Jim tolerates the "parasites" of evolution in the same way he tolerates those who read Genesis like a history book.
Anyone who reads Scripture literally has no understanding of the Bible.
OK.
Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.
* I could point out to you instances where you have quoted Holy Writ and intended it to be taken literally.
If one doesn't take something literally, does that mean they take it relatively?
So, do you believe in a Resurrection; before making such baseless statements, a suggestion. YOU are the one who seems to have a limited understanding of Scripture, and you should read more often.
That is an interesting comment coming from a deacon of the Catholic Church. So, Jesus isn't the Son of God?