scientist towards the
> kinds of theories that are acceptable and restrict those that are not.
> If the guidance is wrong then scientists will sometimes be guided away
> from the truth and towards falsity.
The burden of proof requires that you identify those responsible for
imposing the doctrines of naturalism and materialism on the
methodology of science or acknowledge that this is an unsubstantiated
claim.
The standing of a theory is determined by various measures such as
explanatory power, internal consistency, predictive power and
testability, none of which require the assumption of naturalistic or
materialistic doctrines.
[...]
> Pagano replies:
> When Darwin arrived at what he thought was a purely materialistic
> solution to novelty and diversity he abandoned his belief in God
> completely.
Please cite the passage from Darwin's writing in which he explicitly
states that he abandoned his belief in God following his development
of the theory of evolution.
> The majority of practicing scientists in the world today
> do not believe in God.
Please cite statistical support for this claim.
> These non believers have engaged in
> unwarranted theological speculations and been successful in teaching
> their brand of "theology" in the schools as fact.
I assume from this that you believe that it is wrong for any teacher
of science to introduce his or her personal religious or philosophical
beliefs into their teaching of the subject. From this I infer that
you condemn the attempt to introduce creationism into the science
curriculum by Emmanuel College in Gateshead, since creationism is a
metaphysical doctrine.
> In this case
> children are taught the religion of naturalsim. This religion is
> veiled in the language of science but it is nontheless metaphysics.
You have yet to show that the metaphysical doctrine of naturalism is
neing taught in science classes.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
macaddicted
<hus...@Radix.Net> wrote:
Just because he has a big title (archbishop) doesn't mean he is an
intellectual giant. If I were to debate Dawkins I would probably (well,
almost certainly) get creamed too. Against Rahner, who was a driving
force in the early debates on Vatican II, but is unfortunately now
dead, it might be different.
I have bookmarked your link. As it is rather long I will probably print
it out and read it later. But I would make one point. I would disagree
with the categories he presents at the beginning. Instead I prefer to
use those named by John Haught in "Science and Religion." They are:
1. Conflict: Science and religion are irreconcialable. The
"know-nothings" of Dawkins
2. Contrast: Science and religion each have their own, seperate areas
of expertise. The "no-contests" of Dawkins.
To the two Dawkins named Haugh adds two more:
3. Contact: There is interaction, dialogue, and mutual impact without
conflation or segregation.
4. Confirmation: Religion, when carefully purged of its idolatrous
implications, fully endorses and even undergirds the scientific effort
to make sense of the universe.
The know alls" do not fall easily into any single category as contact
and confirmation depend on the reality of God.
I know that the last catagory, confirmation, is somewhat controversial.
In fact, Haught seperates it because there are some religious who would
object to its theological implications.
All I am trying to say is that if Dawkins is going to speak only in
terms of the first two categories than he has placed too strong a limit
on his catagories. The third catagory is readily accepted by many
religious. The fourth is in reality a subset of the third, but
seperated for the sake of arguement and exploration.
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Oldridge continues:
> >Scripture always has been capable of more than one interpretation, and it is
> >a principle of theology that truth is never heresy and that whatever suborns
> >an untruth is, ipso facto, a heresy.
>
> Pagano replies:
> While there are at least four senses of Scripture (according to
> Catholic tradition) there is only one true interpretation.
Really? In which biblical commentary will I find this interpretation?
When I write papers on biblical passages I usally start with
commentaries. Take any three Catholic commentaries, and depending on
the passage (some are more difficult than others-Gen. 6:1-4 is an
example.) their interpretations can be different.
I would strongly recomend that you read "Interpretation of the Bible in
the Church" which was presented by the Papal Bibical Commission. As
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger writes in the preface: "I believe that this
document is very helpful for the important questions about the right
way of understanding Holy Scripture and that it also helps us to go
further. It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893
(Providentissimus Deus-Encyclical, Pope Leo XII) and 1943 (Divino
Afflante Spiritu- Encyclical, Pope Pius XII) and advances them in a
fruitful way. (paranthetical insertion are mine)
Interpretaion of the Bible in the Church can be found on the EWTN site
at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
in peace
dave
Dave Oldridge
>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
>>> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
>>> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
>>> stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
>>> result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
>>> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
>
> Oldridge wrote:
>>Let's also be clear:
>>
>>Science is basically the study of material things and forces and their
>>relationships. As such, it has a certain built-in materialism that it
>>cannot even be expected to transcend.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The doctrines of materialism and naturalism are metaphysical not
> scientific. And there is no logical necessity which requires the
> presupposition of materialism/naturalism to study matter and its
> properties. If there is please provide the argument establishing its
> necessity.
