From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: Origins
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:45:56 GMT

>Article: 4336 of bit.listserv.catholic
>From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)

>      Thomas, let me ask you a question. Would you have
>any great problem with the following set of beliefs (mine)
>on the subject of evolution?
>      (a) If one were able to trace back through time
>	   one would find that ...

We aren't able - we must infer from what we see today what we might find.
This may be what you explained, but is more likely not.  That is the
pivotal question - is the evolutionist's creation myth the correct one,
or merely an attempt to simply remove God from the equation.  Did God
create everything, or simply start the big bang and ignore everything
for about 15 billion years until he found a naked ape?	And then what?
Where in the bible do you draw the line of myth v.s. history?  Did Jesus
even come to earth?  Or did he create the universe, and pick a water
covered rock and actively design the microorganisms and create (or
assemble) them?  Did he (maybe with the angels) design and make the
prototype plants and animals.  Did he create the first man and breathe
life into him?

>      (b) This evolutionary process was guided by the Providence
>	   of God... It was not an accident, ... God so framed the laws
>	   of nature and disposed of things...
If evolution didn't occur in the first place, it couldn't be guided by
divine providence.  Divine Providence and fatalism are usually opposite
- either the hand of God actively made things the way they are, or they
just arose (and would have arose) without God's intervention.  Did you
believe that God interviened?  If so, why limit the intervention to what
evolutionists would allow (purely naturalistic means)?

>      (c) Man himself is not purely a physical being. He has an
>	   immaterial component that is called the soul or spirit.
>	   In particular our intellect and will and our capacity
>	   to know and to freely choose are not explicable in
>	   purely physical terms.
Do we have free will?  Do we have souls?  Or did we simply evolve
brains?  If you don't believe that God created your body, why do you
allow him to have created your soul and spirit?  Moreover, ask the
atheists - they can explain how any of the above would have arose, or
simply deny their existance.

>      (d) These aspects of Man are what Scripture primarily is
>	   referring to when it says we are made in the image and
>	   likeness of God...
If there is such a physical/spiritual dichotomy, then why when Jesus came
down from heaven, he was made man?  Many ancient heresies came from separating
the natures of Christ.	Moreover as a Catholic, we worship in body, soul,
and spirit.  The Eucharist (the body) is a very clear expression that it is
more than the intellect that should experience God.  Why do we have a body
anyway and are not like the angels?

>      (e) Man is not simply a product of biological evolution,
>	   therefore, but rather a special creative and supernatural
>	   act of God was required.
What is wrong with my version
	(e) Man is not a product of biological evolution, ...

>      (f) The universe is about 15 billion years old. The Sun
>	   and Earth about 4 or 5 billion years old. Life on
>	   Earth goes back billions of years.
But how do you know?  You can simply say that "someone said...", but how
do you know those sources are accurate.  Do you know why or where they get
the 15 billion years for the universe or 4.5 for the earth?  Where they
derive dates on life?

>   This is what I believe. Some of this I believe on the weight
>of scientific evidence (which admittedly is only very strong
>and not absolutely certain in a mathematical sense). Some
>I believe on philosophical grounds. Some on faith. But
>I would call myself a believer in evolution. Does my brand
>of evolutionism conflict in your view with Catholic faith, or
>is it dangerous theologically? If so how, in your view?
>And even if not dangerous, which if any of the above statements
>would you have a hard time swallowing, and why? Steve Barr.

Have you gone back and weighed the scientific evidence instead of simply
listening to Carl Sagan?  From my earliest years I studied science and
learned what it said and what it didn't say.  When there was debate I
looked for it.	Do you know what those who doubt evolution have found
and why they doubt it?	I can point you to a few books (e.g. Darwin on
Trial by Phillip E. Johnson) which examine the question.

I don't see a specific theological danger - many people believe silly things
and will still go to heaven.  The problem is that you should not accept the
current fad of beliefs, especially from atheists, about our origins, at least
not uncritically.  Evolution claims much, but produces little proof.  It is
more a paradigm (a system of interpretation) than a theory.  As such it has
implications.  And if you read the literature put out by the evolutionists,
the implications about what Man is and how he relates to the universe are
quite dangerous.  At least if you want to be a Catholic.

>      Let me add, that I believe there was a first pair of
>human beings, that all human beings are lineal descendants
>of them, that they were created innocent and fell through sin,
>and that as a consequence we are all born in Original Sin.
>Steve.
This is in perfect harmony with what I believe.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU