Catholicism and Evolution w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Jonathan Lunine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- ⭐ The new Aquinas 101 Learning Platform is LIVE! Unlock all the Aquinas 101 courses in one place and track your progression at your own pace through the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor for FREE at go.thomisticin....
🎥, Keep the Aquinas 101 cameras rolling! Donate $5 today to pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin....
Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Prof. Jonathan Lunine about his latest Thomistic Institute lecture, "Catholicism and Evolution from an Astronomical Perspective.”
Catholicism and Evolution w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Jonathan Lunine (Off-Campus Conversations)
You can listen to the original lecture here:
/ evolution-and-catholic...
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 70 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IbBEqbse4Oo/mqdefault.jpg)
This is very interesting. Thank you Fr. Gregory and Professor Lunine!
Our pleasure! Thank you for watching!
Interesting. Thank you.
The fossil record can be understood as demonstrating the similarities in the way God made all creatures, not the progress of one species to the next. There needs to be observable physical evidence of evolution before anyone can begin to think about it as a theory that explains reality. Until then, we maintain what has been passed on to us by our fathers.
There is such evidence, in bacteria. The professor mentioned it in the video.
Since the 1900s experiments have provided evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria%E2%80%93Delbr%C3%BCck_experiment
You maintain what you think is passed down what was written by human hands yet you deny Creation which was made by divine hands.
You are not a real Christian and denying creation is blasphemy.
I love catholicism. This is a case in point. Very broad perspective. Pursuit of truth should make us open to reason and evidence wherever it may be. How God made existence matters less than why. We know the why... but isn't part of that the Pursuit of truth?
How can acceidents become substances?
Terrific discussion! The contribution I would make, from a scientist's point of view, is that all of science is constrained by phenomenology, not entirely in the sense of the subjective nature of human observation through the senses, but more importantly in the fundamentally limited nature of the senses and observation. The way this is usually stated is that science can do nothing more than offer models of reality ('theories') and can never describe reality itself. The only true thing we can say about science is that it does not derive truth, only facts, but logic and mathematics (themselves flawed and self-referential) can be employed in the development of models. I don't want to throw in the Thomists with the Encyclopédistes, but I'd like to add that, as a Franciscan, I reject Linnaeus' taxonomic consignment of all of human essence and potential to Homo sapiens. I don't understand intellect as the defining attribute of humanity. Rather, I insist the Imago Dei marks us first of all as images of the Creator, and therefore a more useful genus and species designation would be something like Fabricator universalis, since the builder (Fabricator) images the Architect or Creator. Thus we have a nearly illiterate young man building/rebuilding San Damiano, which is in essence the building/rebuilding of the entire Church. I'm not saying my rope cincture is any better or more useful than your leather belt, but merely offering the idea that intellect is not the quality that we most closely share with the Divinity. We were given a mandate in Genesis, not so much an essence as a trajectory. We can apply our intellect to that trajectory, to be sure, and so, should we happen to meet someday on the road to Rome, we could certainly exchange belts, and both of us would benefit from the exchange. 🙂 PM 2024
How can there be coplete randomness for that would make something 50/50 and therefore no such thing as pure chance since it would be nothing and therefore does not exist?
Does evolution deny original sin?
How do you explain how life comes about in the first place in terms of evolution?
I think this answer just reinforces our believes. No matter if you're an evolutionist or not, nothing can com from nothingness. God must exist, as we also have a lot of evidence on why the universe isn't infinite.
God bless!
If matter is never annihilated but only changes then how do you counter an atheist who asserts that matter always existed that is never did not exist?
@@therealsnaily
In many ways scientists seem to be like the writer of Revelation where a scroll is discussed, but nobody was worthy to open it so as to comprehend it's contents so as to gain an idea of the meaning of our human existence. For example it says:
"And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 5:5]
So, in relation to this we now recognize Jesus to be the one who was worthy to open the Divine Wisdom of God, and to reveal some of this wisdom, and meaning of life, to His followers and to their future disciples through them. That is to say, mysteries concealed from the beginning of the world have been solved by the various teachings and acts of Jesus Christ during and after His life here on Earth.
Regarding randomness, it would be interesting to conceive or calculate the infinitesimally small odds of St. Peter the apostle throwing a fishing line and hook into the sea and then consequently pulling out a coin from the mouth of the fish that he just caught, and then use that same coin to pay the obligatory 'temple tax' that Jesus ordered him to pay. At least we know from this story that mere random events, such as a fish randomly swimming in the Sea of Galilee and mistakenly consuming a metallic coin.... can easily be foreknown by the likes of Jesus Christ. Maybe this example is just a single, minute portion of the contents of that scroll of Revelation that only He, Jesus Christ, was worthy to understand, and then to share some of the contents of that mystical scroll with us His ignorant and sinful disciples?
how do you get life from inorganisc matter?
Thanks. After watching craps like Darwins Dilemma and some other absurdities that ridiculize us believers and do such a diservice to God this is a blessing,
Hard to hear him arguing against intelligent design and then appealing to some higher order of self organization. More convinced that evolution is bankrupt as a tenable philosophy. Thanks for posting.
[29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
This part of the Genesis story is hard to reconcile with the fossil record that shows Dinosaurs ate each other.
As far as the intelligibility of the universe is n astronaut once said he had a moment in space on a space walk when he understood the whole point of the created universe was for human consciousness of it.
And so St. Paul could say We have no excuse not to know God from the things He has made
All very interesting
Evolution IS the way a timeless being could instantly act to us stuck in time.
It's quite marvelous what we see when we look around.
@@jhoughjr1 ?
Did Adam and Eve have parents?
only God, they are the first humans
Adam and Eve are metaphors.
Yes. I think ‘Adam & Eve’ are characters in the symbolic story in Genesis which refers to the first truly theological human beings. In other words, Adam and Eve were the first human beings to be given rational will by God. They were probably homo-sapiens. And they had parents. Their parents were physically homo-sapien but not fully human.
You know rhat God ıs transcendal don t you know? He ıs more rapıd lıke the speed of lıght and He don t needs papers on frontıera
Ken Miller? Really? Great sufferin' soupspoons!
Also, the Thomist in this video whining about how scientists often overstep their bounds is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black, because Thomists regularly step outisde their bounds and pretend that they are experts on everything. I am not saying that scientists never overstep their professional boundaries, because we do. I am just saying that it is kind of silly for a Thomist of all people to be whining about it 😂
Are you on your period?
I find it easier to just accept that God is finite...I am not sure why we have to jump through all these philosophical hoops to maintain God's literal infinitude. Why can't God be majestically and worshipfully powerful, good, and wise, without being literally infinite? Why can't we take the Scriptural and Patristic references to God's infinitude figuratively?
Because in thomism the focus is that God is all actuality without potency, if this can be disproven it’d disprove God.
Man I know exactly where this video is going: the whole evolution guided by an omniscient God thesis, so boring, so inaccurate, so out of sync with the Fathers and actual science that isn't cherry picked. So 1980s or 1990s "Catholicism".
What would you prefer, that we ignore the evidence of evolution?
@@Masterpaintingnowlearn2draw For myself, I'd prefer we start these kinds of videos by acknowledging the distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' (which, you'll notice, wasn't even mentioned), and then proceed to challenge the status of the latter (the controversial one) as 'scientific' on the basis of sound, clear criteria of demarcation
@@Masterpaintingnowlearn2draw Look into 'foundations restored'
@@thstroyur The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution imply that enough of the former will inevitably add up to the latter. As they are in fact opposite concepts, they should be called devolution and evolution, respectively. The first, loss of information ("variation within a kind"), has been observed many times, while the second, gain of information, has never been.
@@jaspermay5813 No such implication is inherent to the nomenclature - the issue is with the leap of logic that people do when assuming micro is both necessary and sufficient to get macro. Besides, your alternative term, 'devolution', is worse because it has historical connotations that 'evolution' is about biological improvement. Everything in the natural world evolves over time.
You should invite Hugh Owen et al. instead of yet another modernist.
YEC is making a comeback. I’m proof of it. I changed my mind on evolution this past year after learning more about evolution, metaphysics, and the politics of it all.
@@youtubecharlie1 If you're telling the truth, I'm happy for you in this regard. But a single evolutionist changing his mind is no proof of anything other than that it is possible for an evolutionist to change his mind. I changed my mind around ten years ago, and that was no proof of the "comeback of YEC" either. I wish for many more to be convinced of the truth of the traditional Catholic and Biblical doctrine of Creation, but I sadly have no reasonable hope for it, and see no evidence that it is happening to more than the occasional person of good will in these last days.
@@jaspermay5813 don’t lose hope. You sound so pessimistic. If it wasn’t for the Kolbe Center (and good friends) I wouldn’t have changed my mind. The Kolbe Center and other proponents didn’t have the reach of today 10 years ago. Things take time. Pray for hope. But hope in God, not man.
@@youtubecharlie1 Did our Lord sound pessimistic when He said "How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" There are two sides to hope: desire and expectation. I will never lose the first, but the second is not reasonable at large scales.
@@jaspermay5813 don’t compare yourself to the Lord. You’re human. You don’t know his ways. I’m not saying be naive, but be at peace. Rejoice when you hear good news. Rest your mind in what is good and true (those accepting YEC) more than the bad (those still in need of accepting YEC). Avoid limiting God’s omnipotence to what seems reasonable to you.
This is the lunatic that does pints with Aqinas.He also appears whenever I want to watch the Godly Kreefe. His name should be Gregory Pain.
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize...🎁
WOW. I don't care how wrong Fr. Pines or his guest may or may not be about any topic, nothing should drive a Catholic to talk in this way about anyone, worse yet about one of God's priests. 1 Cor 13