>
> Materialism/naturalism are metaphysical doctrines which are necessary
> to fulfill a particular world view of individuals. The particles of
> matter don't know whether they are all that exist or that forces
> outside of our universe have, are or will act upon them.
Fine, when you have some instrumental way of ascertaining and demonstrating
what forces outside our universe are acting, then you can apply to have
these forces considered as science. But if we have to take someone's word
that they exist and there is no repeatable demonstration available, there is
either no point in studying them or no point in trying to predict their
behaviour.
> Materialism/naturalism are unscientific doctrines of people imposed
> upon the methodology of science to guide the scientist towards the
> kinds of theories that are acceptable and restrict those that are not.
What is UN-scientific about using the scientific method to do science?
Look, if you want to do voodoo incantation, that's fine by me. But CALL it
voodoo incantation, don't try to pretend it's a scientific experiment!
> If the guidance is wrong then scientists will sometimes be guided away
> from the truth and towards falsity.
How can one get false information about nature FROM nature? One can, of
course, come up with a false THEORY about what the information from nature
actually MEANS, but additional information should contravene that theory.
> **************************************************
>
> Oldridge continued:
>>Catholic Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that God's sovereignty
>>is universal over all aspects of reality, including the material.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I find this a little puzzling. Oldridge accepts the metaphysical
> doctrine of materialism which is clearly incompatible with Christian
> doctrine and (at best) limits God's "sovereignty" to the creation of
> matter. Either God's sovereinty is universal or it isn't. According
> to "materialism" it is not.
Wrong. You are conflating the methodological materialism of science with
the metaphysical materialism of atheist (anti-)theology. And how does a
methodological materialism in science presuppose any limitation on God's
sovereignty. One of the things we ask when looking at a candidate for
sainthood is that claimed miracles actually be NOT explainable by scientific
methodology. Is that too hard to understand?
We can USE scientific materialism as a filter to clean superstitions off our
knowledge. But we should not, as the Pope has said, use that as an excuse
to forget that our faith transcends all scientific knowledge.
> **********************************************
>
>
> Oldridge continued:
>> The fact
>>that science is unable to discern the proximate means of divine
>>intervention does not mean that it is not occurring or even that it is
>>not continuous.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If so, then the possibility of supernatural action (when warranted)
> should not be ruled out of scientific court. For example, it should
I agree, but it should not be simply speculated without good evidence.
> be acceptable to assume that supernatural action initiated a short
> term, world wide, catastrophic flood, a few thousand years ago, that
> we guess at the empirical consequences of such an event, and search
> for those observable consequences.
The trouble with this one is that we already did the search and it comes up
empty. Now I'm more prepared to accept the notion that the Genesis story is
actually a verbal tradition relating to the Black Sea inundation (which is
when the Septuagint's chronology places it, by the way), or possibly the
Persian Gulf inundation (which happened around that time, too). We do not
need to take these works literally, or even as inerrant. That is basically
Luther's claim, not ours.
*************************************************
>
> Oldridge continues:
>>The only thing that the Church need legitimately require of science is
>>that it refrain from using this lack of discernment on its own part as
>>the basis for unwarranted theological speculations that are then
>>promulgated on the authority of science. This is precisely what the
>>scripture means by science "so-called."
>
> Pagano replies:
> When Darwin arrived at what he thought was a purely materialistic
> solution to novelty and diversity he abandoned his belief in God
> completely. The majority of practicing scientists in the world today
Not really. What tipped it for him (and what has for others) was the tragic
death of his young daughter.
> do not believe in God. These non believers have engaged in
> unwarranted theological speculations and been successful in teaching
> their brand of "theology" in the schools as fact. In this case
This is why we have our own schools where possible.
> children are taught the religion of naturalsim. This religion is
> veiled in the language of science but it is nontheless metaphysics.
> ******************************************************
I haven't seen that really. What I HAVE seen is a rather watered down
version of evolutionary biology taught so badly that it turns serious
students away from biology altogether. My university biology teacher taught
evolution, pure and simple. I don't recall him ever mentioning God or
promoting disbelief in God.
