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 ...
How can any Christian, think that God used evolution to make man, given the above passage?
Since I'm limited by my human understanding of the world, I'd consider it to be analogous to when I make a pie in the image of a pie I have in mind to make ... I don't just wave my hands, and huzzah there's a pie.
There are steps to making it. Getting the ingredients together. Mixing them. Cooking it. Letting it cool afterwards.
So, I don't see how making something assumes that there are not steps to make it.
Of course, God being God, he is unlimited, and could very well have instantly made whatever he wanted.
But, bein gunlimited, he could take all the time and varied processes he wanted to, as well.
You could almost imply from that passage, that the Vatican is saying that God too had to evolve since God had to use evolution to develope man. Do they even have a clue what they are saying?
How would that be different from implying that because an intelligent designer was used for humans, an intelligent designer would also be needed for THAT intelligent designer, etc.?
I think the idea of God as he exists implies that he's the one holding the end of the chain, and not necessarily part of the chain itself ...
"...Should you be in Jail?
"
Not in any sensible society. I don't harm anyone. I don't steal stuff. I just don't happen to believe in the locally popular deity.
Yet, there are those who think I should be stripped of my citizenship, put in jail, or, worst of all, executed.
I'm sure you don't feel that way, and that's a good thing. There are those who do, though.
So, I study religion as self-defence.
Nothing exploding into something...a pretty nifty trick! /s
I, among us, can! As soon as someone defines God's inertial reference frame...
The Old Testament actually supports this "hooey" since it is a collection of oral traditions with the theme that man has often broken his covenants with God and God has altered the Covenant and re-issued it. The New Testament is is the "new and everlasting covenant" that supersedes all previous contracts between God and man.
You've just done the intellectual equivalent of sliding off of a church steeple. It's not a computer program so it has to be a vastly fogged out tale that old sheepherders might have found adequate but can't be anything meaningful to we moderns. Congratulations on the fallacy.
""And God Said, 'Let "US" make man in "OUR" image.' Not let's evolve man into our image.
"
Well, the other day, I made a loaf of bread. It started out as a bunch of ingredients, mixed together. I let it sit for several hours, then put it in an oven and baked it.
I made it, but there was a rather tedious process. When that process was complete, I ate it, and it was good.
First of all, the rains fell for forty days and forty nights. The actual Flood lasted for a solar year. It might pay to actually read the text you are debunking.
That doesn't weaken my point. If anything, it strengthens it. Do you expect papyrus to survive a year-long submersion.
I still don't understand what this "papyrus" was that you keep raving about. What was it, an ancient romance novel or something?
Secondly, what papyrus? What are you talking about?
We have examples of writings on papyrus used by the Egyptians going back to close to 4000 BCE.
Bully for you.
The Egyptians were prolific record-keeper. We have more or less an unbroken series of writings from around 4000 BCE until today. It is interesting that the Egyptians never mentioned the occurence of a global flood.
Did they mention that a bunch of slaves once kicked their sorry @$$es and drowned them in the Red Sea?
Are you talking about the Torah Scroll from which the story of Creation and the Flood come?
Does that Torah Scroll still exist and how old is it?
Torah Scrolls are organic and eventually decay, at which point they have to be buried in a Jewish cemetery, next to the grave of a pious sage. But the original Torah Scroll exists in every kosher Torah Scroll in existence, which is written according to the strictest set of laws in existence to assure that each and every one is an exact duplicate of the original dictated by HaShem to Moses.
Besides, if the original Scroll still existed wouldn't you simply point out that it was written after the fact and is therefore unreliable?
Interesting that nothing in the Bible can be accepted without outside corroboration while things written by ancient pagans are accepted on faith.
The local Darwinists here must be amused at this, since for an atheist, you exhibit a mindset which they generally like to claim Christians exhibit.
I've seen bones on the surface go to powder in about five years. So what?
This shows how lucky we are to have the good record of human evolution that we do have!
IF (in whatever somewhat altered universe) utter Darwinism were the tale up to Adam, what stops God from stepping in and blowing the whistle at that point.
By Numbers they sure learned.
Exactly, why is that so hard for people to understand ?
God created evolution.
I don't know.
And neither do you.
"Ex 20:11 -
" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. "
Well since Catholics are the majority of the world's Christians, then the original quote was correct.
"Yet, the Word also says that Moses talked to God, face to face. Now how do you interpret that?"
Me? I interpret it as mythology. But I don't suppose that's a satisfactory interpretation for you. Simple fables told to nomadic shepherds running away from Egypt. They needed stories to help them understand their lot and the reason for their journey.
"question it"
Kinda like the mistake of mankind ascribing his own methods to
God's--days, hours, etc.
Indeed. why is the sky blue? And why will Scientology sell it, one piece at a time?
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.