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 ...
Good question. I bet if you inquire if any have one, they would pause and think about it.
However, where is the line drawn between animals and humans having souls? Some societies don't even recognize that other people have souls. therefore, I suppose that it is not up to mankind to determine who does or does not, possess a soul, even one's own.
Our self-importance makes us want to believe that science is the ultimate authority, yet I haven't been able to figure out how it demonstrates superior intelligence to acknowledge that matter goes from order to disorder over time, but if you give it enough time it goes from disorder to incredibly complex order.
That requires far more faith than the biblical account.
Interesting side note:
A Belgian priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre was the one who came up with the idea that the universe started with an explosion (he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'). He called it a "Cosmic Egg" exploding at the moment of creation--which his critics later derided as a "Big Bang" (critics who hailed from such places as Cambridge).
So, I find it interesting that those who deride belief in God adhere to a theory proposed by a priest, and used the name for it as coined by critics of his theory...
Likewise development and embryology is in stark contrast with belief in God.
You either believe (as the Bible asserts) that Gods "forms [children] in the womb" and "knits them together of bone and sinew," or you believe you developed from a blob of cells that just GREW and came together to form that wonderful body, tissues and organs aligned so neatly, everything in order.
"Is the office of the Pope in the bible?"
Not directly, it isn't. However, the reference to Peter being the rock upon which the church would be built is pretty darned close.
Bob and his freends are always trying to keel me.
Half-true.
Just because some fish can adapt to a wide range of salinities (because of the actions of cortisol, prolactin, etc) does not mean all can. Mollusks are even slower to adapt; they often die at a massive rate after a small pollutant event. Things like great heat variation, acidity from volcanos, and the great pressure change from when a mussel that used to live 20 feet below sea level now lives 1000ft below sea level are all flood factors thousands of modern species could not survive.
Following that argument, if one believes that God created the universe, then he had a role in the creation of everything.
In that case, Howard Dean is a miracle.
My understanding is that for something to be a miracle, it has to defy the laws of nature.
Not to mention that farming was not widely practiced until a few millenia ago, which then enabled food surpluses, which in turn enabled specialization, which meant that instead of farming, people could invent written languages. But beyond that, even cavemen communicated in a written form, albeit through drawing on walls.
Your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is fundamentally flawed.
Aw, shoot, I thought you'd have a good "This guy ran into a croc once..." story. :P
No, not for rejecting evolution. That is an issue that will clear up itself once you understand the Soverignity of God. Minimizing any authority of God minimizes this attitributes:
Solitariness, Decrees, Knowledge,Supremeacy, Soverignity, Immutability, Holiness, Power, Faithfulness, Goodness, Patience, Grace, mercy Love and His condemnation. These are not all encompassing but frame the attitributes that does not allow anything of chance.
God said it, I believe it and for me that settles it.
Obviously any supernatural being who could miraculously generate and destroy millions of cubic miles of water could also either keep freshwater and saltwater separated or alter the salinity needs of all applicable species.
"Well, lessee, a "generation" is usually considered to be 33 years."
I guess that's as good a measure as any. I tend to like the 20 year generation, but 33's OK, too.
What's really amazing is that 2000 years is only about 61 generations. 61. Yet, we barely know who our relatives are more than maybe 10 generations at best.
How little we know of such a short time.
I once saw people visiting a zoo, hold their kids upside down over the croc moat and laugh while they screamed. How's that?
Are you saying God looks like a human then?
From one step to the next, yep. I'm not the one that says it HAD to be one way or the other. I mean, it's rather dangerous, I think, to assume, even insist, that God only did it one way. I mean, if he could make the light and stars with a word, why not make the whole Universe, in its entirety?
Further, I think it is dangerous to ascribe man-made devices to God--such as the passage of time (you know, minutes and hours and days)...speaking of "creating"...
Sorry, I meant exclusive (as in being separate from each other) rather than mutually exclusive (as in any one precluding the others). Pardon.
Pardon me if I don't grok the situation as a whole, but hasn't the Roman Catholic Church claimed as a whole to have seen far more miracles than any other piece of Christendom? We're always hearing about this or that or the other miraculous apparition of the Virgin Mary in Mexico or Italy or some other place which is particularly populous with Catholics.
There in fact is a constant miracle that Christendom (Calvinists largely excepted) bears constant witness to: free will. There is input from outside of the whole network of physical equations, into the behavior of the physical system governed by the equations. I've seen few scientists, I daresay, who claim their authority on the basis of being part of a species that has evolved to behave in a certain manner rather than the basis of their having chosen to reason their way to a conclusion.
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.