Why not archaic? 
Posted on 10/04/2005 12:21:01 PM PDT by Junior
PARIS (Reuters) - A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of "intelligent design" against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as "one of the very great works of intellectual history."
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.
Schoenborn's view, presented in a lecture published by his office on Tuesday, tempered earlier statements that seemed to ally the Church with United States conservatives campaigning against the teaching of evolution in public schools.
A court in Pennsylvania is now hearing a suit brought by parents against a school district that teaches intelligent design -- the view that life is so complex some higher being must have designed it -- alongside evolution in biology class.
"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday.
"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.
Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.
"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.
JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING?
Schoenborn, who ranked among the papal hopefuls last April, caused an uproar in the United States last July with a New York Times article that seemed to say the Church no longer accepted evolution and backed intelligent design.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that Darwin's natural selection theory is flawed and alternatives should be taught.
Scientists reject this as a disguised form of Creationism, the literal belief in Creation as described in the Bible and barred by the U.S. Supreme Court from being taught in public schools.
Even Catholic scientists, including chief Vatican astronomer Rev. George Coyne S.J., contested Schoenborn's view.
In his lecture, Schoenborn said his article had led to misunderstandings and sometimes polemics. "Maybe one did not express oneself clearly enough or thoughts were not clear enough," he said. "Such misunderstandings can be cleared up."
Schoenborn said he believed God created "the things of the world" but did not explain how a divine will to bring about mankind would have influenced its actual evolution.
"They were so to speak let free into their own existence," he said.
He revealed to them what they could understand in terms they could understand.
When your 3 year old child asks where babies come from, how do you explain it to her?
Who are the pigs you were referring to in your previous post?
You advise people to avoid flame wars but then you call the opposition pigs. A classic do as i say not as I do moment.
When an interpretation of the data defies God's revealed Word, it is the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
So obviously it is faulty interpretation of the data -- in this case of geography -- were we to suggest that the Apostle Paul was incorrect in claiming that the gospel had been preached throughout the whole world, as he did for instance in Colossians 1:6 and 23; Romans 1:8, 10:18 and 16:19?
I just need some clarification... Should we conclude that the populations of the Americas, Australia, The Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Far-East Asia, etc, never really existed at all, or where they and their cultures created ex nihilo sometime after the 1st Century?
Or is it just possible that we might sometimes have to look beyond the plain meaning of scripture because it conflicts with merely secular human discovery? I know it's possibly an earth-shattering concession for you to make, but whadaya think?
No. He, AFAIK, had little to do with the banning. Little jeremiah posted a gloating followup when the deed was done.
Why not archaic?
but don't roll in the dirt with the pigs; you get dirty, but the pig likes it.
Oink, oink.
A Cardinal, eh? - God said "after their own kind" and now this cardinal thinks he has the authority to overrule God?
Why doesn't he just admit that he's an atheist? He shames the church with his mindless mutterings.
(If that's too obscure--they were lost in transit in 1941 and haven't been seen since.)
|
In Memoriam.
|
Are you implying that God intentionally misrepresented the truth throughout Scripture because we were not capable of grasping it?
Your interpretation of Scripture might be consistent with any individual piece of evidence, but it is wildly at variance with the evidence as a whole.
perhaps it is mans interpretation of the natural world that is incorrect
Sorry - but the conflict was between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
The bible is not a credible science book. Have you ever seen the sun stop in it's tracks for a day? Or are we throwing out conservation of angular momentum as well?
Maybe the DIM/PC/Postmodern Deconstructionist strategy of delving into dead peoples' notebooks of random musings, speculations, and thoughts and using them to discredit what people stood for when they were alive has cross pollinated.
The evolution of makeup speaks loudly:
Are you trying to refute something I wrote?
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.
