Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

Catholic News Service ^ | 2-1-2005

[nmh]

"Is the bible ever wrong or is every story true?"

Rephrased is God every wrong? Does God ever lie?

NO He is never wrong and He never lies.

Believe it or not!

[mike182d]

Space aliens? That is what ID is all about, right?

lol, well if there were enough evidence...

The point is that ID theorists recognize intelligence in other animals, especially human beings. Every "unnatural" thing that possesses attributes of design are rightly deduced as products of intelligent beings, and the depth in complexity is consistent with the depth of intelligence (i.e. stone "hammers" made by monkeys and super-computers made by humans). "Nature," even though I'm not quite sure what that is exactly but I'll use it for all intents and purposes, exhibits the very same characteristics of design. So, upon examining the whole of "nature's" existence through science, we discover that the whole of the cosmos indeed has a beginning and thus, as the universe itself appears created, as many tools created by animals are, and exhibits characteristics of intelligence in its design, there must therefore be existent a Creator outside of the whole of the cosmos responsible for "nature's" existence.

Its not quite as ludicrous as the straw men set up for it commonly is.

[tjwmason]

He created in six twenty four hour days and rested on the seventh. THAT is what the Bible says.

I beg to differ, as Origen of Alexandria said 1800 years ago "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first day, and second and third day, and the evening and the morning existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . .I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries".

[nmh]

" beg to differ, as Origen of Alexandria said 1800 years ago "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first day, and second and third day, and the evening and the morning existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . .I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries". "

---

Notice how you elevate a mere fallible mortal above what is written in the Bible to validate what you PREFER to believe. So sad.

[orionblamblam]

> Creation is no "myth"

Arguable.

> and it is not "vague".

Incorrect. What physical mechanisms did God use? Lay out the specifics in detail.

> there is no such thing as a "Christian evolutionist".

Ah, yes. Here we go: "Anyone who does not believe as I do is a heretic."

> Either you believe what He says in the Bible or you do not.

I've seen that one can believe the Bible without believing that it is all literal fact. Jesus used parables, did he not? Does it actually matter if there actually was a Good Samaritan? Or can you learn the lesson without it?

> The Bible does not support evolution in any manner.

Nor does it deny it. The Bible does not support relativity either, yet I doubt you'd care to sit on an H-bomb and push the button.

[Emmett McCarthy]

I do personally take a Christian view, but I admit that I do so as an act of faith fully acknowledging that scientifically credible evidence to support such a view has not been produced. The secularist view, on the other hand, seems to claim to have hard scientific evidence and I don't think that's true.

Both sides of the argument, of course, have their own anecdotal "evidence", but that doesn't rise to the level of scientific certainty for either view.

[Mark Felton]

What is your criteria for truth?

Jesus Christ is the criterion.

[mike182d]

A planet covered in books busilly consuming each other and available natural resources and breeding more books... that implies natural forces. Weird natural forces, maybe, but natural.

How does that imply natural forces? And what in the world is a "natural force," except that which we have no explanation for its occurance? Explain to me how an occuring event in nature is its own self-sufficient explanation for occuring?

[Emmett McCarthy]

Thank you for your post.

[orionblamblam]

> He never lies.

Izzat so?

1 Kg.22:23 "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
2 Chr.18:22 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
Jer.20:7 "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
Ezek.14:9 "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
2 Th.2:11 "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

[orionblamblam]

> How does that imply natural forces?

Because if you observe and inspect, you can work out the mechanisms involved.

> And what in the world is a "natural force," except that which we have no explanation for its occurance?

A question and its answer in one sentence. If we can explain it, it's natural.

> Explain to me how an occuring event in nature is its own self-sufficient explanation for occuring?

Explain to me how it is *not*.

[GarySpFc]

The only folks who are jumping ugly over this whole thing are far right fundamentalists and the far left aethiests.

Nonsense! Even far right fundamentalists do not believe Jesus was being literal when He commanded us to "Pluck out our eye," or to "Cut off our hand," or when He said, "I am the door."

[nmh]

Creation is no "myth"

You: Arguable.

"and it is not "vague".

"Incorrect. What physical mechanisms did God use? Lay out the specifics in detail."

I've got volumes of books on different theories that actually adhere to the laws of science. Here's a link full of books for you: http://www.icr.org/creationproducts/New_Products.html
I know better than to waste my time explaining how this can be. If you had genuine objective knowledge you'd have thought of it yourself. You have made a choice. You want to believe in evolution even though it defies the very laws of science you adore.

> there is no such thing as a "Christian evolutionist".

"Ah, yes. Here we go: "Anyone who does not believe as I do is a heretic."

Nope. Either you believe what is written or you don't. It's very clear. Creation took place in six literal twenty four hour days. For once in your life, be an adult. Admit you don't believe what God has stated. You cannot have it both ways. You are not a "heretic". You are simply a disbeliever. Does that make you feel better?

> Either you believe what He says in the Bible or you do not.

"I've seen that one can believe the Bible without believing that it is all literal fact. Jesus used parables, did he not? Does it actually matter if there actually was a Good Samaritan? Or can you learn the lesson without it?"

You've been fooled! We are talking about Genesis, not the Good Samaritan or parables. Stay focused.

> The Bible does not support evolution in any manner.

"Nor does it deny it. The Bible does not support relativity either, yet I doubt you'd care to sit on an H-bomb and push the button."

It does DENY it through six literal twenty four hour days! Till you can get beyond your own blind spot there is little point in discussing more with you. At least acknowledge that you don't believe what the Bible states very clearly about Creation.

[nmh]

And you point is?

[HamiltonJay]

And you didn't listen to what I said, I did not say the Bible was untrue. I said that it was not 100% literal. Failure to recognize the difference is the fundamental failing of the Aethiests who wish to dismiss the bible and the fundamentalists who wish to take every word as literal.

[Modernman]

For example, a fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution is that naturally species will go from simplicity to vast complexity by "natural selection."

(Sigh) No, it isn't.