Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

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

[bobhoskins]

"Where does evolution say that, or that it's impossible for a lifeform to evolve past death?"

The dead don't evolve, they decompose.

Okay, let me rephrease "Where does evolution say that, or that it's impossible for a species to evolve to a point where death is no longer a certainty?"

Natural selection requires death to limit the spread of inferior genetics.

But wouldn't a creature that was immune to death therefore have SUPERIOR genetics? I mean, the whole point is to survive to pass on the genes ...

If there is no death, there is no such thing as a survival benifit from any mutation since they would all survive without it.

Well, faster breeding, larger litters, etc. could all be "superior" mutations at that point for the spread of genetics.

Not with intellectual honesty about both. You have to create rather tortured interpretations of the Bible that takes evolution as a premise,

What is the perfectly correct interpretation of the Bible, may I ask? Please point out exactly which words are allegory, turns of phrase, parables, and which are absolutely factual (versus truthful ... it's all truthful ... but what is FACT?).

thus creating a circular argument. A handy skill for people who want to have it both ways.

Only if one considers the Bible to be a book of absolute facts, as opposed to a book of absolute truths.

[dread78645]

XenuDidit placemark

[pby]

Yes...He clearly spoke to His disciples (not "apostles" yet...they had not yet seen the risen Christ) in parables and then explained the meaning to them. Look at the parable of the sower, which was specifically adressed to the disciples in Matt. 13.

In Matthew 13, we can find the two reasons for Jesus's speaking in parables:

1. To fulfill Messianic prophecy (as pointed out in Matt. 13:34&35). A proof that He was the Christ.

2. To not reveal the truth (or they might otherwise turn) to those who refused to hear and see and had callous hearts.

The contradiction came as a result of your contention that Jesus taught in parables, as it was the teaching style of the day, to make His message more understandable. Clearly, this is not the reason Jesus gave for His use of parables. And clearly, the parables did not make things more understandable as He had to explain to His disciples their meaning.

Eventhough it is a hard truth, do we take Jesus at His word in regard to the reason for His teaching in parables (even when it is in opposition to what is commonly taught about the issue today)?

There are parallels to the evolution issue in this as well. And it comes down to whether or not we accept God's Word as Truth on all matters it teaches...like parables and creation.

God's Word says that He created in six literal days...These are six literal days as evidenced by the reference to morning and evening, Exodous 20:11, and also by Adam's age at death (930+ years...Adam was created on the sixth day and died at 930 years of age. His age is incorrect if Day six was a large period of time).

Do we believe God at His Word or not?

[bondserv]

The earth is a sphere, not a circle. Circles are flat.

I couldn't find a Hebrew word that means sphere and there may not be a specific word that can only be translated as sphere.

The Hebrew word duwr {dure} is used for the word ball, but implies something that can be thrown.

So you read it as He is sitting upon the edge of a pancake? A straightforward reading of the verbiage implies a spatial sphere (but I keep seeing those infomercials with people sitting on spheres and not on waffles, pancakes or Hula Hoops). :-)

[jennyp]

It doesn't fit with what is said about Adam and death later on in the New Testement. The Bible teaches that death is a result of the fall, not an awareness of death, but death itself. Likewise Christ didn't come to save us from an awareness of death, but from death itself. The whole purpose of Christ coming here was to give us a way to negate the effects of the Fall (ie: sin and death).

I forget who brought this up recently, but this begs a question: What exactly didn't die before the Fall? Was it just whole organisms that didn't die, or did individual cells also not die before the Fall? Did single-celled bacteria not die? Did individual cells inside our bodies not die?

Also, if God's plan was for there to be no death, then eventually the Earth would be totally overrun by living things - unless eventually all living things stopped having children. That seems strange, to say the least.

[aNYCguy]

I couldn't find a Hebrew word that means sphere and there may not be a specific word that can only be translated as sphere.

So the point remains: A literal interpretation of the bible is strictly at odds with reality, unless you believe the Earth is flat. End of story.

[WildHorseCrash]

A straightforward reading of the verbiage implies a spatial sphere...

A straightforward reading implies no such thing. Go out in a desert or on a high mountain and the horizon appears to make a circle--the circle of the earth. (It isn't a true circle, because for it to be a circle, the surface would have to be perfectly smooth, and the earth a sphere. Obviously, the surface has varying heights, and the Earth itself is an imperfect oblong spheroid.) Nothing about the word "circle" (in English or Hebrew) denotes a spherical shape, because a circle is, by definition, a two-dimensional object.

Obviously, the people who wrote the bible didn't know anything about the true shape of the earth, so they described what they saw. They probably believed, like the Romans, that the Earth was essentially a flat, circular disk surrounded by water. (A squat cylinder.)

Now, if you don't want to read the bible literally, then perhaps your "sphere" interpretation is acceptable, but a straightforward, fair, literal interpretation does not support the idea that the bible says the earth is spherical.

[Tao Yin]

It would help if you understood a fallacy of the consequent. You might want to review. The basic premise is based on (if p then q) also written ( p -> q ).

My assertion is that if you teach kids they are animals, they will act like animals.

p - teach kids they are animals

q - kids act like animals

You can argue with my assertion if you wish (p -> q), but there is no logical fallacy involved in my argument.

