Doubting Didymus

Never mind.

Would you like me to try and fire up a new thread in GRD, with the last couple of replies at the beginning?

Albert Cipriani

Nah,
I'll pass, Doubting. I've my hands and head full of evolutionary thoughts and not enough time to do them justice here. Thanks just the same.

Besides, discussing the specifics of Roman Catholicism comes pathetically close to simply talking politics. And I consider politics a waste of brain cells. It would be a misappropriation of the considerable intelligence here. -- Cheers, Albert

sourdough

yes its called magic mushrooms

Albert Cipriani

No sooner had Albert said:
Than Sourdough comes along and disproves him with:
I must learn not to be so categorical. Boards ar always populated with exceptions to the rule, weak links, and missing synapses. -- Albert

MrDarwin

Wouldn't you agree that such things as the age of the earth and the historical record of life upon it are also matters of the physical world, and not of faith or morals? The Catholic church teaches that the creation myths of Genesis are, if not exactly myths, not a literal history either; rather, they are allegorical. So a Catholic pope can speak of Adam and Eve as people, just as Jesus spoke of various people in parables, who may or may not have actually existed. (I'm not up on my Catholicism, so perhaps the church does teach that Adam and Eve were real people, the first two in whom God implanted souls after a period of evolution from non-human ancestors?)

Albert Cipriani

Dear Mr. Darwin,
I doubt that Doubting will take this lying down. He has already warned us that Catholicism is verboten here in the Evolution forum. But I can’t in good conscience let your words go unanswered.

You assert:
He may only if he is an apostate pope.

I hate citations. I’m here to think hard, not wallpaper my positions with authoritative references. But against my instincts, I will give you some:

1) The Fourth Lateran Council and the Vatican Council taught that the creation of man is to be conceived as the creation of the soul as creation prima, and the body as creation secunda. (Denzinger 428, 1783)

2) According to Dr. Ott (Fundamental of Catholic Dogma): "The materialistic theory of evolution, according to which man as to his whole being, both body and soul, developed mechanically from the animal kingdom, is to be rejected."

You assert:
Not according to the Bible Commission. It definitively taught on 6/30/1909 that the first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events (rerum vere gestarum narrations quae scilicet objectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. (Denzinger 2122)

Now, setting aside citations, the rational reason animating my death-wish for mankind’s evolution concerns the theology of Original Sin. Logic dictates that there must have only been one pair of humans from whom we all descended for their Original Sin to have been passed onto us all and for us all to be in need of salvation.

That is why against the polygenism of Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrere in 1655, the Church taught the doctrine of monogenism. This doctrine is classified as sentential certa, (a theologically certain teaching) that is, it is a fourth grade truth behind sentential fidei proxima, fides ecclesiastica, and fides divina. Tho the teaching of our human unity is not a dogma of the first order (fides divina), it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption. Ergo, the Bible Commission ruled in 1909 that the Genesis “myth” is to be understood in the literal historical sense (Denzinger 2123) as it is the foundation of the Christian religion. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic Whom Doubting is Going to Banish to the Lion Pits

Doubting Didymus

You MAY discuss catholicism here, of course, but only if it relates to issues of evolution / creation in some way, which the last few posts clearly do.

scigirl

Wow and I thought genetics was confusing!

I'm still not exactly clear how these references relate to my original post, but I'll be willing to listen (read?) to further elaborations. Albert, how do you think the church doctrines, in regards to the creation of separate sexes of Adam and Eve, specifically explain the presense of ambiguous sex?

I still maintain that the presense of hermaphrodites and other such anomalies tends to contradict the idea that God created the sexes separately. This has implications for all sorts of church doctrine, including the roles of men and women in a marriage, and homosexuality issues as well.

The fact that both our genotypic gender (XX versus XY) and especially our phenotypic gender (sex organs, etc) can go awry in so many ways seems to indicate that the "creator" was either uninterested in always maintaining separate sexes, or was constrained by certain biological factors (my belief of course is that evolution is the 'creator' and is no doubt constrained). When you think about how we are created - we all start out as this strange half-man half-woman hybrid, with certain structures regressing and other structures proliferating, IF the right proteins are around, sure appears to me to be a co-opted developmental program constrained by previous body plans. And a creator that cares less about "separate sexes" than the God of the OT appears to be.

Also, I'm curious as to why this creator, who apparently values every fetus (as anti-abortionists proclaim) would create a system that results in nearly 1/2 of all pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Ironically, scientists call them sponaneous abortions. Pretty strange that God would hate it if I terminated a pregnancy, yet He will terminate half of mine.

scigirl

Albert Cipriani

Dear Scigirl,
You ask,
Let’s see, there’s conventional sex, rough sex, and now “ambiguous sex”? Does one have to pay extra for that kind? Seriously, I just find the phrase comical.

Of course sex is not at all ambiguous, it is based upon opposition. It is the prurient expression of opposites. It is the psychological equivalent of a logical contradiction or at least a logical contrary.

Rather, it is us sexual beings who may be ambiguous as sexual beings, swinging one way or another on unhinged hinges. In short, the Church sees such people as blighted. To the degree that they are responsible for being unhinged sexually, they are culpably blighted. Likewise, doctors see those with their femur sticking out through their skin as broken. To the degree they were skiing irresponsibly, they are culpably broken.

You say,
Oooo, I love it when you talk technical to me… almost as much as I like it when Fiach insults me in his Scottish brogue. Maybe we can add “technical-talk sex” (a.k.a. “aural sex”) to the list of kinds.

But you’re more interested in “kinds” as it relates to God creating creatures according to their kind, male and female. Fine! Be that way.

You engage in the fallacy of bifurcation when you assert:
Nah. Your problem is one of perspective. God is not at all interested in results. We are. That’s why we mostly have so little in common with Him.

God is interested in our struggle, our free will choice of Him over ourselves. Those acts ascend to Him as a sweet savor, everything else (EVEN SEX!) wafts as a putrid stench.

Being born blind or broken or filthy rich, in short, all deviations from the bell shaped curve of normal is a challenge that evokes hard choices. The harder the better in keeping with the “no pain no gain” mantra of physical fitness gurus. The more difficult to choose Him the more rewarding He is. Sexual dysfunction is just another opportunity whereby He can have us exercise our free will to do His will instead of our own.

You say,
Hell, just look at flowers and fruit tree blossoms to see even worse statistics. Nature squanders life’s blossoms with every errant breeze. God is profligate. Each one of us was one of a million also-swams. We’ve all got 999,999 halved potential brothers and sisters that never witnessed the crack of conception’s dawn.

You may cast cynical aspersions upon these facts and feign moral outrage. But I recognize in them God’s poetic expression of just how significant and lucky each one of us is (and every peach for that matter) and how much more life He's got in store for us on the other side of the grave. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

MrDarwin

Albert, that's all well and good, but as far as I know these various church bodies are not infallible (in the Catholic sense). Are you suggesting that infallibility resides in any church organization or person other than the Pope?