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."

[SoothingDave]

Now if evolution is correct, then death must be good. And yet, the serpent told Eve that she would most certainly not die if she eats of the fruit. If death was not part of creation, then it is logically inconsistent to suppose that it was the mechanism through which God created man (or even the rest of the animal kingdom).

Without death there would be no Resurrection. "Unless a seed falls to the ground..."

Death is good, because Jesus made it so.

You confuse bodily death with spiritual death. Animals don't have spiritual eternal life, so it really does not matter if their bodies live or die.

Humans are important. And Adam and Eve did have eternal spiritual life. When they fell, they lost fellowship with God, they lost eternal spiritual life. It's not about their bodies and it's not about whether animals lived or died before Adam and Eve.

(P.S The serpent was lying.)

SD

[Liberal Classic]

You're welcome. I haven't read the page by Helen Fryman, but I'll do so.

While we're on the topic, here's a page I think is topical. It's a page by a man named Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist and Orthodox Jew. He would probably be considered an "old earth creationist" in these debates:

Teaching About God In The Classroom

The Kansas Board of Education recently decided to allow schools to make their own determination about which mix of "evolution versus creation" to teach in their classrooms. This decision set off a tumult in the scientific and theological world - as if leaving the issue "open" somehow spells defeat for one side or the other in this debate.

As a nuclear physicist who has served on the staff of MIT and as a member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I have undertaken extensive research of the natural world in light of the Biblical account. My conclusion? I see no contradiction between them whatsoever.

So what's all the fuss about?

If I had to assign chief blame for the ongoing struggle between science and religion and the resulting erosion of biblical credibility, it would be to the leaders of organized religion. Since Nicolaus Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of our solar system, their kneejerk reaction to scientific discovery has been to deny its validity. Yet what does the position of the Earth have to do with belief in a creator of the universe or the validity of the Bible?! Nowhere does the text claim that Earth is central to anything. In fact, the very first sentence of the Bible - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) - places the heavens before Earth. As scientific data demonstrating the Sun's centrality accumulated, the Church was forced into embarrassed retreat. So today, the popular perception is that science had proven the Bible wrong. In reality, the claim of Earth's centrality had nothing to do with the Bible.

Similarly, Kepler's discovery of the elliptical orbit of the planets did not sit well with the religious establishment. Circles were perfect geometric shapes, ellipses are defective. An infinitely powerful God would be expected to produce perfect orbits. Of course, the Bible doesn't teach that a circle is better than an ellipse! Yet the Church condemned Kepler's discovery.

Then, Charles Darwin appeared on the scene. The thought that life in general (and humans in particular) had developed from lower life forms was simply unacceptable to the Church. The concept of evolution was condemned as heretical, notwithstanding the fact that Darwin in the closing lines of his book attributed the entire evolutionary flow of life to "its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms or into one." Nonetheless, the gauntlet of heresy had been thrown down.

Judaism views this whole issue much differently.

The medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible. Our Sages always viewed Torah knowledge in light of prevailing scientific theory. In fact, Jewish law states:

"Only wise and understanding men are to be appointed to the Sanhedrin. They must be experts in Torah law, with a wide breadth of knowledge. They must also know secular subjects like medicine, mathematics, astrology and astronomy." (Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, chapter 2)

So where does the problem lie? In that acknowledged experts in science may assume that although scientific research requires diligent intellectual effort, biblical wisdom can be attained through a simple reading of the Bible.

Yet how can such a strange and poetic text be read literally? Two millennia ago, long before paleontologists discovered fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, long before data from the Hubble and Keck telescopes hinted at a multibillion-year-old universe, the Talmud (Chagiga 12b) stated explicitly that the opening chapter of Genesis, all 31 verses, is presented in a manner that intentionally conceals information. Furthermore, Moses, on the day of his death, exhorted the people three times to read the Bible as a text having within it a subtext harboring multiple meanings (Deut. 31:19,30; 32:44).

