Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Reuters ^ | September 16, 2008 | Philip Pullella

[grey_whiskers]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species".

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

[Blogger]

Only within a uniformitarian framework - which immediately removes the possibility of the supernatural. When you immediately DEMAND that natural processes had to create it all, then you HAVE TO make it fit into billions of years because you can’t make it work otherwise. Evolutionists today, whether they want to admit it or not, automatically omit anything outside of a very narrow construct that they have to have because they automatically exclude God. When they do so, you end up with ridiculous ideas such as panspermia because there obviously CAN’T Be a Creator or a Designer. If you don’t have that presupposition, that is uniformitarianism, the young earth model fits well. If you have that presupposition then the Bible should be thrown out. You have no sin before death; Adam and Eve are a myth, and therefore the need for a Savior is also a myth. You can have it one way or the other, but you can not consistently have it both ways.

[Blogger]

Show that they are.

Biblically speaking, death was a result of the curse because of sin. Evolution says there was death before there was man. So, God creates (through Evolution) and inperfect world where there is death decay and destruction and calls it good? I don’t think so.

If the biblical account of Creation is not 100% factual, and evolution is true, then Adam and Eve did not sin, the curse was not passed down to mankind, and there is no need for a Savior. You can’t not have it both ways. Allegorizing away Genesis 1-11 only deepens your problem. If it is an allegory then there is no real need for a Savior. You’ve destroyed the Christian message. No thanks.

The theory of Evolution, as classically postulated, demands that everything occur through chance random processes. No designer. No design. Nobody to be accountable to. Lyell, Darwin, and their successors have held themselves to this standard for almost 200 years. As a result, since we don’t see inter-species changes in short periods, they MUST make it millions or billions of years. Give yourself Trillions of years. It won’t happen. The Bible is true and man is a liar, blinded by his own unwillingness to be accountable to a Holy God.

[allmendream]

Anyone surprised by this would really have to NOT BE PAYING ANY ATTENTION. This is not new. This is a continuation of the policy of his predecessors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

On the subject of Evolution and Creationism Pope Benedict XVI said...

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Pope John Paul II “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.”

also...

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

Clearly the Catholic Church has not had a problem at all with evolution for at least 60 years. Moreover this is a continuation of the philosophy as put forward by Thomas Aquinas, namely...

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule if any Christian, not blessed with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma that which scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas.

[Caramelgal]

Well put.

Polish Catholic Priest - Cosmologist Awarded $1.6 Million Templeton Prize

Commenting on this award of the Templeton Prize, Heller said:

"If we ask about the cause of the universe we should ask about the cause of mathematical laws. By doing so we are back in the great blueprint of God’s thinking about the universe; the question on ultimate causality: why is there something rather than nothing? When asking this question, we are not asking about a cause like all other causes. We are asking about the root of all possible causes. Science is but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made."

He also said, “Science gives us knowledge, but religion gives us meaning." "Science without religion is not meaningless, but lame…. And religion without science [slides] into fundamentalism,"

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Varda]

“Anyone surprised by this would really have to NOT BE PAYING ANY ATTENTION. This is not new.”

Spot on! Those not paying attention including this author had this reaction the last time the Vatican looked into evolution which prompted this article by Catholic apologist Mark Shea.

“Brother Darwin’s Gospel Hour

... One of the distinctions between Catholics and Bible Christians is that Catholic theology has never especially demanded a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and is therefore not particularly shaken by evolutionary theory or the discovery of the immense age of the earth. As John Hardon, S.J. says in his Catholic Catechism, “Charles Darwin (1809-82) undoubtedly sparked a new era in anthropology and allied sciences, but Darwinism as such had only minimal impact in Catholic thought, whereas it struck many believers in evangelical Protestantism like a tornado. ...”

This was borne out again in October 1996 when Pope John Paul II, standing in the context of a train of Catholic thought which stretched back at least to Augustine and which had been reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said, in essence, “Looks like there’s some good evidence for biological evolution.” That is, he said, as so many Catholics have already said, that there is nothing in divine revelation that particularly forbids you to believe that God made Adam from the dust of the earth r e a l l y s l o w l y rather than instantaneously. This comment, a blinding non-news flash to Catholics, was an immense shock to many journalists, who seem to divide the world into “those who have absolute faith in naturalistic evolutionary dogma” and “Fundamentalists.” Where could the Pope fit in such a black and white world?...” http://www.mark-shea.com/darwin.html

[Citizen Blade]

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

I doubt Darwin cared all that much that the Vatican didn't agree with his scientific conclusions. He was an agnostic Englishman- the views of the Vatican probably did not factor too much into his self-esteem.

[Citizen Blade]

I think every Christian denomination needs to strip their theology or doctrines and traditions down to this simple message.

I once had a discussion with the Orthodox priest at my parents' church about his views on the Theory of Evolution. He didn't have much interest in it- he told me his job was to save souls and that he was happy to leave science to the scientists.

