Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

News.com ^ | 11/7/05 | Mikey_1962

[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.

[Bushman2]

I believe explosions NEVER create, but DESTROY?????

[Coyoteman]

When I read that article, my thought was, "OK, some false religion spews anti-God venom. You call that news?"

Would you please clarify "false religion" for me? To what are you referring?

[Ichneumon]

One point I would also like to make, and you might like : There's no way we should have the fossil records of the dinosaurs that we do, based on the mainstream theory of their demise.

Wrong.

They have obviously been covered by layers upon layers of silt from some watery event....hmmm.

Some have, some haven't. Your thesis needs work.

I know it sounds crazy and it took me a while to except it, but it's common sense to me.

"Common sense" says that the Sun revolves around the Earth, instead of vice versa. "Common sense" is often wrong.

Well here comes my turn to get blasted. lol

I'm not blasting you, I'm just pointing out that your presumptions are counter to fact, and the actual real-world evidence -- vast mountains of it -- demonstrate that your conclusions on this topic are incorrect.

[Grig]

Death didn't seem to exist before the fall(Rom 5.12), and all thing reproduced their own kind (Gen 1), so how do you get macro-evolution happening before the fall? We don't have any post-fall macro-evolution.

The only way to reconcile the Bible with evolution is to say the Bible tells stories that are not true, to deny the perfection of creation and the fall of man. If there was no fall, we would have needed no Christ to redeem us from the fall. You can't reconcile the Bible with evolution without saying the Bible tells lies.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I guess that "original justice" is one of those myths then, since evolution teaches that death has always existed and was never introduced into a previously paradisal situation.

But then considering that J*sus "abolished death" but didn't do so literally (since people are still dying) I suppose that "Adam" didn't literally introduce death either.

Oh, and don't forget that Adam and Eve are mythological representations of human ancestors that lived all over the world. Don't want to read the Bible too literally. Otherwise we might question chr*stianity.

Thank G-d I ain't a chr*stian no' mo'.

[soltice]

Where did the match come form" :>)


Adding fuel to the fire --- this from somebody who does NOT presume to know the will of GOD - I just believe and try to follow the teachings of Jesus.

But this may be interesting - Especially the LAST TWO LINES!



From The Alpha and the Omega - Chapter One
by Jim A. Cornwell, Copyright © 1995, all rights reserved
" Genesis -- Day One - Capricornus 21810 B.C. "


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Hebrew passage: Berashith Bera Elohim Ath Ha Shamaim Va Ath Ha Aretz.
Berashith (In the beginning)-Bera (created)-Elohim (God)-Ath (the)-Ha Shamaim Va Ath Ha Aretz (heaven and the earth).

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Hebrew passage: Viamr Alhim Ihi Aur Vihi Aur.
Viamr (And Said)--Alhim (God), Ihi (Let there be)-- Aur (Light):--Vihi (And there was) -- Aur (light).
The first utterance of God, the creator of both the light and darkness (Isa. 45:6-7 "...I form the light, and create darkness.") which he watches over their orderly succession (Psalm 104:20 "Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth."; Amos 4:13 "... that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The Lord, the God of hosts, is his name."). God is light, which is above all the sources of life (Eccl. 11:7 "Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:").

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Day (Heb. yom, Gr. hemera) a period of daylight or a period of twenty-four hours.

"In Hebrew, 'one’ is 'ehad' and 'first' is 'rishon.' There can be no confusion between the two words. There is no 'first day' in the Hebrew text. It reads: one day, second day, third day, and so on." From the Antiquities of the Jews (chapter 1), "and he named the beginning of light and the time of rest, the Evening and the Morning: and this was indeed the first day; but Moses said it was one day,--the cause of which I am able to give even now..." - "The Coming of the Gods" Jean Sendy page 172

Josephus also asserted "Moses wrote chapter 2 and 3 in some enigmatical, or allegorical or philosophical sense. The change of the name of God, just at this place, from Elohim to Jehovah Elohim, from God to Lord God in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint."

The correct translation of the first sentence of the Bible Genesis 1:1 should be read as, "In the beginning gods created the heaven and the earth,"


The correct translation implies that Genesis does not speak of the origin of the universe.

[Ichneumon]

I believe explosions NEVER create, but DESTROY?????

You believe incorrectly (for example, explosions in supernovae produced the heavier elements in your body), but in any case the "Big Bang" was not actually an explosion anyway.

[Coyoteman]

There's no way we should have the fossil records of the dinosaurs that we do, based on the mainstream theory of their demise. They have obviously been covered by layers upon layers of silt from some watery event....hmmm.

No blast. But are you aware that there really is no evidence for a global flood? I do archaeology, and I have been into 100+ sites in the western US. We are looking anywhere from 4,000-5,000 years into the past regularly. This is where I understand the flood should be. We have good evidence of human habitation, flora and faunal remains, and they all stack up with a nice, clean stratigraphy in many sites. A flood would have either washed things away or deposited things in a very noticeable manner.

[Aquinasfan]

The creation/evolution controversy is an open question for Catholics. Period.

The only binding dogmatic teachings of the Church regarding the topic are the following. Materialistic (atheistic) evolution must be rejected since it rejects the Creator. The human race descended from an original couple (Adam and Eve). The human race exists in a fallen state as the result of original sin.

That's pretty much it.

[wallcrawlr]

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.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Rokke]

"It is not clear from the article what exactly Cardinal Poupard said and to what extent his views reflect the truths taught by the Church."

You have highlighted the key fact at this point. Before Catholics begin to contort themselves into any number of weird shapes trying to morph what the Cardinal says with "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." it would be better to get some clarification from the Cardinal himself. Unless of course, someone would like to change Genesis with words to the affect of "He created man in his image and then gradually morphed man from an amoeba into a monkey and then finally a homo sapien."

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. Check out The List-O-Links. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory" and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[Michael81Dus]

God bless His Holiness, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

[ASA Vet]

Amusing supernaturlist food fight thread ping.

[Bushman2]

1 Chorinthians 2:14 says it pretty clearly why most people do not under stand the Bible and these things.

"Now the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can't know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

[Palisades]

A flood would have either washed things away or deposited things in a very noticeable manner.

IIRC, we have Egyption writings on papyrus going back to the mid-3rd millenium BCE.

I've heard claims that the global flood was supposed to have happened about 4000 years ago. Which begs the question- how did the 5000+ year-old papyrus survive submersion in water for 40 days or so?

[Cicero]

I'd have to read the original statement, but the news report seems to completely falsify the Vatican's position. The Vatican has said that some degree of evolutionary development is possible, and could be compatible with the Bible. It has not said that Intelligent Design Theory is false.

Besides which, this Cardinal does not officially represent "the Vatican." What he has said is partly prudential, partly his own opinion.

Catholics believe that science and religious truth cannot contradict one another. Where they appear to, science is wrong or the particular religious point is explicable on other grounds, such as God performing a miracle. God does not perform miracles often, but as the Bible says, "With God all things are possible."

If the Darwinian General Theory of Evolution gradually loses support, as I think it will, it will be because it is extremely unlikely from a scientific and statistical point of view, not because it contradicts religion.

The three great skeptics of the nineteenth century were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Marx and Freud already have been discredited. What they said is no longer thought to be "scientific." I think Darwin will be next.

[Zionist Conspirator]

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin

I think they should just go ahead and declare him a saint . . . and Hutton, and Lyell, and Wellhausen, and while they're at it, the J*sus seminar. Oops. That's in the "new testament," and the Vatican does interpret that literally.

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.

I wonder which details the Vatican insists G-d didn't design.

[EternalPatriot]

This may be a bit too conservative for modern tastes but ...

The problem with Christian Fundamentalists is they are reading a bible that was created some 1500 years after the origins of Christianity took place and St. Jerome's original bible was created.

They also never study the bible in the first language of its complete Compilation - Jerome's latin. They study a bible that is so rought with incorrect expressions and language / culture based idomatic expressions that the original meaning is lost. That is why the only official bible of the Catholic (universal) church is the original Latin - so there can't be confusion in it's content (as opposed to interpretation).

So it is a given that since Christian fundamentalists do not truly adhere to a conservative form of Christianity but rather a copy religion that was made some 1500 years after the original church was created, they would have difficulty reading the subtle distinctions in Genesis which clearly do not indicate that evolution theory and the creation story are indeed mutually exclusive.

I find it ironic that so-called Christian fundamentalists don't even reference or study the bible in its foundational language going so far as to seriously misquote such verses as John 3:16 because they read from texts that stray significantly from the original latin ...

It is sad because while Christians run from their original sacred texts, other religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, continue to study their sacred texts in their original languages ...

This probably explains why the most prominent Christian-fundamentalists in our societies today more closely resemble the uncompassionate and doctrinally strict, incorrect, and hard-hearted Pharissees of Christ's time with their fancy televangelist programmes, million dollar budgets, and overly theatrical presentations, than they do resemble Christ Himself.

Yeah, these days, you can tell if they are Christians by their Bible pouch, superstar status with their name being one with their ministry, the fancy suits and makeup jobs, the 1000 acre compounds, the 100 piece band and choir, the exclusive "Words of Knowledge" for them and them alone, oh yeah, and don't forget the 1-800 number with the Visa and Mastercard symbols prominently displayed at the bottom of the TV screen or their ministry newsletters.