Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
News.com ^ | 11/7/05 | Mikey_1962

Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholic; crevolist; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 841 next last
To: Mikey_1962
"THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally. "

Well finally that argument is settled.

God has spoken.

101 posted on 11/07/2005 1:01:00 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

You need to brush up on your "20 Questions" skills.

Here, go learn something from http://www.20Q.com

Try Old Earth Creationist, Evangelical.


102 posted on 11/07/2005 1:01:00 PM PST by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BuglerTex
How is it that all the civilizations around the world learned to write at about the same time, only a few generations ago.

Well, lessee, a "generation" is usually considered to be 33 years. So you're saying written language appeared around 1906? Well, to be fair, many in developed societies delay child birth considerably in comparison to historical norms. So let's say a generation is 54 years. This moves the origin of writing back to 1843, or 1735 if you want to say that as many as 5 generations is still only "a few". That still leaves us a little short, but is the best I can do.

103 posted on 11/07/2005 1:01:01 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Life is a result of a purely natural force?

In terms of how a baby is born? Absolutely. There is nothing supernatural about the process.

104 posted on 11/07/2005 1:01:02 PM PST by Palisades (Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Is it really possible to fit a camel through the eye of a needle? Is referring to someone other than God as your "father" really an unforgiveable sin which dooms one to eternal perdition?

No sane person believes that the entire Bible is devoid of metaphor. Sane people disagree on which passages should be taken literally and which should be regarded as metaphorical.


105 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:15 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Palisades
"There is nothing supernatural about the process."

Then I guess you don't believe God plays any role. On that, we will have to agree to disagree.

106 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:19 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The intelligent design being advocated today hints that God is always tinkering with organisms

I'd quibble, saying "frequently" (more so in the 'evolution' of the higher organisms).

107 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:28 PM PST by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: soltice
Hey, it was six literal 24-hour days, it says so right there in Genesis. Even though mankind has divided the day into 24 hour increments...and mankind is the only species to mark the passsage of time in such a manner...God conformed Himself to OUR temporal demarcation, not vice versa!
108 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:31 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FeeinTennessee
Leaving aside the question of whether parts of a marvelously designed system can or cannot behave rather as the Darwinists propose living organism in their environment do, leading to wonders of the sort we observe, I would point out that your understanding of Big Bang cosmology is sorely wanting.

The most refined version of Big Bang cosmology, Hawkings' 'Null Initial Condition' cosmology, is a mathematical model of a universe created ex nihilo: there isn't even a 'before' before the beginning. Just as there shouldn't be, since time itself is a creation, along with space. The 'explosion' isn't an explosion, but an expansion of space from no volume to the universe we see.

I always find it amusing when atheists, who cannot conceive of causation in the philosophical sense as being anything other than physical causation, proclaim that the Null Initial Condition cosmology 'removes the need for a first cause'. They are then left with no answer to Hawkings' own question, "What is it breaths fire into the equations to make there be something for them to describe?"

Theists, of course, have a simple and satisfying answer to that question.

109 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:33 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sols
evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive concepts.

In what way are these concepts mutually exclusive?

110 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:53 PM PST by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba
Did the simian ancestors have souls?

Then you are maintaining that "Adam" actually introduced physical (and not just "spiritual") death to all humanity?

I was unaware that there was no contradiction between this and Darwinian evolution. How many scientists believe in the human soul, or that Australopithecus was originally immortal?

You learn something new every day!

111 posted on 11/07/2005 1:02:59 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vehe'emin BeHaShem, vayachsheveha lo tzedaqah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #112 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


113 posted on 11/07/2005 1:03:40 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba

what's wrong with crocs? :)


114 posted on 11/07/2005 1:03:47 PM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

bump


115 posted on 11/07/2005 1:04:01 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2
I agree totally...They are both compatable...the REAL theory...not the ones the Atheist fundamentalists (lol) portray spoken like a true catholic.
116 posted on 11/07/2005 1:04:04 PM PST by petconservative (4 more years (ilovemybush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

I hate to say it, but you're the hood ornament of some rabbi.


117 posted on 11/07/2005 1:04:32 PM PST by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ted Kennedys Neck Brace
There was nothing "mythical" about the flood or the covenant made by God afterward.

My apologies for assuming you were Roman Catholic.

118 posted on 11/07/2005 1:04:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vehe'emin BeHaShem, vayachsheveha lo tzedaqah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping a ling...


119 posted on 11/07/2005 1:05:30 PM PST by tutstar (OurFlorida.true.ws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Yes. But those are not miracles in the strict sense of the word. Ordinarily, the sun rises at exactly the time scientists predict.

For a believer, beauty is one of the signs of the presence of God as Creator of the universe, but it does not violate natural law.


120 posted on 11/07/2005 1:06:58 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 841 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson