Intelligent Design

God and Darwin: Why they simply cannot co-exist

Spread the love

As UD readers know, Charles Darwin changed history when he argued that naturalistic processes, acting alone, can drive the macro-evolutionary process from beginning to end. His earth-shattering message was that nature’s pseudo-creative mechanism can mimic the work of a designing Creator. That he could not support his claim with empirical evidence did not seem to bother him very much.

From then until now, the texture of the argument has not changed. Neo-Darwinists, without a shred of evidence, and in the name of disinterested science, declare that nature can produce biodiversity all by itself, which means, without God’s help. Incredibly, some well-meaning Christians try to argue the God “used” this aimless mechanism to achieve his specific goal of creating man.

“What’s the problem,” they ask? “Evolutionary scientists are the ‘experts,’ aren’t they? They have no special axe to grind even if most of them are partisan atheists. Besides, God can use purely naturalistic processes to produce the outcome He wants.”

This is bad logic on parade. Let’s examine that last claim from a rational perspective. A (Neo)Darwinian process, as described, is open-ended. By virtue of its randomness (purposelessness), it is free to produce many possible outcomes, most of which will not reflect the Creator’s intentions. To guarantee the desired outcome, the Creator must front load or tweak the process (mechanism) so that unwanted outcomes are closed off. But if the process is constrained from the outside, then it is no longer “acting alone,” and is no longer “free” to produce unwanted outcomes. In other words, it is no longer a Darwinian process as defined by the evolutionary scientists. Thus, God cannot use a Darwinian mechanism to achieve a specific goal. If God did use evolution to create man, he would have had to either design or supervise the process.

To understand more fully why Christian Theism is on a totally different pathway than Darwinian evolution, we can subject the two models to a sequential analysis:

In the case of Teleological Theism, the design precedes and shapes the process. In the case of Darwinian Evolution–the process precedes and shapes the design (appearance of). Notice that there can be no reconciliation. To affirm one perspective is to negate the other. Either God’s real design precedes and shapes the process (Teleological Theism) or, the evolutionary process precedes and shapes the appearance of design (Neo-Darwinism). It must be one or the other. It cannot be both.

The attempt to reconcile God with Darwin may be likened to a misguided carpenter who tries to plug a square peg into a round hole. In the absence of a natural fit, he may press, twist or re-position the square peg in a futile attempt to make it “compatible” with the circle. Or, he may even hammer the peg until it breaks the wood and penetrates the hole—or what is left of it. At that point, it may seem to fit the hole, insofar as it occupies the same space, but of course, it doesn’t. The damaged hole is compromised; it is no longer the same hole.

Christian Darwinists may try to twist words, distort meanings, and mix messages in a futile effort to blend the Darwinian model with the Christian model, but it will not work. Insofar as the attempt is made, the Christian world view will be damaged and its teachings compromised. It will no longer be the same religion. The part will not blend with the whole. Does this mean that science is incompatible with faith? No. It means that Neo-Darwinist ideology is incompatible with science. I sincerely wish that flexible Christians who are inflexible Darwinists would try to make that distinction.

 

 

37 Replies to “God and Darwin: Why they simply cannot co-exist

  1. 1
    buffalo says:

    Once again: The crux of the matter

    Did God know what Adam would look like? Of course He did, theists would all agree.

    Did Adam look as God planned?

  2. 2
    StephenB says:

    buffalo, I agree. From a Christian perspective, the finished product (Adam) must reflect the Creator’s apriori intent with infallible precision.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    God did know what adam would look like because he made the apes a few days before. We have,the only beings, the same body as another being. Could only be that way.

    AMEN. There never was biological evidence behind Darwins main points. It was just lines of reasoning. Nothing wrong with doing that but don’t say its based on evidence from biological investigation.
    Darwin admitted geology had to be presumed to be right before the biology could be right. A flaw of science there.
    To be an expert one must prove one is a expert.
    Evolutionary biology has none. Its science fiction class with more imagination.

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    I can’t figure out which is worse, Christian fundamentalist crackpots or Darwinist crackpots. Both are equally stupid.

  5. 5
    harry says:

    Christian Darwinists may try to twist words, distort meanings, and mix messages in a futile effort to blend the Darwinian model with the Christian model, but it will not work.

