Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
Posted on 04/24/2006 8:52:17 PM PDT by murphE
The above titled is taken from the book of Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo, published in 1959. Cardinal Ruffini was an outstanding Catholic scholar and a solid pre - Vatican II churchman, untainted by the growing Modernism within the Church. On July 1, 1858, Charles Darwin's paper on the Theory of Evolution by natural selection was read to The Linnaean Society of London, but it was the publication of his book "The Origin of Species" that raised heated controversy among the biologists & scientific community at the time. The Theory of Evolution flies in the face of Divine Revelation, science and common sense. George Mendel's Law on Genetics & heredity is sufficient to debunk Darwin's theory. The Theory of Evolution will one day become as laughable as the theory of Spontaneous Generation. The recent discovery of a tiny fish, Tiktaalik, found in the Canadian Artic, and claimed to be a "missing link" by evolutionists is highlighted by Mr. Vennari.
ping
The literal method of interpretation allows for a number of possibilities. You are speaking of those who have chosen one of those possibilities.
That possibility is that "day" equals 24 hour period.
Another possibility using that same literal method is that "day" is an indeterminate time frame....based on Peter's comments about "a Day with the Lord is as a thousand years..."
Another author has suggested that the days be seen from the point of the center of creation, and that a rapidly expanding universe would have time passing at different rates in different places. (Alamo-girl has a neat link to this idea.) That, too, would be by the maligned "literal" method.
I would suggest that literal, literate, literature, and literary would necessarily mean that one uses the available evidence to determine what the words, sentences, paragraphs, meanings, and intents of the author(s) might be.
Mr. Vennari deals with this in the interview. This statement was to permit the "research and discussion" of evolution amongst "men with experience in both fields" (science and sacred theology.) It no way allowed or even implied that that evolution was to be taught to, or accepted by the lay faithful.
Pope John Paul, in 1996 said, "Today, almost half a century after 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 the theory."
Of course the pope can have an opinion on this, however his opinion is just not backed up by scientific evidence. Simply put, John Paul II was just wrong. "The series of discoveries" (which by the way have been aggressively sought and sometimes fabricated) that has led John Paul II "to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis" do not exist. And this theory is now being progressively rejected by researchers, (the honest ones anyway.)
but it IS science and common sense.
No, it's not. You should really listen to the interview, and then if you have a specific refutation of any claim made, make it.
ping
This interview may interest some of you, feel free to ignore it if it does not of course.
This is a false statement. No matter how many times you repeat it it is still false. Even renown evolutionists admit it. Listen to the interview. Learn something.
'read and listen' later, placemarker
Rubbish. Listen to the interview and then post all of the "overwhelming evidence" to refute Mr. Vennari's claims if you can. That would be the "scientific" thing to do. Your approach thus far, just making pronouncements with no evidence is far from scientific. I'd call it dogmatic but there is no divine authority behind your pronouncements.
Just FYI, the Pope originally spoke in French, and what he said was "plus qu'un hypothesis", which can mean either "more than a hypothesis" or "more than one hypothesis". So what he meant there is somewhat contested.
But you do well to point out that Catholic teaching does not forbid belief in the modification of species--only some of the bad assumptions that arise therefore. (e.g. Adam and Eve does not exist, there is no soul.)
Indeed, using the inflationary model and relativity - 6 equivalent days from the inception space/time coordinates are equal to roughly 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates.
For more: The Age of the Universe
From the article, if you wish to calculate it for yourself:
Evolution is a theory that has many parts to it; is perfectly possible that some of its parts are correct while others are wrong. For instance, I think it is pretty clear that there has been some kind of historical change in the biota of earth. We find plenty of bones of dead things that aren't around anymore. Moreover, these bones tend to occur in well-defined geological strata, which suggest that the earth went through successive phases.
On the other hand, as atheists Stephen Jay Gould (and Richard Lewonton I believe) have pointed out, Darwin's notion of a gradual transformation of species is somewhat hard to square with the fossil record. Within 4 million years, we supposedly have apes evolving into men; and yet, we have coelecanths that have remained largely unchanged since the Devonian over 300 million years ago. At the Cambrian explosion around 550 mya, we have a sudden transformation from weird forms of Pre-Cambrian fauna that don't seem to have any living descendants, to the sudden and dramatic appearance of every major modern phyla: arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms, and chordates/vertebrates.
If you haven't read St. Augustine's "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" yet (it is surprisingly hard to find), please do so. This great doctor grappled face to face with the text and admitted that he was probably asking more questions than he answered. He had a great deal of respect for the difficulty of the text, and warned that Christians not answer too hastily on this score only to be proved to be very very wrong later.
We've been asking "six 24-hour days" or "15 billion years"? And Schroeder, with relativity in hand, answers "both". Sheer genius! LOL
Since God is the author of Creation and Scripture both - and since everything was made by Christ and for Him (John 1, Col 1) - and the indwelling Spirit testifies of Him (John 15-17, Romans 8) - I expect nature and Scripture to be complementary. And I have never been disappointed.
And we are exhorted to notice: Psalms 19, Romans 1:20
That is not what Pope Pius XII states, which people use to support approval for accepting evolution, which if anyone actually listens to the interview, can hear explained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.