From a Jewish perspective, the conflict over the Kansas school board decision is ironic. Maimonides wrote that science is one of the primary paths to knowing God, and for that reason the Bible commences with a description of the Creation. Throughout the Bible, knowledge of God is compared with the wonders of nature, as stated so well in Psalms (19:2): "The heavens tell of God's glory, and the sky declares his handiwork."

The first step in a rapprochement between science and Bible is for each camp to understand the other. Distancing the Bible from a few misplaced theological shibboleths will do wonders in furthering this mutual understanding.

[Blessed]

>Yes, they existed. Yes, they play important roles in our salvation history. <

How can Adam play an important role in our salvation if he was not literaly who the Bible says he was?

[SoothingDave]

How can Adam play an important role in our salvation if he was not literaly who the Bible says he was?

He was who the Bible says he was -- the first man and progenitor of our species, the man who disobeyed God in grasping for knowledge of good and evil, and found himself fallen and in need of redemption.

I do believe God formed him from the earth, just in a different way than one who takes a literal approach to the creation tale.

SD

[i.l.e.]

There is a lot of evidence supporting both evolution and the divine creation of human beings.

[little jeremiah]

I don't see that my answers are random. I was trying to address your questions.

Things can appear random but be part of a plan for those who don't know or can't see the plan or the big picture. But since the TOE is based on actual randomness and chance, and stoutly denies any plan or planmaker, to try to fit the TOE and the understanding of God planning a creation is trying to fit two things together that just don't agree.

[SoothingDave]

Do you believe God could use a process of creation that appears random to us, but is, in fact, an elaborate plan?

Or can't God do that?

SD

[Blessed]

>I do believe God formed him from the earth, just in a different way than one who takes a literal approach to the creation tale. <

Do you have a orderly and consistent way of determining what is literal and what is figurative other than it doesn't fit my hypothesis therefor it can't be literal?

[marty60]

Frankly, I have always believed this, especially when GOD said a day is like a thousand years to him.God made the ameoba etc etc. It is the SCIENTIST that take the Bible literally to mean 7 days. GOD doesn't.

[Ditto]

Throughout the Bible, knowledge of God is compared with the wonders of nature, as stated so well in Psalms (19:2): "The heavens tell of God's glory, and the sky declares his handiwork."

Ditto that. Personally, when it comes right down to it, the unimaginable vastness of the Universe, the incomprehensible complexity of life, and the fundamental contradiction of the beginning and ending of time itself do more to lead me to a Creator that any priest, preacher or rabbi could ever hope to accomplish. The latter serve their purpose as wise councilors and spiritual mentors, but the awe of Creation itself is enough to convince all but the most arrogant, that every thing in this universe can only be the work of a God so powerful, he could have done it anyway he wanted.

Those who choose to damn the concept of evolution may well be (and IMHO, are) damning God's work.

[SoothingDave]

Do you have a orderly and consistent way of determining what is literal and what is figurative other than it doesn't fit my hypothesis therefor it can't be literal?

I am free to believe whatever I like as long as I don't go out of the bounds set by the Church. The Church requires I believe Adam was a real person and really fell and we all really inherited the fallen state from him.

I am not required to believe God made the world in 6 literal days and literally formed him from a ball of dirt.

I just don't see the necessity of taking the creation tale as a history or science lesson when it clearly was not written for that. I can't reconcile it with what I know from science.

I will continue tomorrow. Have a good night.

SD

[Blessed]

>Those who choose to damn the concept of evolution may well be (and IMHO, are) damning God's work.<

And those who have less faith than a mustard seed may be missing a blessing and who knows what else.

Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

[raygun]

What you said is absolute utter farcical nonsense.