    As a Catholic, it seems to me that it is impossible to reconcile atheism’s assertion that the Universe and the life within it are mindless accidents with Catholicism’s dogmatic teaching that:

    If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
    — Vatican Council I, can. 2 § I

    If one really believes that it looks like the Universe and the life within it came about mindlessly and accidentally, then why pretend to be a Catholic? That is why I find “Catholics” so irritating who attempt to reconcile the Darwinian “It is only the appearance of design” with Catholicism. Of course there is an appearance of design; it was designed. One only needs to have some small capacity for objectivity and to look at the facts to see that:

    — We now know there was only 1 chance in 10^10^123 that the Big Bang would produce a universe where life was a possibility. (See Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe) It was virtually impossible for that to have happened mindlessly and accidentally.

    — We now know that life is ultra-sophisticated, digital information-based nanotechnology light years beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch.

    — We know of no instances whatsoever of digital information-based functional complexity coming about mindless and accidentally, nor do we have any plausible explanation of how that might happen. So how could any rational person think that life — the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us, being digital-information based as well — was a mindless accident? One can’t and remain rational. One has to have the irrational, huge, blind faith of an atheist to reach that conclusion.

    The Church might need to update that dogma as follows:

    If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: Be kind to him. He’s suffering from mental illness.

  6. 6
    StephenB says:

    Harry

    If one really believes that it looks like the Universe and the life within it came about mindlessly and accidentally, then why pretend to be a Catholic? That is why I find “Catholics” so irritating who attempt to reconcile the Darwinian “It is only the appearance of design” with Catholicism.

    The entertaining part is that establishment pundits routinely characterize these sell-outs for Darwin as “devout” Catholics. How could they know that? Do they keep track of the sell-outs’ mass attendance and prayer life? Or, do the sell-outs themselves claim that they are privately devout so that no one will notice that they publicly subordinated God to Darwin? Seems like bad form to me.

  7. 7
    mw says:

    “I can’t figure out which is worse, Christian fundamentalist crackpots or Darwinist crackpots. Both are equally stupid.”

    That would of course include Yahweh, when at Sinai He wrote in stone the divine law that He created in six day, pointing to Genesis in a Commandment. Later, in the flesh as God in part and God in whole/Jesus, said that law was unbendable (Matt 5:17-19). Therefore, “fundamentalist crackpots” the Judaeo-Christian Creator Saviour God!

    I believe that the Big Bang theory, or how most scientists perceive the cosmos, is not the result of the theory of a Big Bang, or Darwinism, but of a singular big miracle over six days. A miracle that matured the cosmos in six days; and miracles affect data. We do not understand miracles. Darwin scoffed at miracles.

    Of course, you cannot disprove or prove such is “stupid.” We only have God’s word it is not, and that is not blind faith; which evolutionism ultimately is.

    Jesus died keeping divine law for salvations sake. If such divine law is erroneous, in any single letter, any talk of salvation and the Saviour become meaningless: “stupid.”

    It gets worse, Yahweh personally ordered the stoning of a man for not keeping divine law: working on the Sabbath (Num 15:35). If there is the slightest flaw in that divine law, the Father becomes a murderer, with Jesus included supporting! It follows, if so, divine justice would be flawed, and the court of hell would need to be disbanded; hell emptied.

    Today, the spirit of the Genesis Sabbath Commandment law is scoffed; made “stupid:” Yahweh/Jesus intellectually stoned to death by theory and Christian evolutionism.

    Neither Darwin or the Big Bang are compatible to divine law. True science must leave room for miracles and divine patterns in life.

    No doubt we all may have said and done crackpot things. Who ultimately judges, when evolution had no brain in the beginning. And, is still missing, other than having a theoretical formless blind selector of a disputed nature, following some theoretical chance explosion existing in nospace!

    I’m a fundamentalist Catholic, almost extinct. Jesus said, face to face with the perfection of evil, “we live by ever word from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4); not some theory, not twisted theoretical faith, but God’s Word alone, no matter how impossible. Let that example sink in.

    Jesus said those who elasticated a commandment were hypocrites (Matt 15:4-9). Catholics believe fundamentally, that Jesus/God enters us, or rather we into Him, in wine and bread, as many times as there are consecrated bread particles or wine droplets, for as many people. Yet, too many of the same Catholics believe the same God could not have created creation through Jesus in six days (Col 1:15-19) and as God wrote and stated Himself, the only scripture the Holy Trinity/Jesus ever wrote, and in that sense, the Holy of Holy scripture.

    Catholicism is now floundering in a ditch of pseudo-scientific faith.

  8. 8
    StephenB says:

    It is clear that the Christian Darwinists will not dare to confront the arguments. Of course, that does not stop them from aggressively and relentlessly pushing their perverse views on those who are powerless to defend themselves.

  9. 9
    buffalo says:

    The second question – Did Adam look as God planned? – stops everyone in their tracks.

    Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily – Creative Reason
    “The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” – perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.” http://idvolution.blogspot.com.....ative.html

  10. 10
    mw says:

    Oh, and one more crackpot fundamentalist argument that I stupidly forgot in relation to the Christian Darwinist/Big Bang Savour and Judaeo-Christian scripture—death.

    Darwin said:

    “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” (John van Wyhe, ed., 2002, Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: Murray, 1859), p. 490, http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....;pageseq=1)

    The Creator God/Jesus came to abolish death, being that he resurrected from the dead: testified and recorded on paper. Why? Had He had enough of death assuming He created through evolutionism?

    In terms of Darwinian evolution; death, cruelty and murder, are all parts of the requirements leading to the fittest, or the favoured race, as the title of his book firmly points to.

    Therefore, a Darwinist Jesus would theoretically create, through famine, war and death; a good number of volcanic eruptions and Tsunamis. He would have created knuckle dragger half beasts and half humans to lie with each other in order to be more moral, and in the image of a sinless, pure and perfect ‘evolutionary’ God!

    That is, even before He got to creating a pure Adam. Now in evolutionary terms built on bestiality and murderous wars; what would a Darwinist Jesus save us from in this instance? He created death for the sake of evolution did He not? Death fit enough to love Him? And Jesus is claimed to be a God of peace!

    In Christian evolutionism we have an unjust savage savour who claimed that “death” was the enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), but used it to create. What then did such a God really overcome? That is, He supposedly saved us from something He created, and then equated it to hell, both to be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14).

    Such is Humpty Dumpty creationism/evolutionism: a beguiling “powerful Delusion.”

    And while ‘We’ are at it—in terms of a theoretical Darwinist Holy Trinity—by death and savagery, ‘let us on some day create racism by creating favoured races.’ Surely in Adam we all on human race miraculously created.

    A question is, did Adam look as God planned? Wait a minute; God planned us from the image of a monkey, according to Darwinist Christians; again making total distortion of scripture. Whereas, Darwinism must lead to powerful codswallop as God said in relation to Temple ritual; animals who go on their paws are unclean—and quadrupeds/simians go on their paws (Lev. 11:27).

    Therefore, shoehorning the word of God into Darwinism; Yahweh, if using Darwinism, made us “unclean” to begin with! What then is the point of Salvation in terms of Christian Darwinism? It is absolutely tosh.

    A Darwinist Christian may as well pour acid on the Crucified, while feeding shredded scripture to the golden calf of Darwin.

  11. 11
    StephenB says:

    mw, thanks for your comments. There are two questions that can be asked about Theism and evolution. I have taken up the first; you have taken up the second.

    My question:

    [a] Is it logically possible that unguided, Darwinian evolution and Christianity could be reconciled? I have proven that it is not possible. It is only logically possible that God could use a guided evolutionary process.

    Your question:

    [b] Is it morally defensible for God to use any kind of evolution, a guided version that unfolds according to a plan or an unguided version that doesn’t know where it is going? You appear to say no on both counts.

  12. 12
    niwrad says:

    Thanks StephenB for this OP I agree on.

    Mapou #4: “I can’t figure out which is worse, Christian fundamentalist crackpots or Darwinist crackpots. Both are equally stupid”.

    You are a very intelligent person, don’t risk to appear stupid by equating truth with falsity. A Darwinist is a guy who believes in a falsity. A Christian is a guy who believes in a truth (Christianism). How can you equate them?