> Oldridge continues:
>>The Church need NOT attempt to rationalize some kind of anti-science or
>>pseudoscience of its own making. This only happens when churchmen move
>>out of the ambience of sound theology and start making the same mistake
>>as their opposite numbers and indulging in unwarranted scientific
>>speculations, often based on theological speculations as unwarranted and
>>untraditional as those of the scientists mentioned above.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Catholic Church is the keeper of Revealed Truths and it is
> obligated to point out to the faithful whenever the world offers
> statements which are inconsistent with those truths particularly when
> scientific statements of the world are not fully proved or known to be
> true.
Granted. But then you aren't the Catholic Church, neither am I and nor is
any one bishop.
> The Catholic Church has fostered education in all fields including the
> sciences throughout the centuries. And the Pontifical Academy of
> Sciences is made up of approximately 80 scientists many of which are
> Nobel Prize winners (and some non Catholics) to advise the Holy See.
> Then one wonders what Oldridge is referring to.
> *******************************************
>
>
> Oldridge continues:
>>The main error of young-earth creationists is theological. They assume
>>that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the only permissible one
> Pagano replies:
> If this is an error then evolutionists are in error when they assume
> that the only permissible interpretation of Genesis is that it is a
> useful myth.
> ************************************************
You can interpret Genesis any way you want without endangering your
salvation (within limits of course). But what you cannot do is
misrepresent, deliberately misconstrue, and fib about the work of honest
scientists. If you bear false witness, do it repeatedly and resist
instruction to the point of malice, you can end up dying in a state of
mortal sin. Is this clear enough to you?
> Oldridge continues:
>>and often teach (contrary to both scripture and Christian tradition)
>>that this belief is necessary to salvation. Moreover, in doing so,
>>they fail to acknowledge the universality of God's sovereignty.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since belief that God is the Creator of everything is the first and
> central belief of every Christian sect of which I am aware I wonder
> why you think this belief is optional or dispensable..
I wonder why you think that I said such a thing. You are, in fact, putting
words in my mouth. I am quite insistent that the basic creationism of the
creed is the truth.
> If you are a christian and are aware of this Truth, and chose instead
> to believe in Materialism then you have made a choice to disbelieve at
> worst and at best to limit the sovereignty of God which you claim is
> universal.
> ****************************************
Once again, you are conflating a philosophical principle with a
methodological tool. And, now I have explained it to you, a repetition of
the charge will have to be considered a false witness.
> Oldridge continues:
>>Scripture always has been capable of more than one interpretation, and it
>>is a principle of theology that truth is never heresy and that whatever
>>suborns an untruth is, ipso facto, a heresy.
>
> Pagano replies:
> While there are at least four senses of Scripture (according to
> Catholic tradition) there is only one true interpretation.
I'm not sure where you are driving this part of the bus.
Adam Marczyk
news:Xns91D4A1622C340...@142.77.1.194...
[snip]
> > Oldridge continues:
> >>Scripture always has been capable of more than one interpretation, and it
> >>is a principle of theology that truth is never heresy and that whatever
> >>suborns an untruth is, ipso facto, a heresy.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> > While there are at least four senses of Scripture (according to
> > Catholic tradition) there is only one true interpretation.
>
> I'm not sure where you are driving this part of the bus.
That's obvious. The one true interpretation is the one Tony Pagano believes in,
of course.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
John Wilkins
Generally, bishops and archbishops are excellent at playing church
politics and less so at playing theology or philosophy. Recently, the
Archibishop of Melbourne (now Sydney) in your lot managed to embarrass
himself rather badly about evolution (rather like Tony P) despite the
Pope's pronouncements. His arguments were transparent to any 2nd year
philosophy of religion student, but they play well to the bleachers.
Being high in the church is an excellent predictor of skills to do with
being high in the church, and precious little else.
I agree that Rahner would give Dawkins trouble, but only if they both
stayed in philosophy - Dawkins will win in biology and rahner will win
in theology. Perhaps Wolfhart Pannenberg will do as a sub for the theist
team?
> I have bookmarked your link. As it is rather long I will probably print
> it out and read it later. But I would make one point. I would disagree
> with the categories he presents at the beginning. Instead I prefer to
> use those named by John Haught in "Science and Religion." They are:
>
> 1. Conflict: Science and religion are irreconcialable. The
> "know-nothings" of Dawkins
> 2. Contrast: Science and religion each have their own, seperate areas
> of expertise. The "no-contests" of Dawkins.
