THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EMBRACES EVOLUTION!!!!

MuscleHead Revolution ^ | 11.14.2005 | Kevin McCullough

[jodiluvshoes]

In a remarkably odd statement this past week, the Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin!

In fact Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture said that "if the Bible were read correctly" that the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible."

"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".

He went on to advocate that the idea of creation is a theological one, while the substance of origins is a scientific one and that Catholics should "know" how science sees such things so as to "understand better."

[Petronski]

They also put an 's' in words like criticise and utilise.

[SoothingDave]

>To simply approach the text as piecemeal nuggets of absolute truth which can be divorced from context and applied as one sees fit is to do a disservice to its meaning. <

To treat God's word as simply a piece of literature and put more emphasis on the thoughts and context of the transcriber than the author is to twist its meaning.

Who said we regard it "as simply a piece of literature"?

Like I said, it is divinely inspired. But it is also literature and it helps to understand what was being written, by whom, to whom and why.

I find it hard to understand why this is a troubling idea to you. Shouldn't we take these things into consideration?

And, by the way, the human author is more than a "transcriber." He did not fall into a trance and find his arm magically writing words. This may be a large part of your difficulty in understanding the Bible, if you regard the humans as mere thoughtless automatons.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You should see how they spell "tire."

SD

[Petronski]

"Tyres" is still not as bizarre as the French word: "les pneus," pronounced "layp nu."

Sheesh.

[Petronski]

He did not fall into a trance and find his arm magically writing words.

That's how Stephen King does it, although it's not God on the other end...

[MEGoody]

That's the correct British spelling.

Ah, that explains it.

[SoothingDave]

That's how Stephen King does it, although it's not God on the other end...

LOL. Do you remember when we all thought Jaromir Jagr had a lot of hair sticking out from under his helmet?

SD

[Petronski]

Yes. "***gasp*** He should cut that!"

[little jeremiah]

The very basis of the theory of evolution is chance, and the understanding of God as the creator means that all of creation had a conscious plan and design - and purpose -(and I'm not even talking literal Biblical creationism, to which I do not adhere), so the two are mutually exclusive.

To say that God is the creator, and evolution is true, is to be either a glaring hypocrite, stupid, or a liar.

[SoothingDave]

Now Palomalu makes Jagr look like a boy scout.

[SoothingDave]

The very basis of the theory of evolution is chance, and the understanding of God as the creator means that all of creation had a conscious plan and design - and purpose -(and I'm not even talking literal Biblical creationism, to which I do not adhere), so the two are mutually exclusive. To say that God is the creator, and evolution is true, is to be either a glaring hypocrite, stupid, or a liar.

Either that, or what appears to be "chance" is actually God's design unfolding.

SD

[Salvation]

NOT!

[swain_forkbeard]

Is it not possible that the eventual manifestations of God's plan might seem to us to be random events?

Does a design imply a purpose? What if the entire purpose of a design is the design itself?

I don't think I can imagine what consciousness is like for God. Do you think you can?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I think the article says more about the manmade rift between "evolutionists" and "creationists" than about any dogma or change of dogma within the Catholic church.

I don't think most "creationists" have a problem with the idea of evolving within the genetic code of a species. This is what Darwin observed, thus the title of his work, "Origin of Species (not kingdom)." Creationists just don't believe in evolving from one species into the genetic code of another species, and they believe that the original forms of life, however rudimentary they were, were begun by some "thing" greater than all of us.

The most vehement of "evolutionists," those that use Darwin as a defense of atheism, try to trace back evolution to cross the lines of genetic species to an original, singular life form that spontaneously appeared (was not created) and from which all other species originated.

This is the major bone of contention between the two sides. And neither side, despite their swearing they have all the proof in the world, has 100% infallible evidence to prove their cases. Both sides have some "faith" in their belief thrown into the equation, which probably explains the arguments here on FR that almost always end up sounding like a shouting match between the adherents of two "orthodox" religions.

[attiladhun2]

Except the fact that evolution, as it is taught in the universities, precludes a Creator. Neo-Darwinism teaches that you can believe in a Creator, if you like, but what you are essentially doing is believing in something akin to the tooth-fairy. The modern theory of evolution advances the notion that everything in the universe can be accounted for on the basis of naturalism; there is no spirit, there are no miracles, there is no need for a Creator. So if you hold to the doctrine of evolution, and yet believe in a Creator, you are holding to a self-refuting concept. Either God is the Creator and evolution is false; or there is no God, and everything came about by means of a naturalistic process.

[Wolfstar]

He created the Earth before the cosmos.

It's not becoming of an FR poster.

I understand that you are espousing your religions faith, and wish to respect your right to your beliefs. However, from every point of view other than religious dogma, what is unbecoming is the breathtaking ignornace in your post.

I also understand fully that there is no use discussing such subjects with rigid religious fundamentalists, no matter what religion they practice.

[Salvation]

Pope states the universe is a product of an "intelligent project"

Pope says universe made by 'intelligent project'

[little jeremiah]

But since the very foundation of the TOE is chance, no plan, no design, and no purpose, it's just craziness to try to superimpose them on each other and claim "Look - they fit together perfectly!"

They cancel each other out. One is right, and one is wrong. And again, I am not a Biblical literalist in the creation department.

[toadthesecond]

Given that 40% of the world isn't Christian

I thought the percentage of non-christians was around 65%

[SoothingDave]

But since the very foundation of the TOE is chance,

Is this true? Or is it just how things are observed to be, lacking any proof of divine guidance?

no plan, no design, and no purpose, it's just craziness to try to superimpose them on each other and claim "Look - they fit together perfectly!"

Can you not conceive of how they fit together perfectly? I will grant you that if "evolution" means "there is no creator, only random chance," you have a point that they contradict.

But if "evolution" is taken to mean that life forms change and adapt over time, there is no contradiction. There is nothing inhernetly contradictory about believing that God may have created life in such a way that it evolved over time.

SD