First off, man has both a physical and spiritual body. The latter being the soul. The soul lives eternally. Spiritual death is that of eternal and infinite separation from God. This occured immediately at the fall. That is the greatest distance in all of the universe and heavens: between man and God. That physical death did not occur immediately is immaterial.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be making some argument about soul annihilation. That's heretical poppycock. Secondly, that animals don't have souls is immaterial if not irrelevent and whether or not their bodies live or die is not even germane. What is at issue is whether or not physical death existed prior to the fall.

In Gen 2:17 the Lord spelled out the rules. He stipulated that this means death. The Hebrew word used is Müth. According to Zhodiates, this word means

to die, to kill, slay, bring to death, have one executed. Scriptures present death as being unnatural as something which God did not to happen, but which is very necessary. God takes no pleasure in it (Ez 18:342). But it is [emph. mine] a result of sin (Gen 3:3). A holy God must separate Himself from anything which is not in harmony with His character.

Strongs #04191 (müwth, mooth) a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.

According to Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, by Vine, Unger & White:

This verb occurs in all Semitic languages (including biblical Aramaic) from the earliest times, and in Egyptian. The verb occurs about 850 times in the biblical Hebrew and in all periods.

Essentially, müwlt means "to lose one's life." The word is used of physical [emph. mine] death, with reference to both man and animal. Gen 5:5 records that Adam lived "nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." Jacob explains to Easu that were his livestock to be driven to hard (fast), the young among them would die. In Job 14:8 it is used of a stump of a plant.. Occasionally müwlt is used figuratively of land (Gen 33:13), or of wisdom (Job 12:2). Then too, is the hyperbolic expression that Nabal's heart had died within him (I Sam 25:37).

In an intensive stem, this root is used of the last act inflcted upon one who is already near death (Judge 9:54). In the usual causative stem, this verb can mean "to cause to die" or "to kill"; God is the one who "puts to death" and gives life (Dt. 32:39)...This word means putting to death in the broadest sense, including war and judicial sentances of execution (Josh. 10:26).

There is absolutely no hermeneutical basis for your assertion, except for that's what you want it to mean so as to reconcile your belief in evolution. The rest of your argument that death is good because without it there'd be no Resurrection, or because Jesus made it so is worse than specious.

You did get one thing right: the serpent did lie.

[Wolfstar]

Just for reference and future study, give me some examples of other religious fundamentalists with similar attitudes as mine if you don't mind.

Religious fundamentalism is defined as a movement or attitude stressing strict, rigid and literal adherence to the religion's elemental (fundamental) beliefs. Fundamentalism exists in all religions. However, some religious fundamentalists are more benign than others.

BTW, Christianity, even defined as simply you did, is most definitely a religion. However, one can be a Christian without belonging to any of the multiple organized Christian denominations.

[Blessed]

>I can't reconcile it with what I know from science.<

Not trying to get last word just getting this thought down in case thread grows.

How does reconcilling creation with science increase your faith and dependence on God? Isn't that what Adam shows us that God's provision is more important than our"aquiring the knowledge"?

[Ditto]

And those who have less faith than a mustard seed may be missing a blessing and who knows what else.

I'm not sure what you are implying, but it sounds as if some only respect unquestioning faith in scripture and not an informed and reasoned faith in the God of that same scripture.

Are information (knowledge) and human reasoning always evil things, or are they another gift from God that can be used for good or bad?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The theory of evolution does no such thing. It says changes occur over time, due to stimulus of their environment, it does not say that such changes are not directed by larger forces.<<<

I believe the belief that changes occur due to environmental conditions is Lamark's, not Darwin's. Darwin believed that the variation already existed and that nature just selected the most "survivable", from which came the phrase "survival of the fittest".

[Windsong]

Well if they cant get Baptism right, certainly they won't "get" the story of creation!

[curiosity]

How does reconcilling creation with science increase your faith and dependence on God?

It's what stops me from losing my faith. If I could not reconcile my faith with science, then I would conclude that my faith is false. Faith cannot contradict reason.

[todd1]

I'm Catholic and I was taught that man wrote it but it was the inspired word of God...

If I'm right can I get a prize? :o)