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 ...
That can't place the creation of man on Day 1, whatever it means. Genesis 1 doesn't allow that. He (and as best as I can tell, she) has to wait for Day 6.
Hey cut that out. Trying to be Charles Dickens or sumfin?
If Behe currently holds (it's not really fair to hold someone with an "evolving" view to what they said a decade ago) that he can acknowledge all the philosophical premises that secular science now takes upon itself, either as absolute truths or as necessary approximations, then yes I think I can see why the trouble. He's hemmed himself into a situation where the science he's appealing to can't perform a test to tell the difference between a purposeful creation and some super hyper colossal dumb luck throw of the dice. All the fancy legal footing about how he got help from creationism factors out. You're simply left with no test you can perform under those rules.
This battle may well be better served in a philosophy classroom, where among other things the assumptions and approximations that secular science makes can be brought out as a set of philosophical axioms and in those terms compared to other philosophies. Students with that background can then go into secular science classes with open eyes about what they are dealing with. If something breaks the rules, then the results will not be the same as if nothing breaks the rules.
If I were arguing against someone who said one shouldn't beat one's wife, that would be a good question.
I should have expected that yours was a purely negative contribution. Never mind.
I didn't speak for Him. I said "I get the impression..." There is a major difference between the two. Your reading comprehension skills have really gone down in the past few years.
Isn't it rather presumptuous of you to say that a learned Catholic theologion like Cardinal Poupard is not familiar with the works of Origen?
So creationism is responsible for all those advances in medicine and technology. Go figure...
The "method" is self-correcting. Multiple tests and observations by multiple parties have a tendency to erase, or at least erode, any one individual's personal bias.
A genetic "bottleneck" event did occur for the human race ~70k years ago. However, approximately 2000 individuals made it through that event, rather than just eight. No other such drastic events have been recorded in the genome.
It doesn't erode group bias. And when you've propped up that bias to ensure it exists, little rhetorical nonsenses like what you just said are just nonsense.
Did you ever think they might look at the totality of the evidence and not some niggly little piece of it when drawing their conclusions? Did it ever occur to you that the consensus view might be the consensus view because it has been tested time and again and come out looking pretty good?
Naw, to you it's all an anti-God conspiracy.
It's pretty clear that no has ever been stopped by God from saying or writing anything.
According to Ludwig Ott, an expert on Catholic dogma, no. See the italicized portions below.
The "unity of the human race" implies the doctrine of monogenism, that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the entire human race. Ludwig Ott maintains: "The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary presupposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption" (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 96). This teaching follows because Original Sin "is the result of a sin committed, in actual historical fact, by an individual man named Adam, and it is a quality native to all of us, only because it had been handed down by descent from him" (Denz 2328). The Council of Trent's Decree defines that Original Sin "is communicated to all men by propagation not by imitation." The unity also means the entire human race takes its origin from Adam and Eve, our first parents, who were an actually existing individual pair of human beings, male and female, from whom we are all descended through natural generation.The kind of truth that follows necessarily from, or serves as a logical presupposition for an infallibly defined dogma, is called a "Catholic truth," and is as binding as an infallibly defined dogma.
Ah, you have troubles with analogy. In any case, you posted to me and my answer was effectively, "When have I ever said that the second law is violated?" I also point out that the mere presence of usable energy does not suffice.
You most certainly did.
How could you possibly know that?
No, I can't see the consistency between the two statements. I certainly see the difference. Do you have any other tricks besides being shifty and slippery?
You aren't wrankled about ID establishing a religion.
Or even rankled. But I'm not fooled by ID either.
Go take a walk. Breathe deeply.
I don't need to do either to see through your obfuscations.
" suspect MM grew up in a christian home, and therefore thought he was one, when he was not.
"
You suspect incorrectly. My parents were non-believers. I went to Sunday School on my own from age 10. I started investigating religion very early on.
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.