    It is true that there can exist bad Christians and good Darwinists, as persons. But who reads your statement could wrongly think that you put Christianism and Darwinism on the same level.

    Another think I dislike is the term “fundamentalist” many use. If with this term they mean “whoever believes in fundamental principles” then I am a “fundamentalist” and I am proud to be.

  13. 13
    velikovskys says:

    Stephen B.

    It it logically possible that deistic guidance evolution is undetectable?

  14. 14
    mw says:

    Eventually, Darwin himself was no longer compatible with Judaeo-Christianity; which says it all. Darwin implied miracles denote thinking of unsound minds. The co ‘master’ of Darwinists Christians said:

    “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” (Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882: with original omissions restored [New York: W. W. Norton, 1969], p. 86)

    Jesus said we cannot serve two masters. It seems Catholic Darwinists know better because one of their masters devalues scripture! The word of God stating, miraculous creation in six days becomes insane! An “ignorant” God of unsound mind for “ignorant” Jews, and hence by extension, an “ignorant” Jesus. Miracles became a dirty word to Darwin; not a means to worship and wonderment. A blockage to intelligent thinking!

    Jesus said: we can tell a tree by its fruits. Darwin died to Jesus. He gained the world. The faith is sick with evolutionism.

    An iron band grips brains. A broader approach is needed, such as teaching the flaws in evolution theory, including patterns which suggest intelligence at work. Broadminded, free thinking scientists are much in need: less science, more faith.

    Darwin; a gift from Jesus/God, in order to disbelieve, discredit and distort Jesus/God! More like a gift from Screwtape.

    (# 10, correction: 4th para from end should read, “Surely in Adam we are all one human race….)

    StephenB

    “Is it morally defensible for God to use any kind of evolution, a guided version that unfolds according to a plan or an unguided version that doesn’t know where it is going? You appear to say no on both counts.”

    Hi,

    If God used evolution, meaning common descent in Darwinian terms, God casts out the Judaeo-Christian God, that is; divine law, His word, His integrity.

    However, there is a designed creative evolution within the limits of species; meaning, life forms, life units, or life components, have an inbuilt potential to self-regulate, in relation to stress, the environment, food shortages or abundances, and climate etc. That is, God designed species to be the fittest of their kind to last. Why should a fit life form have to shape shift into something else; only to continue some mythical search for Darwinian fitness?

    In terms of Catholicism, the verification that God created a new life form was provided by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first confirmed in 1858 at Lourdes, one year before major spiritual warfare began for our historical origins, a gateway through Darwin’s “Origin.”

    The concept of the Immaculate Conception means, Mary, could not have common animal ancestry in her, as Jesus would have to first redeem Himself, that is, His flesh through His Mother; and as mentioned, Quadrumanous were deemed “unclean” by Yahweh. Common descent would make Jesus unclean.

    God uses a form of evolution in the regeneration, but only within the limits of human kind. However, God created instantly a new evolution, an instant new form of never before seen life: Jesus Man God at the incarnation. If God can create Himself instantly, there should not be much effort needed for a cosmos.

    The third major instant creation of a new species was first in Jesus at the resurrection. His new life form, conferred on us through His Salvation, was both physical and spiritual at the same time: a multidimensional eternal body that transverses eternal and physical time.

    All three examples are a type of evolution within limits, but not according to Darwin, who would be clueless to even consider how a pure spirit; an angel, could ever possibly evolve. I believe, a pure spirit can only be created directly by pure Spirit.

    God has no need to wait to create anything, including Himself as Man. To have creation over billions of years would then be a waste of Yahweh’s/Jesus time. To create by common descent would be an atrocity, besides making Himself the biggest loser of people’s faith in history, due to being the biggest liar if He did not create in six days.

    I see no reason not to continue to believe in fundamental principles, irrespective of the battering ram of evolutionism.

  15. 15
    StephenB says:

    Hi,mw. Interesting comments.

    You write,

    If God used evolution, meaning common descent in Darwinian terms, God casts out the Judaeo-Christian God, that is; divine law, His word, His integrity.

    Yes, agreed.

    In terms of Catholicism, the verification that God created a new life form was provided by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first confirmed in 1858 at Lourdes, one year before major spiritual warfare began for our historical origins, a gateway through Darwin’s “Origin.”

    Since I am Catholic, I accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception without reservation. However, I am not clear on what you mean by a new life form. The Blessed Virgin Mary, though uniquely blessed among human creatures, was still a human being. Wasn’t she the same life form as Saints Anne and Joachim, her parents?

    God uses a form of evolution in the regeneration, but only within the limits of human kind. However, God created instantly a new evolution, an instant new form of never before seen life: Jesus Man God at the incarnation. If God can create Himself instantly, there should not be much effort needed for a cosmos.

    As you are probably aware, God did not create himself. All three persons of the Trinity always existed; none were created. God the Father Begat God the Son, He did not create Him. God created the human flesh that Christ assumed, yes, but not the Divine person of Christ.

    “When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself…, “But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself.—C. S. Lewis.

    I assume that you agree.

    God has no need to wait to create anything, including Himself as Man. To have creation over billions of years would then be a waste of Yahweh’s/Jesus time. To create by common descent would be an atrocity, besides making Himself the biggest loser of people’s faith in history, due to being the biggest liar if He did not create in six days.

    I agree that God has no need to wait. However, He also has no need to rest [“and on the seventh day He rested”] .The point is that God Created the heavens and the earth. That is the meaning that the author of Genesis meant to convey. God is omnipotent. He does not get worn down or worn out. Thus, we don’t take the phrase “He rested and was refreshed” literally.

    …”the Church teaches a “literal” interpretation of Scripture but condemns a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture. The literal sense of Scripture “is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis [critical interpretation], following the rules of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal,’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #116). This literal sense of Scripture has to take into account the “the sacred authors’ intention…the condition of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current,” (CCC, #110).

    “A literalist interpretation of Scripture, however, does not take into account all of these things. A literalist interpretation is one that does not go past the words written on the page. No taking into account these scientific methods of Scripture study that I just mentioned, no taking into account the sacred authors’ intention, or the culture and historical situation of the author, the idioms of speech of the language he used, the literary genre, etc. “That’s what it says, that’s what it means, period.” (For a good discussion of literal vs. literalist, see The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Section I.F, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.)”

    It is possible that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days, but it is also possible that He took much longer. To argue for a young universe one must explain how the light from stars millions of light years away has reached us.

  16. 16
    StephenB says:

    niwrad @12,

    Thanks for the kind words.

  17. 17
    StephenB says:

    velikovskys

    “Is it logically possible that deistic guidance evolution is undetectable?”

    In what way?

  18. 18
    mw says:

    Thanks StephenB for an interesting topic. You say:

    “Thus, we don’t take the phrase ‘He rested and was refreshed’ literally.”

    The primary purpose of the Genesis Sabbath Commandment was first the truth. Yahweh asked Moses that before He would sanctify the people in truth at the foot of Sinai, they had to deny themselves of intercourse for three days. To me, that itself as hidden theological teaching to the Fall.

    However, if we start dividing components of a divine law into fact and theoretical none fact, in order to suit fallen man’s theory, we travel a dangerous road, and as Jesus said, but more forcefully in Matthew 15:7-9.

    If we then spilt a divine commandment to suit theory, or present keyless limited measurements, or to say He was not refreshed in some way, then the downward cycle continues. When God/Jesus/Spirit contemplated the creation and saw it was “very good,” it was refreshing, a joy; that He rested while contemplating the marvel of creation goes without saying.

    Besides, to appeal to a word, “omnipotent,” says nothing really of a truth. Do we truthfully know whether God experiences refreshment? We have only His word in stone that such is the case in this instance. He felt “good” in human terms: being good.

    Then arises a fundamental principle which held sway at the Fall. Surely, ‘God did not mean you would literally die. And, God needs no refreshment.’

    I believe that such law embedded refreshment was primarily for the benefit of humans, in that an example was set, based on divine truth. Therefore, if untrue, the rest of God’s law is adulterated by extension. His house starts to crumble once again by lack of complete the trust in His clear word. And God said He spoke clearly to Moses.

    If part of what God said is untrue, the implications are horrendous, be it in a physical context or spiritual context.

