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 ...
Complete rubbish. the Second Law is the same now as it was in the 19th century. And, in fact, the 'disorder' aspect of the second law, misunderstood by morons as it is, has been added, not removed, since the Second Law was originally formulated.
The entropy of a human being is no lower than a chimpanzee or a cow or a fish of the same mass. Entropy, and thus the Second Law, has nothing to say about evolution.
Hate to contradict, but yes it does. S = k ln W. The problem arises when people substitute simple-minded ideas of order and disorder for statistical entropy, which has a quite technical definition.
The fall brought about both sin and death according to scripture. It was physical as well as spiritual.
DNA is complex stuff and complex things break down over time, that's just entropy (the second law of themodynamics). Adam, Noah and others back then lived very long lives because they were not subject to the decay that has piled up over generations in our DNA. Physically we have decended, not ascended.
If man evolved, he did so from lower forms of life, that is progess. Evolution argues that mutations are supposed to become common over time when they grant a greater ability to survive, that too is progress.
You might try reading before posting. If you disagree with what I said, try showing some evidence that what I sid is untrue. Change is not the same concept as progress, and what you label as lower or higher does not necessarily involve a change in complexity.
Nah, I've always like Dammit as a dog's name...
Come here, dammit!
What evidence do you have that our DNA is breaking down over time?
Adam, Noah and others back then lived very long lives because they were not subject to the decay that has piled up over generations in our DNA.
All of the available evidence shows that humans are living longer, healthier lives than any time in human history.
"The disciples came to him [Jesus] and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." (Matthew 13:10-11)
Read all of Matthew 13...It is clear that Jesus did not speak in parables to make it more easily understood by the masses, or to the local farmer, or so forth. He did just the opposite and did it with purpose.
You are right though..."He knew His audience". Most of them were "hearing but never understanding; seeing but never perceiving. For this the people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes." (Matthew 13:14-15)
God's Word is timeless and unaffected by culture...and people are just the same (calloused hearted and not seeing or hearing what is simple and plain).
Define "lower form of life." Are we talking about success of a species? If so, bacteria and insects are a much "higher" form of life than humans.
Precisely. Waiting for Day six when they are literal days is not a long time. That is why we can know that Jesus didn't consider Creation Week to have taken eons of time. The beginning was a normal six day period and one day of rest.
What are you talking about? That God could very well have laid a framework we call "evolution" is not out of the question--if you say it is, who are *you* to say what God can or cannot do, or did or did not do? Fine if He let Adam name the animals--that has little to do with how they got there. God did not create them and name them, He created them--HOW is the issue. I say it is perfectly plausible for Him to have created them through setting up some biological/genetic process that enables each species to improve itself, moving closer to perfection (as we are all supposed to do by following Christ...). What God then did to make us unique is create us in His image (not a flesh-and-bones image, but a spiritual image). I fail to see how the Biblical account of creation is incompatible with evolution (or other biological/genetic methods) when one takes into account that, while the Bible is the inspired Word, it was also written by men, for men, and so to present a creation story that people can understand makes sense given the circumstances of the age.
Why? If anything, that backs me up. Jesus became a flesh-and-bones man, meaning that He wasn't one before. You really think that God is an old man with a long beard? God *is*. That's it. He breathed life into us, giving us a soul--His likeness.
Again, you can't forget the history--this was being written to appeal to pagans and polytheists. Writing it in such a way is appealing, as it makes God accessible and personal, rather than some impersonal Sun god who does what he wants regardless of its effect on humanity. Being created in the image of God is a powerful way to show that God wants us with Him, that He loves us, rather than God just being an uncaring, impersonal god (or gods) like the people of the age were used to.
Does it apply to order/disorder in the way creationists use it? They are not just talking about dispersion of energy but physical objects (for instance molecules) arranged in a orderly/disorderly fashion. My understanding is that the energy level of the objects themselves is not affected by their order but that the cause of the disorder, whether it be a hurricane or a human, experiences the entropy. For those directly affected by energy dispersion, their arrangment is probabilistic
You know a lot more than I do about this so if I misunderstand I'm sure you will correct me.
Most of the time creationists haven't got a clue what they mean by order or disorder.
They are not just talking about dispersion of energy but physical objects (for instance molecules) arranged in a orderly/disorderly fashion. My understanding is that the energy level of the objects themselves is not affected by their order but that the cause of the disorder, whether it be a hurricane or a human, experiences the entropy.
