o{]:¬)

Fr. Z is Moderator of the Catholic Online Forum and the ASK FATHER Question Box. The WDTPRS columns appear weekly in The Wanderer. Fr. Z lives in Rome, though he is often in the USA. He is available for retreats and conferences. E-mail


If you use MS Internet Explorer and the blog won't open, go to http://wdtprs.com/IE_workaround.htm, or if you can CLICK HERE

LOGIN


Fr. Z on WDTPRS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator


Recent Posts
  • Your funeral experiences
  • Some cheerful English martyrs
  • Some movie quotes
  • Pontifical Canon
  • Transfigurative ramblings
  • Working Vatican: Papa Ratztinger in Bressanone
  • Summorum Pontificum and the D. of Chicoutimi, Canada: update
  • Thanks to readers for generous feedback, gifts and donations

  • Recent Comments:

    • Anonymous: As a priest, I was delighted to receive this Order of Service for a recent Funeral Mass. Introit: Requiem...
    • Maynardus: Where to begin? I’ve been two two N.O. “Masses of Christian Burial” in the past year:...
    • Lucia: My experience is such that I had no idea eulogies weren’t supposed to take place at a Catholic funeral...
    • Aristotle A. Esguerra: I have sung in the choir at a number of funerals in both Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, the...
    • Christabel: Forget mourning the blog, when do we get on to “Best Songs from Film Musicals”?

    • Visit the new WDTPRS Store!
    Buy WDTPRS stuff!

    Calendar


    The Pilgrimage

    Subscribe to ...     The Wanderer

    Subscribe to ... The Catholic Herald - UK






    This blog is hosted by

    Joyent


    Thanks for the support!


























    WINNER of...
    The 2007 Weblog Awards
















    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Add to Google Reader or Homepage

    Add to My AOL

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Powered by FeedBurner


    Where Fr. Z will be:
    • Upcoming Events:
  • Events

    • 17 May 2008

    Remember… it all just “happened”, right?

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:35 pm

    Think about it…

    And some say it is all by accident… it just sort of happened… 

    • • • • • •

    61 Comments

    1. Aquinas, Father? Order in the Universe?

      Comment by M.J.Ernst-Sandoval — 17 May 2008 @ 9:48 pm

    2. Yah, random chance mutations created the ineffable universe, and Hawkins and Dawkins are the prophets of our modern age (although, I must submit, that Dawkins’ teeth need a bit of work, after seeing “Expelled”).

      I took a human evolution class, with Prof. Wolpoff, while an undergraduate at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and the hitherto pro-evolutionist friend I took the class with said, “Is this all the proof they have for evolution?”

      The theory of evolution is simply the pride of a man believing he can understand life and the universe outside of God…

      Comment by Malta — 17 May 2008 @ 10:45 pm

    3. I could never understand how people like Carl Sagan, etc could look at the Planets, the Solar System, the stars etc & say it all came about by chance.

      Once upon a time scientists studied creation to learn how God ordered things, now they ignore those same facts so that they can justify denying God had ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

      Comment by Al — 17 May 2008 @ 11:37 pm

    4. While i agree with you Father, just as “no one believes but by faith”, this argument from the beauty of nature is basically the “C’mon!!” argument. Also, I encourage you to look into the notion of ‘emergent probability’ by Bernard Lonergan, SJ. It’s not particularly theistically determinist, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

      Comment by Paddy O'Sullivan — 18 May 2008 @ 12:46 am

    5. “A little science may take one away from God;
      much science brings one back.”

      – Roger Bacon

      Comment by M.J.Ernst-Sandoval — 18 May 2008 @ 12:59 am

    6. MJ - I like the Bacon quote. Where does it come from, please?

      Comment by Simon Platt — 18 May 2008 @ 3:58 am

    7. What never ceases to amaze me is that our learned scientists, astronomers and others with more degrees than a thermometer and huge vocabularies came up with “The Big Bang Theory.” When I first heard it I thought is this the best they can do? I also find it comical that each time they design a new device to look deeper into space they say wow the universe is much bigger than we ever imagined. They don’t give God any credit, no their mindset is, it must be that the big bang was much bigger bang than we thought, how sad. Of course our children must be taught this theory as if it were gospel.