    The light problem

    It is not a problem if we simply believe. And the Big Bang theory, as you probably know, has a light travel problem of its own. We are dealing with miracles, the speed of the thought or word of God to create we simply do not understand. That His speed of thought to create light and its component information is intimately faster than light, it is instantaneous. God could create all light points between stellar objects as a single act.
    The first light, an unknown light from the “Light;” Jesus being the light. God created by a super science, then natural laws took over, but they are still a part of a super-science, with super-intelligent pattern.

    The Immaculate Conception

    Perhaps the use of the words, God created Himself, somewhat loose. Of course, God is both the uncreated and created in Jesus, for those who believe such. However, God generated a new form of Himself at the Incarnation. He was a new species of the Divine God/Human that He generated from all eternity.

    The same for Mary: a new species within the limits of the Image she was generated; sinless in a sinful time, whereas Eve was sinless in a sinless time relative to humans.

    Does God interview in everyday affairs?
    Does God contribute to our needs? That is, does He help; evolve us within the limits of our kind; the same for animals, plants, and the needs of the planet. Take the example of a genius; surely a gift, given at conception, and not evolved by theoretical incremental steps. What then the unpleasant opposite, in a commandment God said he would visit the sins onto the third and fourth generation. How? However, we need caution with that else discrimination may abound.

    There are many ways God helps and is merciful when needed for the good of His purpose. Besides, God must look at the eternal picture.

    Darwinian evolution: an incompatible theism
    Darwin believed our spiritual nature originated from savages, who were no better at being ‘spooked’ than dogs. Jesus or Moses would be no better than an animal-human shaman.

    Darwinism is an essentially degrading theory. If God were to be involved in common descent, He would degrade His word, Himself, scripture, and creation with it.

    And in all of God’s hand in creation, it is only detectable by the means God wills us to know Him: primarily by His Word.

  19. 19
    mw says:

    Further:

    “Thus, we don’t take the phrase ‘He rested and was refreshed’ literally.”

    “Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.” (Exod 20-8-11).

    Therefore, the Holy Trinity blessed a lie, if God did not rest in some form.

    How does God maintain His state of perpetual energy: by contemplating His Glory?

  20. 20
    StephenB says:

    mw, Thanks for your comments. So far, you have not responded to my Church citations about the difference between a liberal, literal and literalist interpretation of Scripture. Do you accept that teaching?

    According to the Catholic Church, which is your church and my church, the Scriptures, contain many different literary forms: letters, histories, hymns, laws, prophecies, parables, genealogies, and prayers. Each represents a different way of communicating the truth.

    The task is to use the proper exegetical methods in each case. That is how we know when to take a passage literally and when to take it as a symbolic expression of the truth. Without the Church’s Teaching Magisterium, we are powerless to make that determination.

    Even Jesus used symbolic language at times. When He said that we should forgive our enemies 7 times 70, he didn’t mean that we can stop forgiving at the 491st offense. He meant that we should always forgive. When He called Herod a “fox,” he did not mean that Herod was a carnivorous mammal of the dog family with a pointed muzzle and bushy tail. He meant that Herod was sly and cunning. On the other hand, we also believe that Christ did mean that His teaching on the Eucharist as a literal, not a mere symbolic truth.

    When the author of Genesis (Divine and human author) used the word “rest,” he meant to say that God stopped creating. He did not mean to say that God “needed to refresh himself” or used the opportunity to “get his strength back.” God is omnipotent. On the other hand, Jesus the God-man, did need to refresh himself because He had taken on human flesh. These kinds of distinctions are vitally important. Faith and reason work together. As Catholics, we do not separate the two.

  21. 21
    GaryGaulin says:

    Stephen:

    In the case of Teleological Theism, the design precedes and shapes the process.

    Then where was the preceding design for human eyeballs each made of many cells?

    This should now be an easy question to answer.

  22. 22
    niwrad says:

    GaryGaulin: “Then where was the preceding design for human eyeballs each made of many cells?”

    In the Divine Intellect, together with all the eternal archetypes of creation.

  23. 23
    StephenB says:

    Gary Gaulin

    Then where was the preceding design for human eyeballs each made of many cells?

    In the mind of the architect.