Energy and entropy are separate and independent quantities. Entropy is a measure of disorder. For example, if you take a crystal of nitrogen (which you can get by freezing it to below about 50 Kelvin) the molecules form a nicely ordered arrangement, with the little interactomic bonds all aligned in a certain fashion, like N-N N-N N-N N-N N-N...; if you freeze it down to 0 K, indeed, all the disorder, including that due to thermal jiggling of the molecules, will freeze out, and you'll have an entropy of zero.
Now carbon monoxide, it turns out, has very similar physical properties to nitrogen, and if you freeze it down to a solid, it goes into a crystal structure essentially identical to nitrogen. Problem is, nitrogen is a symmetrical molecule, whereas C-O is asymmetrical; it has two different ends. So when you freeze it, it crystallizes with the Cs and Os almost random C-O O-C C-O C-O O-C... And therefore it has an entropy, which we can both measure and calculate, of about 5 J/(mol.K). Even if you take CO down to 0 Kelvin, you can't freeze out this disorder. And that quantity, due to the statistical number of different ways the C-O can line up in the crystal, is what we call entropy.
So what has this to do with evolution? Well, if you take the human genome, you can calculate (approximately) the entropy of our genetic sequence. You have to allow for the fact that in parts of the sequence, the order of base pairs doesn't matter; but very conservatively, you can estimate the entropy of the sequence to be approximately k N ln 4, where N is the number of base pairs. Problem is, that's not at all different from the entropy of a fish or an ape or a rat genome - we all have about the same number of genes - and so the entropy didn't decrease in the course of evolution. Moreover, the entropy change involved in ordering of our DNA is tiny - far less than the ordering of a microgram of nitrogen compared with that of carbon monoxide. For all our pretensions about being the pinnacle of evolution or creation, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, we're no more complex than 200 pounds of meat or lumber.
While I agree that salvation is not dependent on whether one believes in a literal 6 day creation or in evolution orchestrated by God, who the hell does this Cardinal think he is to tell "fundamentalists" as he calls them what they should believe about Genesis.
Cardinal, stop telling other believers what they should do about such a non-salvation related issue and deal with the obvious problems in your own church.
So you are saying that Genesis is a scientific treatise? Not a method of conveying to pagans and polythesists the idea of a loving, personal God who created us all?
From what passage do you derive the idea that Jesus considered creation week to be 6 literal 24-hour days with 1 literal day of rest?
I always thought God was timeless, "I AM," not "I WAS" or "I WILL BE." Seems rather odd that we would apply a manmade device (recording the passage of time) to God...
Yes, death exists. It's part of why evolution exists ... if something doesn't pass along it's genes, those genes will no longer be seen after a while, as the only holder of those genes will die.
DNA is complex stuff and complex things break down over time, that's just entropy (the second law of themodynamics).
Leaving aside for a moment your interesting take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... part of the reason creatures that breed have survived in the world is that it allows the newborn members of the species to start with a "fresh" copy of everything ... otherwise cancers and such would end life. By combining "broken" DNA of one parent with DNA from another parent that is not broken, those offspring that have the breaks resolved in the newly combined DNA (either through dominant/recessive gene interactions, a better trait outweighing the lessened one, or --- sometimes --- a beneficial change in the DNA) continue on! Those where the break is unsurmountable die.
DNA does change over time, through multiple generations. That is part of why evolution occurs, otherwise everyone would look mostly the same, especially if you consider a single man/woman pairing to start it all.
I'm glad to see you at least believe in DNA changes over time, especially as a perfect creator would have no need for such a thing if his only goal was to introduce death into the world. Why would he even need DNA?
Adam, Noah and others back then lived very long lives because they were not subject to the decay that has piled up over generations in our DNA.
Changes do not necessarily = decay. Also, they could have lived a long time because God willed it so. Why would God be limited by their DNA structure to determine how long those integral to his plot lived? You seem to want to use science to back up your claims, yet refuse to accept anything science says that does not back up your claims.
And that ain't how science is supposed to be done.
Physically we have decended, not ascended.
Except for being taller, faster, stronger at human peaks than our measurable ancestors (Olympic records, etc.). This may be attributable to better food, training, etc, and not natural selection, but it's still improvement in the overall human condition ...
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.