>
> To the two Dawkins named Haugh adds two more:
> 3. Contact: There is interaction, dialogue, and mutual impact without
> conflation or segregation.
> 4. Confirmation: Religion, when carefully purged of its idolatrous
> implications, fully endorses and even undergirds the scientific effort
> to make sense of the universe.
>
>
> The know alls" do not fall easily into any single category as contact
> and confirmation depend on the reality of God.
>
> I know that the last catagory, confirmation, is somewhat controversial.
> In fact, Haught seperates it because there are some religious who would
> object to its theological implications.
>
> All I am trying to say is that if Dawkins is going to speak only in
> terms of the first two categories than he has placed too strong a limit
> on his catagories. The third catagory is readily accepted by many
> religious. The fourth is in reality a subset of the third, but
> seperated for the sake of arguement and exploration.
Well all this is true in a formal sense, but religion and science have a
complex and unstable relationship historically. All four positions have
been and are true at different places and times and conditions. There is
no formal requirement for any of the four to be the "default" or
"correct" position.
The reason this is so, in my opinion, is that in addition to being
epistemological competitors, they are competitors for social resources
because they are also both social institutions. Hence they compete for
legitimacy, funding, educational facilities, and political influence.
They do not behave in the same manner - science is happy to leave it at
gaining funding and the associated influence on public policy, where
[Indo-European] religion also wants to establish and maintain control
over the beliefs and ideas entertained by the ordinary public.
So there is a fair bit of jostling of elbows and occasional fist fights,
and occasionally also a coincidence of goals and cooperation. And all
the while both overlook the *real* challenge to western intellectual
life - competitive commercial sports.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
You know Tony, it would be a lot easier if you would just read the
document and stop making me post sections. Here it is again.
From "Biblical Interpretation in the Church":
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
Under:
I. Methods And Approaches For Interpretation
A. Historical-Critical Method
4. Evaluation
The early confrontation between traditional exegesis and the scientific
approach, which initially consciously separated itself from faith and
at times even opposed it, was assuredly painful; later however it
proved to be salutary: Once the method was freed from external
prejudices, it led to a more precise understanding of the truth of
sacred Scripture (cf. "Dei Verbum," 12). According to "Divino Afflante
Spiritu," the search for the literal sense of Scripture is an essential
task of exegesis and, in order to fulfill this task, it is necessary to
determine the literary genre of texts (cf. "Enchiridion Biblicum,"
560), something which the historical-critical method helps to achieve.
To be sure, the classic use of the historical-critical method reveals
its limitations. It restricts itself to a search for the meaning of the
biblical text within the historical circumstances that gave rise to it
and is not concerned with other possibilities of meaning which have
been revealed at later stages of the biblical revelation and history of
the church. Nonetheless, thismethod has contributed to the production
of works of exegesis and of biblical theology which are of great value.
Further on, under the heading "F. Fundamentalist Interpretation"
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible,
being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and
interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal
interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation,
one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the
Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It
is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as
indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation
of Scripture.
It goes on in the same section:
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the
Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths
included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting
these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever
the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable
adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only
source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the
Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The "literal" sense of the Bible is not what reading what it says
literally. It is understanding what the original authors meant, not to
us today, but to the people to and for whom they were writing.
You are misstating the situation somewhat. This directive was aimed
much more at the theological departments than those of biblical
studies. But, assuming you are correct, here is my response.
One of my instructors is a priest from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
As such, his activities are under the direction of Cardinal Manoney. He
was ordained in the mid-80's at the seminary I attend as a lay student,
St. John's, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He holds a
S.T.L from the Jesuit Theological Union, and a doctorate in Biblical
Studies from the Graduate Theological Union at Berkley. His placement
in these programs would have come with the blessing and at the
directive of the Cardinal. A diocesan priest does not just decide one
day to leave the diocese he is serving to go to school somewhere else.
He may express a desire, but it must be approved by the Cardinal.
He began instructing at St. John's in 1999. This assignment would have
come at the directive of the Cardinal. Thus, he has not only the
Cardinal's blessing to be an instructor at St. John's, the Cardinal, as
the head of the the Archdiocose, placed this priest there at HIS
DIRECTION.
Now that we have established that he has a mandate from the Cardinal,
as is required for all who would teach at Catholic centers of higher
education I will let you in on a little secret.
He is one of the priests who told me, and the rest of my Synoptic
Gospels class, that a literal interpretation is WRONG.
