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 ...
There are. Indiana is the state that once tried to change the definition of pi.
A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth ....
Oh, by its own official doctrine, the Intelligent Designer could have been a very advanced alien lifeform. But one pro-ID witness after another conceded in court last week that they believe it is God and they don't know anyone who thinks it's the aliens.
Well, that would appear to be the argument you proffer. The problem is that observation led scientists to this position.
They are now trying to quantify it. You don't even want to hear the argument because implicit in it is something detestable to your ideology. Vade retro is telling me how ID establishes a religion, etc.. which is utter nonsense. ID merely posits that there is an intelligence at work in what they observe. And said observation is coming from guys who are largely non-Christians or a-religious. It would seem that their conclusions support the notions of Christianity and thusly rile everyone opposed to it - including, it would seem, Rome. Go figure lol
There are some gross acts that do this on stage.
Section 3
In further proof of the value of the author's proposed contribution to education and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country.
Or this is a hoax.
Didn't dig deep enough in the New Age world
So what. They may believe it is God. It doesn't establish a religion. They are positing their observations as a matter of science - not their conclusions derived from those observations. And since when is it anathema to say that God could be introduced to Evolution. Not that I believe it a whit; but, you guys have been trying to defraud christians into believing this for quite some time. And now that ID comes along and runs the risk of saying that may be the case, suddenly you're a whirl of activity in backpeddling.. LOL. It isn't Science that is bothering you. It isn't religion that is bothering you - that's just the attack you're trying to use in order to strike at what is bothering you - the notion that an intelligence is behind everything - God if you like. That scares you to death. And indeed it should.
Someone who thought they'd make the Catholic Church look bad, or cause discord, maybe?
Awe, come on. Do you really think they need any help with that? ;)
How can humans put a time frame on God's morning or evening? Could be a day, a year, or millions of years. Who are we to say?
Who are you kidding? It's just a back-door sneak.
The Plaintiffs in the Dover Trial explain it wonderfully in their closing arguments.
A highlight:
Furthermore, this Court should infer from their false statements that defendants are trying to conceal an improper purpose for the policy they approved and implemented, namely an explicitly religious purpose. The board's behavior mimics the Intelligent Design Movement at large. The Dover board discussed teaching "creationism," switched to the term "intelligent design" to carry out the same objective and then pretended they had never talked about creationism. As we learned from Dr. Forrest's testimony, the Intelligent Design movement used the same sleight of hand in creating the Pandas textbook. They wrote it as a "creationist" book, and then, after the Edwards decision outlawed teaching creationism, simply inserted the term "intelligent design" where "creationism" had been before. Dean Kenyon wrote the book at the same time he was advocating "creation science" as the sole scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. But now, like the Dover Board, the Intelligent Design movement now pretends that it was never talking about creationism.This hasn't been ruled on yet, but the plaintiffs have made a crushing case. The defense has been a disaster of ill-concealed and utterly unmasked perjury.I want to make a very important point here. In this case, we have abundant evidence of the religious purpose of the Dover School Board that supports a finding that the board's policy is unconstitutional. However, if the board had been more circumspect about its objectives, or better at covering its tracks, it would not make the policy it passed any less unconstitutional.
Well, that would appear to be the argument you proffer. The problem is that observation led scientists to this position.
Observation led scientists to evolution. ID has no observable evidence to support it.
You don't even want to hear the argument because implicit in it is something detestable to your ideology.
Wow. You keep getting this backwards. Maybe you haven't received the memo - creationists keep using the claim that observing new evidence and modifying the theory to fit it somehow weakens evolution.
Could be a day, a year, or millions of years. Who are we to say?
Use your logic. Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. God rested on the seventh. If a day were thousand years, Adam and Eve would have been recorded as living over a thousand years. They didn't. Amazing how many Christians are willing to corrupt the scriptures to be accepted by this evil world.
You know, I've not heard the point you made about "rest." I am in total agreement with you about "limiting God," but the thought that He "rested" seems interesting...
Good post!
I am going to have to research more about metanoia/metamelomae--very intriguing, indeed!
Unless in God's process of creating the universe step by step, he also laid the groundwork for animals, so that in His Cosmic "Day," the day that He produced life in the sea just also happens to be the day that He planned for evolution to produce it...
Observation may have led some scientists to evolution. Others were led past it for failing of the evidences. They wound up in the ID camp. You want to state that ID has no evidence supporting it; but, that stands in contrast to the evidences claimed by the scientists that wound up there as a result of them. Something in that led them there. It wasn't ideology - many of them are agnostic, a-religious, etc. Your argument lacks merit. Sorry. I understand why you seem to need to proffer it; but, that doesn't make it so.
As for some secret memo - there wasn't one passed out of which I am aware. And you guys are the ones going nutso at the hint that a supreme being might exist and be evidenced in science. I don't see any problem with that.
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.