A good view, in my opinion.

[allmendream]

:) “This was borne out again in October 1996 when Pope John Paul II, standing in the context of a train of Catholic thought which stretched back at least to Augustine and which had been reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis” Varda

[grey_whiskers]

Frankly, it is a nonsensical doctrine since when the Pope speaks, regardless if he is doing it “ex cathedra” or not, people listen.

"Infallible on matters of doctrine under certain limited conditions" .NE. "My broker is E.F. Hutton"

Cheers!

[mountainbunny]

You use this word, “infallible”, but if does not mean what you think it means.

[Blogger]

Then we can ignore him the rest of the time, good. :)
Seriously though, if you yield the first 11 chapters of Genesis, then you yield a whole lot. Unfortunately, Protestant, and non-Protestant has done just that - creating a huge problem in their theology. If you don't work from a uniformitarian construct, and let a biblical worldview inform how you look at the evidence, then the answer is going to be somewhat different from Evolution. It's going to be a literal reading in some fashion of Genesis 1-11.

[grey_whiskers]

Then we can ignore him the rest of the time, good. :)

???

What then would be the grounds of listening to *any* particular theologan, preacher, pastor, or counselor?

If you don't work from a uniformitarian construct,

Eh? Vot ist diss "uniformitarian"?

I haven't heard of the term before, at least not by that name.

Cheers!

[Blogger]

There was a smiley face after the “ignore him” comment; however, the grounds of listenng to any theologian, preacher, pastor or counselor is simply, “are they biblical.” Truth will not contradict Scripture. In so far as the Church Father’s speak things that do not contradict Scripture, they are worth listening to. It’s better if they are speaking Scripture, because I can say something that doesn’t necessarily contradict Scripture, but may not be true either. But, at least we know if something contradicts Scripture, with Scripture being given by the inspiration of God, it is bigger than any man. So, that’s the starting point.

Regarding uniformitarianism, google Charles Lyell. You can get a basic understanding by looking at some of the articles concerning him. There is even a little blurb about uniformitarianism in his wikipedia entry. Bottom line though is that Lyell had a starting point that excluded the supernatural. Darwin was a big fan of that as well. With that as the starting point, the end conclusion will be faulty because you aren’t looking at all of the evidence - only that with which you are comfortable with.

I’m more comfortable speaking within a theological framework concerning evolution than a secular scientific viewpoint; however, I know this - Creationists have the same evidence that Evolutionists do. How they interpret that evidence directly corresponds to what their starting point is at the beginning.

[bdeaner]

This proves the Pope is not infallible. Evolution and the Bible are NOT compatible. Period.

First of all, you misunderstand what Papal infallability means. Papal infallability applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. The Pope is not making, nor has he made any official pronouncement on evolution.

Secondly, whether or not you believe evolution is compatible with the Bible depends on how you go about interpreting the Bible. The Church, including the Early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine, has always taught that the Creation story is not to be taken literally nor should it be read as a scientific description. It is, rather, a theology of Creation.

Third, the facts in support of evolution are overwhelming. The facts about the physics of the universe do not support a literal reading of Genesis. But, arguably, the facts do support theism. Setting theology against science only obscures the truth of Creation that follows directly from the facts of science.

Fourth, faith and reason must be compatible if Christianity is to be coherent and if it is to disclose God's revealed truth in his Word and in the Creation that followed from his Word. To the extent that science and scripture appear to be incoherent or contradict one another, then it demands from us the effort to reconcile what must be misinterpretation of theological truth, the principles governing the natural world, or both.

[Campion]

Archbishop Ravasi is not the Pope.

[Campion]

Ex Cathedra is a doctrine of recent origin that the Pope declared about himself in 1870 after an apparition of Mary stated it to be so.

LOL. Okay, sure [backing away slowly]

[bdeaner]

Evolution is not, nor will it ever be, compatible with Scripture. You can have one or the other but not both.

This is a false choice. But if it was the only choice, I'd go with the facts rather than a literal belief in the Genesis story of Creation. I have a hard time seeing how any self-respecting, educated person would not do the same. If the choice is believing in no God or believing some fairy tale b.s. about talking snakes, I'll take reality. Fortunately, the story of science is constantly revealing evidence that is completely compatible with the belief in a Creator God with all the attributes of the Judao-Christian God. And the Church, at least since Augustine if not before then, has never endorsed a literal or scientific reading of Genesis.

[Blogger]

First, no I don’t. I understand the concept of ex cathedra.
Second, if you interpret it any way other than a literal Genesis 1-11 then you have destroyed whole reason for Christianity. You have no foundation. No need for a Savior, and a very deceptive book.
Third, no they are not. The facts are overwhelmingly against Evolution. Uniformitarianism is an ideology that demands one accept Evolution. Many aren’t that naive.
Fourth, faith and reason ARE compatible However, Scripture is the only one of the source books for both that is infallible.

[Blogger]

Your comments stand on their own, and will be brought up later I’m sure.