    Guided process — a function of architecture;

    Unguided process — a function of history.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    StephenB says:

    Gary, I will be happy to respond to any point you would care to make. I prefer not to guess about what it might be.

  26. 26
    GaryGaulin says:

    The mind of the architect that designed our eyeballs is in our cells. Stem cells are attracted to light too:

    http://www.basic.northwestern....../FRAME.HTM

  27. 27
    StephenB says:

    The mind of the architect that designed our eyeballs is in our cells.

    No. The mind of the architect designed the cells.

    You appear to be missing the point of the post. In a theistic framework, the design always precedes and shapes the evolutionary process. The point of that metric is to contrast it with a Darwinistic framework, in which the evolutionary process always precedes and shapes the appearance of design.

    That sequential analysis is specially designed to explain why Theistic teleology cannot be reconciled with Darwinian evolution. It has no other application. I should know. I developed it. No Christian Darwinist has dared to challenge point.

  28. 28
    GaryGaulin says:

    The mind of the architect designed the cells.

    Then where is the mind of the architect that designed the cells located exactly?

    You probably already read my scientifically testable answer (genetic level intelligence). Yours?

  29. 29
    mw says:

    Hi Stephen, thanks for bringing me back on track:—
    “Thanks for your comments. So far, you have not responded to my Church citations about the difference between a liberal, literal and literalist interpretation of Scripture. Do you accept that teaching?”

    Of course the answer is yes. The problem arises when we blanket all scripture under those terms, and then apply gross variability to divine law: the Ten Commandments of which Jesus said were unalterable, and which He fulfilled; not abolishing, dismantling, modifying or liberalizing. Jesus fulfilled the divine law, that is, commands of God, which Adam and Eve did not.

    Did Adam say, ‘your commands Lord are ambiguous, containing symbolism, liberalism, parable, and hyperbole’? Adam used every excuse not to blame himself. Adam blamed the woman and took a swipe at God for giving him the woman, who blamed the serpent.

    Jesus kept strict obedience to a literal divine law, down to a “tittle” even (Matt 5:18). Under the Hebrew Scriptures, obedience to divine law was the condition that salvation was obtained for those who believed.

    Who would die for anyone today, believing the Genesis Sabbath Commandment? Scoffing and laughter would abound; such a commandment contained a mad house of folly. Well, many believe Jesus die for us under those terms.

    Stephen, you make the comment:
    “The task is to use the proper exegetical methods in each case. That is how we know when to take a passage literally and when to take it as a symbolic expression of the truth. Without the Church’s Teaching Magisterium, we are powerless to make that determination.”

    Surely, the Holy Spirit is the prime teacher of the Christian movement; Teacher of the “Church’s Teaching Magisterium”?

    What then does the Catholic Church teach about origins, bearing in mind that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever to alter in the slightest any divine commandment? Only Jesus/God could annul the justice part of a divine commandment, for example, stoning to death. The spiritual element He retained. It is difficult to love brother or neighbor while stoning the person to death!

    Chaos results if we apply liberalism or any other ism to the Ten Commandments.

    Therefore, the teaching of the Catholic Church on origins:-

    • God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

    • Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

    • Genesis 1-11 contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church; Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909; Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    • Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    • Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius Xll, Humani Generis; CCC, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

    • The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall. (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent 111; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

    • The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body. (Council of Vienne, 1312; Leo Xlll, Arcanum)

    • Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)

    • Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (CCC, 400).

    • After disobeying God’s commandment, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man. (Nicene Creed)

    • Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve as a result of Adam’s sin in Paradise (Council of Trent).

    • The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I)

    • We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals. (Council of Trent and Vatican Council l)

    • All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the material universe was created in a period no longer than six 24-hour-days. (Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church)

    • The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception. (Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church; Catechism of the Council of Trent)

    • It is forbidden to hold that the progress of the sciences demands that the Catholic doctrine of creation be altered (Vatican I, Faith and Reason, Canon 3)

    • St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land-dwelling creatures, except the members of Noah’s family and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark. (Boniface V Ill, Unam Sanctam, 1302)

    • The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

    • Evolution must not be taught as fact. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    • Investigation into “evolution” by qualified Catholic scholars was allowed in 1950, but Pius XII warned them to examine the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    • Human death is the consequence of man’s sin. (Vatican Il, Gaudium et Spes)

    The above is cited from “Genesis through the Eyes of the Saints” by Hugh Owen (2015?), the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, Mt. Jackson, VA (USA), http://kolbecenter.org/

    Has the Holy Spirit had a change of Mind? God does not change (Mal 3:6).

