Talking about the "things that matter most" on June 23:00 – Kresta Comments
3:20 – Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
Who Was Adam? The authors of this study are distressed that many people, from scientists to judges, define creationism as a religious view rather than a legitimate scientific theory, and they attempt to redeem it as a science. Early on, they state they define a creationist as "anyone who believes in the existence of a supernatural Creator," but it quickly becomes clear that in fact they mean something much narrower. Their model posits that God created the first people, Adam and Eve; that humanity began in a specific geographic location, the Garden of Eden; and that this creation took place between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. They then marshal evidence from various disciplines, such as archaeology and astronomy, to support their views. We talk to Dr. Fuzz Rana about Adam, creation and evolution.
4:00 – Kresta Comments
4:20 – When the Spirit Comes in Power
One of the most neglected feasts of the Church was this past weekend , and that of course is Pentecost! The release of the Holy Spirit upon His Church. We discuss what happens when the Spirit comes in power. Peter Herbeck is with us.
5:00 – Embryo Adoption. Why Not?
With the current battle over embryonic stem cell research and a recent flurry of articles on embryo adoption in the National Catholic Register, we take the opportunity to examine the Catholic moral principles at play and look at what the Church has to say on this controversial matter of bioethics. Dr. Monica Miller is our guest.
Seeing how the Catholic Church's official stance is that evolution is the means by which God created mankind, I simply cannot understand why Al Kresta seems to be giving so much undue time to people in favor of creationism, or creationism in a cheap suit: Intelligent Design. Neither of these are scientific theory, nor are either of them compatible with evidence.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to call in on the embryo adoption discussion but was unable. I just wanted to say that I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Miller's position. It makes sense to me in light of the teachings on human life we already have. It doesn't seem to me that the good end of embryo adoption justifies the means any more than the good end of rape justifies the evil means. Second, her position that the only moral solution to the problem would be to thaw the embryos and allow them to die, seeming maybe inhumane, actually seems merciful to me. By keeping them frozen, they are being deprived of the natural right to live and die, so where are their souls? Suspended here on earth in a spiritually paralyzed state? By thawing them and allowing them to die a natural death, wouldn't we be freeing them from this injust state to go to God? Also, do we know anything about the medical effects of embryo adoption? What about compatibility between woman and embryo?
ReplyDeleteRe the evolution interview with Dr. Rana:
ReplyDeleteAl seems to be describing something akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. God, at some point during His busy sixth day, produced a monolith moment, i.e. He infused mere animals with a spiritual capacity and they became human animals. Al calls this the Big Bang of the Mind. But I see a problem with this.
At various times during His act of creation, God says that what He has done is good. (One wonders if He is talking to Himself or if all Three Persons are more or less nodding in agreement.) When God finishes up the sixth day, He looks at the whole thing and finds it very good.
Here's the problem. I've been told that when God determines that everything He created is good, it means that there is no suffering before the Fall, period -- non-human animals included. This is not consistent with evolution.