Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph
PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...
A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Evolution is about as "unproved" as who killed Nichole Simpson. And for the same reason, microbiology. The links discovered in the gritty details of human and chimp genomes make it clear that there was a common ancestor. Not just "similarities" that creationists claim merely mean a common creator. But actual details, base pair mistakes, evidence of ancient infections in common, lots of evidence.
In just the last few years, the evidence confirming evolution, particularly the common ancestry of humans and apes has grown significantly, even while evolutions detractors scream louder and claim that their ability to scream means evolution is a theory "in trouble". Yeah, right.
Oh sheesh...
Mary being sinless--how many other times in the Bible did the angel Gabriel run around telling people, personally, "Hail, full of grace"? And if she's full of grace, how can there be any room for sin? And if she gave birth to Christ the Man, how can something pure come from something dirty? Remember, Christ was true God AND true Man.
One child, Jesus--On the Cross, Jesus told Mary that her son was John, and John that his mother was Mary. Does that make John Jesus' brother? Or perhaps you should look at the usage of language and realize that you cannot apply our translations to their meanings:
"When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14)."
Question: Is evil a product of evolution? Where did evil come from? God (through the Bible) tells us where evil came from, and what the solution is to it. What scientific theory addresses the problem of evil?
It supports science--you can't say it supports evolution any more than you can say it opposes it. God has always been the author--what language He writes is up to us to decipher.
Because it isn't accidental if God did it. If God started evolution, and guided it, how does evolution discount God? ID proponents and atheists (and allies) are the only people who remove God from evolution. The rest of us aren't nearly so brazen as to pronounce "No, God didn't do it like that."
Your post leads me to believe you haven't spend much time actually RESEARCHING "them"...
They're incompatible only in the sense that evolution is a convenient theory of the development of life which puts God out of the picture (IMHO, this is the main attraction of evolution to the evolutionists), and that ID puts God into the evolutionary process. It's not intelligent design, but the concept of an Intelligent Designer, which puts causes the Darwinists to foam.
Regarding your post #113...an excellent observation....this is exactly how I feel..
In fact, it's BECAUSE of the Church that there IS a Bible. Protestants only took books OUT. There are TONS of other works that can go in, but who's to know what belongs there? www.earlychristianwritings.com is a site that shows a sampling how much "religious" writings there are, and how little of it actually made it into the Bible...
Well-said, but then isn't this one of the basic weaknesses of science? I mean, to listen to some on these threads, science explains everything -- there isn't anything that ultimately doesn't have a scientific explanation. Not being able to explain, let alone affect, human depravity, should give "science" a decent shot of humility, and should encourage science to defer to other areas, such as religion or even philosophy, as legitimate arenas to address issues of morality and human behavior. But some (not all) project the attitude that if something can't be brought into a lab, quatified, measure, explained, and replicated, it isn't worth considering.
Viva il Papa. Despite the conventional wisdom, the Church has always been one of history's great advocates of science. Yet another quandary for the IDiots. Don't mess with the Pope, he'll run you over.
Ok, then enlighten me.
Right. Problem is, Galileo was a scientist who started attacking the interpretation of the Bible when he was questioned about the heliocentric model. Right or not, he was not a theologian, and that is what got him in trouble--with Protestants and Catholics alike. Again, Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model, and received accolades from the Church...
The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.
"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is a great book--points out all the ways in which "conventional wisdom" is not just wrong, but UTTERLY so. Like the fact that cathedrals were used not just for church but as OBSERVATORIES, and were built with this in mind.
No, that's not new. What *is* new is that they go on the record being dubious about the "Intelligent Design" movement masquerading itself as science.
Oh that's easy... I'll spoon feed you so you don't actually have to do any thinking for yourself...
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
These are two GREAT sites that can get you started. A hint: avoid any place that refers to the oldest Christian institution in the world as the "Whore of Babylon." And also religioustolerance.org. Should be called religiousINtolerance.
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.