    In heaven, what do we see from Revelation 11:19? The Ark; what does the Ark contain, the stone divine law. When we arrive in heaven we will be able to ask God what His divine law truly means. That, however, does not sound like a pattern of intelligent words.

    The “literal obvious sense” of the Genesis Sabbath Commandment is surely chiselled in stone.

  30. 30
    mw says:

    Hi GaryGaulin:
    “Then where is the mind of the architect that designed the cells located exactly”?

    We live in that Mind (Acts 17:27-28), or more precisely, we are lived by that Mind through the Divine Will. Only Life begets life, it is law never been known to be proved wrong.

    PS. Could someone please tell me how to get a text box into the comments box?

  31. 31
    StephenB says:

    Then where is the mind of the architect that designed the cells located exactly?

    Intelligence comes in various degrees. Plants know where the sun is and, at a higher level, dogs know where their master is. Humans can reason at a much higher level, though they can make mistakes and require physical brains, which exist where they are. God, on the other hand, is perfect intelligence and does not need go through any reasoning process. He just knows. Unlike His creatures, He exists as a pure spirit, outside of the time/space/matter continuum. His intelligence has no physical location.

  32. 32
    StephenB says:

    Hi mw

    …”the Ten Commandments of which Jesus said were unalterable

    Yes, of course. Any Divine teaching made explicit must be accepted as a literal truth. All direct references to history must be accepted as a literal fact.

    Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)

    Yes. Reason dictates that God, being omnipotent, does not need to regain his strength. Therefore, to “rest” means to stop creating. The Bible is not unreasonable, but it is subject to unreasonable interpretations. It is an unreasonable interpretation of Genesis to insist that God needed to be physically refreshed. This takes us back to the fact that there are many different genres in Scripture and each must be evaluated by using the correct exegetical methods.

    Evolution must not be taught as fact. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    Correct.

    Investigation into “evolution” by qualified Catholic scholars was allowed in 1950, but Pius XII warned them to examine the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

    Correct.

    What does any of this have to do with my point? Scriptural metaphors are not to be taken literally. God is not really a “rock.” A “spring of water welling up to eternal life” is not really two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. Herod, whom Jesus called a “fox,” was not really a carnivorous mammal of the dog family with a pointed muzzle and bushy tail.

  33. 33
    buffalo says:

    DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? – A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE – PART I

    DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? – A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE – PART II

    Here http://idvolution.blogspot.com.....urces.html

  34. 34
    mw says:

    Hi Stephen,

    “Scriptural metaphors are not to be taken literally.”

    Agree.

    My comments were made because some think all Judaeo-Christian scripture is a myth; hence, there is no distinction between metaphor and some text being literal. My comments included other wider implications in relation to the debilitating confusion within Catholicism and the Christian movement in general on origin.

    Darwin robbed people of the riches of the mystical experience. Instead, he planted his enchanted forest with many beguiling animals. A place where eyeballs grow on some trees; where eyeballs grow on unrelated bushes, and where eyeballs grow in unrelated daffodils (all metaphorically speaking).

    How we get eyeballs from no eyeballs in Darwinian terms; the following just released short Catholic video, is a timely reminder that we do not, http://abdonsolutions.com/kc/m.....ciples.php

  35. 35
    StephenB says:

    mw

    My comments were made because some think all Judaeo-Christian scripture is a myth; hence, there is no distinction between metaphor and some text being literal. My comments included other wider implications in relation to the debilitating confusion within Catholicism and the Christian movement in general on origin

    Yes. That is an important point. I agree. Non-negotiable and unfiltered Catholic Dogmas (and Biblical truths) must remain just that way– non-negotiable and unfiltered. Good comment.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    SB, I just noticed you are active. Great. Do touch base. KF

  37. 37
    StephenB says:

    Hi KF, I am glad that you remained engaged and are posting.

Leave a Reply