THAT'S RIGHT!!!! WRONG!
Actually, he simply re-inforced something we had been taught earlier.
But I used him to establish his credentials under the guidlines you
established.
I give this example because of the two other instructors I have had one
was a nun and one was an ordered priest. (I would like to see you with
Sister Milligan. You might last thirty seconds.) NONE, not one of my
instructors, not one of them in ANY department, not one of them, lay or
religious, would agree with you on the literal interpretation of the
Bible.
> The Church has made quite clear over the years that it has no
> intention of reinterpreting Genesis or any other part of Scripture
> based upon vague and unproven theories (like the Big Bang, abiogenesis
> and evolutionism) whose proximity to the truth is unknown. So those
> Catholic professors who teach that the chapters of Genesis are merely
> useful fictions and myths borrowed from other cultures would be
> teaching contrary to the Church. You can no longer claim ignorance of
> this.
>
I have, as you requested, presented my evidence. I have given you proof
that the Church, as directed by the Papal Biblical Commission, does not
endorse the idea of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I have also
given you proof that my Cardinal, Roger Mahoney, has given his blessing
for one of my instructors to teach at the school I attend. This
instructor has stated, unequivocally, that a literal interpretation of
the Bible is incorrect.
Given this I would appreciate your evidence that Genesis is supposed to
be interpretted literally. I am sure that the ENTIRE theological and
biblical instructional staff of the seminary would be fascinated to
know that they have been so wrong.
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [This is a continuing reply to macaddicted.]
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2002 11:32:45 -0500, macaddicted
>
> > >Yet we
> > >readily abandon evolution because it is seen as being in conflict with
> > >the Bible.
>
> Pagano replies:
> First let's be clear. Evolution is an over-arching label which refers
> to some changes which are not disputed by anyone. What is disputed by
> creationists is the claim that life created itself as a result of
> stochastic processes and all the novelty and diversity of life was the
> result of random and chance mutations. This is in conflict with
> Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
>
> macaddicted wrote:
> >> >But those views fell with 'Providentissimus Deus'
> >> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13PROVI.HTM)
> >> >and had their end with 'Divino Afflante Spiritu'
> >> >(http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12DIVIN.HTM).
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> I doubt this very seriously. Like the Pope's address to the
> >> Pontifical Academy of Sciences these documents have been much
> >> misrepresented with selective quotes. Please produce the evidence
> >> from these documents which support your position.
> >> *********************************************
>
> macaddicted responded:
> >From Providentissimus-
> >If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be
> >made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be
> >consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the
> >passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully
> >weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the
> >discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
> >cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been
> >made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
> >polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we
> >must then suspend judgment for the time being
>
> Pagano replies:
> As I suspected macaddicted has been quote mining out of context.
> Providentissimus Deus was written by Pope Leo XIII in Nov 1893 as
> guidance to Catholics who would aid the Church in its response to
> attacks by its enemies concerning the inspiration, truth, and
> historicity of Holy Scripture. Pope Leo XIII was not trying to
> "adapt" Holy Scripture to the science of the day or lessen the
> conflict between Scripture and the claims of its enemies. The
> Church's enemies in the late 1800s had been claiming among other
> things that Scripture was not Divine Revelation, that the scientific
> knowledge of the day contradicted Scripture, and that much, if not
> all, of Scripture was myth.
>
> The quote offered by macaddicted was immediately preceeded by the
> following: [BEGIN QUOTE] "Let [Catholic Defenders] loyally hold that
> God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the
> Scriptures----and that, therefore, nothing can be proved either by
> physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the
> Scriptures." [END QUOTE]
>
> The quote from Pope Leo XIII offered by macaddicted directs loyal
> Catholic defenders of Scripture to thoroughly investigate any apparent
> contradictions offered by enemies of the Church and to make every
> effort to remove such contradictions. And that such efforts must
> never be abandoned.
>
> In no way did Pope Leo XIII state explicitly or imply that the
> contradictions between Scripture and the science of the late 1800s had
> been resolved, that Genesis had been reinterpreted as purely
> allegorical or that Scripture had in any way been made subordinate to
> infallible science.
>
Tony, that is only true if you interpret the bible literally.
I somehow missed this post. Silly me, I thought people usually like to
keep their posts within a thread. Therefore, I would ask you to see the
post I just sent in response to "Re: The Church's New Directive to
Catholic Theology Professors." The points are the same.