Evolution teaches that humans are nothing more than evolved animals. We are teaching this to our kids. This is the p. Now by my assertion p -> q, since p is true it is logical for q to be true. So I stated q is true. Entirely logical given my assertion.

I didn't state that the current situation proved my assertion to be true. I started with the assumption that my assertion was true. I then added the sarcastic comment "Big surprise" because none of us should be surprised by p implies q.

Now the post hoc ergo propter hoc comment is an attack on my assertion. Arguable, but the motivation for my assertion was not coincidental correlation.

I started with the assumption that teaching kids something is in their nature will encourage characteristics of that nature.

As for unsubstantiated, you can review the arguement about the civilizing influence of religion.

[Dimensio]

My assertion is that if you teach kids they are animals, they will act like animals.

Which ultimately is meaningless, because you've not explained what it is to "act like animals".

Evolution teaches that humans are nothing more than evolved animals.

Some theists who accept evolution would beg to differ with that premise. But accepting it, so what?

This is the p. Now by my assertion p -> q, since p is true it is logical for q to be true. So I stated q is true. Entirely logical given my assertion.

Okay, so what is q? Explain exactly what "acting like animals" entails. Animals eat, sleep, breathe, excrete, reproduce and die. So do all humans. Is that a bad thing, or are you just making a meaningless point?

I didn't state that the current situation proved my assertion to be true. I started with the assumption that my assertion was true.

But you failed to explain the significance of your assertion. You also failed to explain what your argument is trying to prove. Are you saying that we shouldn't teach evolution because you don't like the implications, regardless of how valid it is as a science? Or are you just typing so that you can read your own words?

I then added the sarcastic comment "Big surprise" because none of us should be surprised by p implies q.

Except that p doesn't necessarily imply q. You've failed to demonstrate that children will not "act like animals" if they are not taught evolution. Of course, your "logic" might be easier to understand or dismiss if you'd even explain what you mean by "acting like animals".

Now the post hoc ergo propter hoc comment is an attack on my assertion. Arguable, but the motivation for my assertion was not coincidental correlation.

No, the post hoc ergo propter hoc was a valid demonstration that you failed to show a logical link between your alleged starting premise and the alleged consequences. There's also the fact that you didn't even explain what you meant by your consequences, but I let that slide.

I started with the assumption that teaching kids something is in their nature will encourage characteristics of that nature.

Characteristics that you failed to even explain. You just threw out "they'll act like animals" as if that meant something in itself. Animals do a lot of things, so what is it specifically that children do when they "act like animals", and how does this affect the validity of the theory of evolution?

As for unsubstantiated, you can review the arguement about the civilizing influence of religion.

We're not talking about religion here, we're talking about evolution. Or are you also trying to push the lie that all who accept evolution are atheists?

[MEGoody]

So you are saying that Genesis is a scientific treatise?

No, I'm saying this Cardinal needs to mind his own church's business.

[aNYCguy]

My assertion is that if you teach kids they are animals, they will act like animals.

Which ultimately is meaningless, because you've not explained what it is to "act like animals".

Good catch of equivocation. Restated without the figurative equivocation, Tao Yin's argument is

"If you teach kids that humans belong to Kingdom Animalia, they will do very bad things."

Stated clearly, it's even less convincing, isn't it?

[pby]

The Hebrew word "chug" (choog) referenced in the passage (Isaiah 40:22) that Bondserv mentioned means "sphere" not flat circle.

[pby]

Believe it by faith like you do in evolution of birds from dinosaurs and the evolution of feathers themselves. You don't have solid evidence, or evidence at all, but you believe it.

[PatrickHenry]

a straightforward, fair, literal interpretation does not support the idea that the bible says the earth is spherical.

If the earth were spherical, statements like this would make no sense:

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

[Dimensio]

You don't have solid evidence, or evidence at all, but you believe it.

Why should I take you seriously when you repeat lies like this?

[pby]

Do you know exactly "what" the devil showed Him and "how" he specifically showed it to Him (without making any assumptions)?

To reach your conclusion you have assumed that from that high mountain, and via a flat plain, one could see what...the entire world?

What is normal visiblity (in distance) on a clear day from that high mountain? Could all of the existing kingdoms in the world be seen in that visible distance? Was it even a clear day?

You don't know and therefore you can not conclude that "if the earth were spherical, statements like this would make no sense".

[Doctor Stochastic]

Clausius's first formulation of the Second Law only stated that "not all energy in a system can be made to do work."

Carnot adumbrated this but not so formally.

[pby]

You don't believe that feathers evolved on dinosaurs?

Please provide the scientific data and evidence that conclusively proves that feathers evolved on dinosaurs; What did feathers evolve from on dinosaurs (scales, skin, what?); And what was the biological mechanism for the evolution of feathers on dinosaurs?

Other than your typical knee-jerk name calling, please provide evidence to substantiate your assertion that I lied.

[jwalsh07]

History has shown that the moral rules embodied in the Communist Manifesto are disastrous for a society.

Yup, so much for your theory on morality and society.

[Palisades]

Yup, so much for your theory on morality and society.

You miss my point. Our moral rules are based on long and painful experiences. Some societies figure out the right moral rules and they flourish. Others do not, and they fail.

Discovery of the proper moral rules in a society is a process based on trial and error.