      JMJ
      Tom Lanter

      Comment by Tom Lanter — 18 May 2008 @ 5:12 am

    8. Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with splendor and majesty, covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever.He made the moon for the seasons, the sun knows the place of its setting. Thou dost appoint darkness and it becomes night – O Lord, how many are Thy works! In wisdom Thou has made them all; the earth is full of Thy possessions.
      (Ps. 104:1,2,5,19,20a,24 NAS)

      Comment by Mary Rose — 18 May 2008 @ 5:33 am

    9. Yes, the universe and nature are very complex. But if God created and designed—and continues to guide—it all, He must necessarily be more complex than His creation. The laws of nature—second law of thermodynamics, etc.—and common sense tell us that a more complex (ordered) system is more unlikely to spontaneously assemble than a less complex system. If you can believe so readily that God, the more complex, had no origin or came into being spontaneously, why should it be more difficult to believe the same of the universe? The former requires a greater leap than the latter. If you ask of the universe, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, and conclude that the answer is that someone—God—must have created it, then you must ask, “Why is there God instead of no God?” Who created the creator? Who designed the designer? If you say no one, He always existed, then you are back to the question above: Then why couldn’t the universe just as easily be uncreated and have always existed? The argument from design leads nowhere.

      As for evolution by natural selection, those who dismiss it—I am sorry to say—are ignorant. It is not a “theory” in the layman’s sense, it is an observable fact. Every time a virus or bacterium develops resistance to a drug, that is evolution by natural selection. The observable proofs from living creatures are too numerous to mention, let alone the amazing evidence of the fossil record. Gaps, you say? Of course there are gaps. The fossilization of any individual creature is extremely unlikely, and there are an awful lot of rocks on this planet to look in. Nevertheless, look at the abundance of what HAS been found, though we have literally only scratched the surface. Though it is possible that some species by “bad luck” may have left no fossils at all, in general gaps in the fossil record are only waiting patiently for us to find them. Read “The Blind Watchmaker,” “The Selfish Gene,” etc. (if for no other reason than to know thine enemy). The proofs of evolution are so overwhelming, and the arguments against so unconvincing, that even the Church permits us to believe in evolution, lest She have another Galileo embarrassment. Pope Pius XII wrote, “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions…take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” (Humani Generis) “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.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church) The Church requires only that one believe that God is the cause of it all and that the human soul did not evolve.

      Comment by Publius — 18 May 2008 @ 5:58 am

    10. Beautiful pictures Fr.Z! They are even more wonderful put next to one another. I also enjoy the Roger Bacon quote listed above! God bless! Padre Steve, SDB

      Comment by Padre Steve — 18 May 2008 @ 6:16 am

    11. Publius, I am surprised at your comments above. I thought you understood the concept of first causes better.

      Catholics don’t believe God just spontaneously appeared, but rather that God is eternal, therefore He is there during every moment of time that ever was or will be. I’d say He was there “before time” but that probably doesn’t make sense and causes more problems than it solves.

      In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth… All of the material world has a cause, but it would be impossible to go back infinitely and find a cause after cause for everything forever because time doesn’t stretch back infinitely. This is confirmed by science today that suggests a “Big Bang” kicked off the expansion of space and time. So because we can’t turn back the clock infinitely, there MUST be a cause for things in the world that did not itself have a cause. That necessarily uncaused being is what we call God.

      It is in God’s nature to be uncaused and to be able to operate outside of time. We can’t say that same thing about the universe based on what we see right in front of us.

      “Then why couldn’t the universe just as easily be uncreated and have always existed?”

      We have no evidence that the universe is this way and plenty of evidence that it couldn’t be this way. At least the idea of God is a logical conclusion based on what we can see.

      This of course is NOT any sort of proof based on design. I am not sure seeing how swirling galaxies and swirling clouds look similar means there is a designer… But I do like intelligent design theories. They are way less offensive to common sense than thinking all of this is random.

      http://ww.companionofjesus.com

      Comment by Jesuit John — 18 May 2008 @ 6:43 am

    12. It amazes me that the same scientists who say it all came about through random chance are willing to, and often do, admit that evolution and the creation of the universe were both guided by ‘natural’ principles such as suitability to the environment and gravity (respectivly).

      So it is random or guided? Obviously, if gravity holds sway over the material world then gravity would be the controlling factor, yet some how they want to say that even gravity is random. Random… like the ancients thought the rain was random, or earthquakes.

