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 ...
LOL. This is going to be a good thread.
Which would be a dumb idea given that later in the garden he produced one of everything and let Adam name them. Apparently, God did what he said, not what you wish us to believe. lol. Dangit! How'd God know to plan these things ahead to thwart you at every step...
Hah!
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.
No IDist has produced a single positive evidence for ID yet. All they have are invalid arguments that this or that cannot have evolved.
Something in that led them there.
It's called "religious horror." Or, it it might have been a desire to make money telling the rubes what the rubes want to hear.
It wasn't ideology - many of them are agnostic, a-religious, etc.
But nobody seems to know any.
More from that summation:
If there is any doubt about the religious nature of Intelligent Design, listen to these exemplary descriptions of Intelligent Design by its leading proponents, which are in evidence in this case:
[Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.Phillip Johnson, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation Evolution Debate." (Exh. 328).
...in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.
William Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution, A Reply to Henry Morris." P-386. (Forrest, Oct. 5, PM, 50:17-22, 51:3-7).
[I]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
William Dembski, "Signs of Intelligence, A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design." P 357. (Forrest, Oct. 5, PM, 55:3-10).
Michael Behe told this Court that Intelligent Design is not a religious proposition but he told readers of the New York Times that the question Intelligent Design poses is whether "science can make room for religion."
The Cardinal did not provide an authoritative statement though, it was his opinion. The magesterium of the Catholic church provides no set defination on creation. To me, it seems this Cardinal is a little too full of the "Spirit of Vatican II"
Unless the whole of Adam's life and death was encompassed within Day 7.
Indeed an over eagerness may lead to ID version 1.0 getting selected out by the Congress of 9, to your wet dreams.
Don't worry however, ID version 2.0 (NID) will be crafted more carefully by the lawyers. They know, as you do, who really needs to be pleased.
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.
Substitute unconstimatushional with displeasing the congress of 9, and you have a partly true statement.
Care to point out the great straying?
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
16 sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam
In fact leave it out and it's still only partially true.
Nothing cryptic about this; old traditionalist views of the Constitution (e.g. Thomas, possibly Scalia, possibly Alito) wouldn't see anything unconstitutional about this middle approach at all. After that, getting the consensus back on the court all politics. Seems your conservatism hits a hard limit mid 20th century and you might choose to vote Democrat for president rather than risk the, er, "clock be turned back."
"You might decide to turn to Judaism."
Even though I regard Jews as God's chosen people, I would not deny God by denying His son Jesus Christ - who was prophesied in the Old Testament. The Jewish people will eventually come to realize, through God's revelation, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
I complained not to the mods; but seems your blowing this thread full of smoke put it over the top. Congrats! A first for a Crevo thread to the best of my experience.
No thank you, I'll just use my Faith. Whether God created the universe in six of our days or six of His, is irrelevant. He created it.
"Way to go. I am no longer a deist."
Does that mean you abandoned deism for the acceptance of the one true God who revealed Himself?
Scalia, probably. Thomas, maybe. Two. I don't know another creationist sympathizer on the court.
One problem in Dover was the science teachers didn't like ID one bit.
LOL. Right. Go back and sniff some more crazy glue. I've listened to Behe's comments in interview. Perhaps you guys got the wrong memo or something.
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.