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 ...
No kidding. And who cares. The Vatican is mistaken about a great many things. Binding and loosing is one. Galileo is another. One can make a laundry list that begs why anyone should lend an ear to the Vatican as they're wrong on so much. It begs the question. Who cares.
Being silly of course about the chocolate. So let me guess... somehow this egg is supposed to be contiguous in some manner with a process of getting laid by a serpent, and hatching a serpent, and all that stuff. Like a causational Mobius strip.
I hiss at that.
I was going on what a poster said on one of these threads; he had an exact date, some time prior to 4,000 years ago. I don't remember it exactly.
But if I am going to look into old sites, I need a fairly specific target date. I have been in sites back to 10,000-11,000. They are more scarce than younger sites, and often have less material surviving.
I try to be civil, and I appreciate your reasoned approach as well.
But watch out, I might throw a little humor in now and again. Coyote is bringer of knowledge and culture to many western Indian groups, but also the trickster.
Sz, one can stay literal if one likes, but the revolving objects and the lights in the firmaments in the heavens were fourth day, and how fast did this revolve.
I have no problem with any of Genesis, but to deny the grandness of His Creation by insisting on such an insignificant concept as the translation of an astronomical phenomenon as a current earth day, strikes against the fact that all of scientists are studying the Works of God, and some of them do not realize it because they can not get past this "barrier".
The marvel is not only existence, but the mechanism he created to accomplish it. "New earth" is a denial of His work,not a defense of the Word.
Well, one cannot know the Word except through the Spirit anyway.
Other word issues: "Righteousness" is Justicia in the Vulgate. Latin did not have a better concept for "right-standing before God". And even the NIV spanish keeps justicia. Totally different concept.
And I am not saying any of this in relation to you personally, because I do not know.
God said that the handiwork of his craftmanship is everywhere evidenced throughout the creation such that man is without excuse.. Saying "leave science to the scientists" is akin to saying "leave religion to priests". Paul rebukes the latter notion and I'd have to rebuke the former on the same grounds.
Science isn't the realm of a few, nor the priveledge of some ideology wishing to impose itself by fiat. Yet, that is exactly the dynamic that has taken place. Your argument begs people not to slay the dragon.
Like the Communist Manifesto?
Reason needs all the facts to get to an infallible conclusion.
Walsh,
Give it up w/this guy. I've battled the with relativists fo a long time, and you just can't get it through their heads.
Scott
In contrast, HaShem, the God revealed to us in the Bible, and whose each successive name, Adonai, etc. reveals more of His nature to us, is not a celestial serpent. That, as we learn, is the Adversary.
there are only two religions in the world. Those who worship the Creator, and those who worship the created thing.
We'll see.
Now they're gonna get it. Most of those fundies never liked Catholicism anyway.
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
OK.
heh, not evolution. Just organization. God moved things from Chaos to utter organization and then entropy takes over at the fall. Take your list and then try to tie evolution theory to it. You can't. You have to destroy your list and start moving things about. You have to put change order of things, etc. A transvestite can look like a woman, till one starts paying attention to detail...
The guy on the mountain doesn't do it "unnecessarily", he does it for a reason, his own perverse pleasure. Heinlein never did get around to answering that little paradox. So, now tell me again, why is it morally wrong for this fellow to fulfill his prime directive?
So is choosing to be stupid a sin? There's no finding an ultimate earthly source of moral approval/opprobrium to duck behind.
As well as, I'd imagine, the great variety of flora and fauna that exist in North America, South America, and other continents and lands not even known to exist in biblical times, and there is no mention of Noah gathering all those up, or how... The "two of every species" literal interpretation of Noah's ark, all fitting on that ark, and being fed there for forty days, is preposterous enough even if we are only considering the animals and plants known to live in the middle east. But that ignores most of the rest of the world.
Which is the troubling thing I often consider about the bible. I've never seen evidence of, or quotes of, an omniscient knowledge of the earth or it's natural wonders that were not consistent with common belief of the day... Is there one scientific mystery answered in the bible that hints at anything previously unknown? Could we wish that, instead of giving the Jews just another chunk of a pretty desolate part of the globe, Moses had said, "hey everyone, God has told me that beyond the seas is a ~real~ promised land, whole continents full of marvels! Now we just need to build a boat!"
Do any of the prophets, or Jesus, ever mention knowledge of the world outside what was known at the time? Shouldn't they? Wouldn't such revelations have helped verify the truly divinely inspired from guys that talked a good game to a pretty unsophisticated people?
Anyway, these are the things that trouble me about the bible.
Sites in the western US older than about 11,000 are in short supply, so I have no experience there.
I thought we were talking somewhere in the 4,000-5,000 year range for the flood for YEC and 4 or so billions for OEC?
One Cardinal may or may not be the stand of "the Vatican." Like I said (kiddingly) if I ran Rome I would hate guessing and do flash polls of everybody including the Pope and zip it out to the internet to show where the buzz was. But I don't, and watchers have to live with the fact that they're the Slow Cookers of this Microwave generation.
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.