      Comment by Chris — 18 May 2008 @ 6:50 am

    13. Dear Tom, you discredit the “Big Bang” theory because you think the name is silly? That shows deep comprehension. The name is merely a shorthand or slang, of course. (In fact, it was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory; but the name stuck.) We theorize there was a big bang for one very simple and powerful reason: all of the galaxies we can see, wherever we look, are moving away from one another, and the greater the distance between them, the faster they are moving apart. Edwin Hubble discovered this in 1929. If you “play that movie backwards,” it means that in the past the galaies were closer together, and further in the past they were even closer, etc., until very long ago (we now know with a pretty good degree of certainty, about 13.7 billion years) they were all packed into a very small and very dense region that then began to expand, resulting in the universe we see today. This theory in itself says nothing about what banged or why (or “who” banged it), though there are now also plausible theories about what may have gone on before the “Big Bang”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang

      Comment by Publius — 18 May 2008 @ 6:54 am

    14. John, I think you missed my argument. Please re-read. I didn’t say Catholics believe God just spontaneously appeared. I said that if one can believe EITHER that God had no origin OR came into being spontaneously, since God would have to be more complex than His creation, the universe, one could just as easily, more easily in fact, believe that the universe EITHER had no origin OR came into being spontaneously. Besides, fist causes is a discredited argument. Every thing or event does NOT need to have a cause. We know that events on the subatomic scale are random and non-deterministic. Quantum theory has been proven experimentally beyond any reasonable doubt and is in fact a basis of much of our electronic technology.

      You say, “We have no evidence that the universe is this way [uncreated] and plenty of evidence that it couldn’t be this way. At least the idea of God is a logical conclusion based on what we can see.” Even if there was “nothing” before the Big Bang (which, as I said is not at all certain, and indeed is becoming less and less certain) and it was the beginning of space and time, the idea that it had to have a “cause” is, again, not a logical or physical necessity. And if there MUST have been a cause, why must it have been God, and why is it God himself MUST not have a cause? Your argument, simply, is, “Everything must have a cause, and we call the first cause God.” The first clause is demonstrably untrue, and the second is basically a tautology.

      Comment by Publius — 18 May 2008 @ 7:16 am

    15. What never ceases to amaze me is that our learned scientists, astronomers and others with more degrees than a thermometer and huge vocabularies came up with “The Big Bang Theory.” When I first heard it I thought is this the best they can do? I also find it comical that each time they design a new device to look deeper into space they say wow the universe is much bigger than we ever imagined. They don’t give God any credit, no their mindset is, it must be that the big bang was much bigger bang than we thought, how sad. Of course our children must be taught this theory as if it were gospel.
      JMJ
      Tom Lanter

      The concept if the Big Bang originated with Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest (later, Mongsignor) who was also a physicist.

      There is nothing in the concept that contradicts God’s necessary creative action.

      Comment by RBrown — 18 May 2008 @ 7:17 am

    16. That’s what we’ve been saying:
      http://www.kolbecenter.org

      Comment by Cornelius Wright — 18 May 2008 @ 7:25 am

    17. Publius,

      1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t tell the whole story.

      Steven Hawking says there are two distinct cosmological arrows of Time. According to the first (The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy), the disorder or entropy in the universe increases. universe.

      According to the second arrow, the universe is expanding.

      JRatzinger also employs a double sided approach. According to Entropy, the universe is moving toward “alukewarm nothingness. On the other hand, it is a world in steady ascent.” (Ratzinger: Eschatology, p. 183).

      2. Let me interject here: According to St Thomas the fact of God’s existence has nothing to do with whether Time in fact had a beginning.

      3. The complexity of the universe necessitates simplicity in God, not complexity.

      4. Your example of viral mutation is good, but it seems more like LaMarck’s explanation of evolution, in which the environment triggers mutation. That is not really the way natural selection is explained.

      Most contemporary proponents are Darwinian. For them mutation is monistic—not triggered by the environment.

      5. Having said that, I don’t know of any observed mutation in which a virus sprouts wings and flies away.

      More later.

      Comment by RBrown — 18 May 2008 @ 7:56 am

    18. Publius,

      First, I do not think you have a proper grasp of God. When you say God is more complex, that is not the case. God is an immaterial being. The term complexity implies a material substance. God is greater than material nature, but not more complex. A scientist can believe in the eternal nature of matter, or the eternal nature of an a rational omnipotent God. I think one opinion is much sillier than the other, but that is just my opinion. Also there is nothing in existence that does not have a cause, even if you grant random chance. The only way science could prove this is to create a material substance out of nothing (and energy is not nothing). Finally, you confuse micro-evolution which every rational