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 ...
Precisely--which is why he got in trouble for it. He was teaching as FACT that which was not, at that time, sufficiently proven as fact.
And he was wrong, to a degree, too. The Sun isn't the center of the Universe, it's the center of the solar system--another idea that suffered the advent of *more information*.
"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..."
Problem was, the Church decided to become the arbiter of what was science. It was not Galileo's fault that his work contradicted Biblical interpretations; it was the fault of those who adhered to these Biblical interpretations despite the evidence to the contrary.
As for Copernicus, he died when his book was published, and therefore didn't life to see his theory's reception. It was understood by theologians that the heliocentric view was helpful in many calculations, but that it was not PHYSICALLY true. They also didn't believe that the Ptolemaic view was entirely physically correct either, but it was mathematically useful. They put their foot down though at any suggestion the earth moved.
And I think it has been answered--evil comes from an absence of God. We reject God when we sin. Thus, WE create evil.
I apologize. I didn't realize that you had been appointed King of the World.
Ah yes. I see my error.
Jack's got it going.
"Reproduction didn't evolve. Reproduction was a prerequisite before evolution could occur in the first place."
The Church was the "bodyguard" of the Bible and promoter of science, and Galileo came along tossing BOTH upside-down. It wasn't just Catholics that interpreted Genesis the way it was interpreted.
And though Copernicus didn't live to see the reception, he was, nonetheless, the recipient of accolades from the Church for his work. "His reputation was such that as early as 1514 the Lateran Council, convoked by Leo X, asked through Bishop Paul of Fossombrone, for his opinion on the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar. His answer was, that the length of the year and of the months and the motions of the sun and moon were not yet sufficiently known to attempt a reform. The incident, however, spurred him on as he himself writes to Paul III, to make more accurate observations; and these actually served, seventy years later, as a basis for the working out of the Gregorian calendar....---Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadically, to our own days. A list of many of their Pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV. New editions were issued in Basle (1566) by Rheticus; in Amsterdam (1617) by Müller of Göttingen, in Warsaw (1854) an edition de luxe with Polish translation and the real preface of Copernicus; and the latest (5th) in Torun (1873) by the Copernicus Society, on the four hundredth anniversary of the author's birthday, with all the corrections of the text, made by Copernicus, given as foot-notes. A monument by Thorwaldsen was erected to Copernicus in Warsaw (1830), and another by Tieck at Torun (1853). Rheticus, Clavius, and others called Copernicus the second Ptolemy, and his book the second "Almagest." His genius appears in the fact that he grasped the truth centuries before it could be proved. If he had precursors they are to be compared to those of Columbus. What is most significant in the character of Copernicus is this, that while he did not shrink from demolishing a scientific system consecrated by a thousand years' universal acceptance, he set his face against the reformers of religion."
As for Galileo:
"It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm (Copernicus)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm (Galileo)
I forgive you (I am a benevolent ruler).
In order to understand why it is accepted in the scientific community, and elsewhere, you need to understand the philosophy of science, and what constitutes a "proof." Nothing can ever be proven absolutely except deductively. Evolution is understood inductively. Of course Hume had doubts about induction--sort of like the Uncertainty Principle: you can never be sure with induction. But if we threw it away as a principle of science, there would be very few scientific truths, maybe none.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm a Protestant but appreciate the Catholic Church more than many do. I don't believe it to be the "one true church" or I'd be a Catholic myself. That doesn't mean I consider it "the whore of Babylon". Ultimately, I don't believe we'll be judged by our church affiliation, but by our faith in and relationship with Christ. Yes, I'm aware of the good and bad history of the RCC. As I said in my original post on this thread, I'm not here to bash the church, but I do believe they are wrong in regards to evolution. As you have pointed out yourself, the church is not infallible and has made mistakes in the past. That was my only point. I'm frankly surprised they have taken such a liberal position. The new pope has had many good things to say that I agree with when I've read or heard his comments.
Bacon would be proud of you!
You are exactly right. It's what Gilbert Ryle would call a category mistake, like comparing oranges and fruit.
The Church doesn't "support evolution." It doesn't discount it, but it says that NO MATTER the mechanism for our being here, GOD did it. It was divinely inspired, divinely instituted, and divinely guided. So if it was us evolving from primordial ooze, God arranged it. If it was us appearing under cabbage leave, God did it. The Church has an interest in Truth, and a fuller understanding of God's creation is the surest path to truth. There is evidence to support evolution, just as there are arguments to diminish it. Point is, even if we hatched from giant eggs in the middle of the ocean, God did it.
As for "I don't believe we'll be judged by our church affiliation, but by our faith in and relationship with Christ," I agree. Christ said He is the way, truth, and light, and no one can go to the Father but through Him. I see that as (if you will forgive the analogy) Jesus being a bouncer for Club Heaven--He says who gets in or who has to go down the street to Studio 54.
And perhaps at that point the species were immutable. The Fall of Man, with our subsequent domination of the planet, possibly assured that the age of major evolutionary changes was over. After all, Adam did name the animals. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but everything in there is meant to tell us something, usually something impossible for people to comprehend at that time. Adam's naming of the animals is possibly meant to tell us that evolution--in terms of species' changing--was over at that point.
Well, then you are disputing this story from the very first sentence which states: "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..."
What other conclusion can I come to than the RCC wants evolution taught to school children but nothing that might conflict with that theory because it would "cause confusion"? Whether you want to call taking such a stand "supporting evolution" or not, I would certainly conclude that it is. Of course, they are free to espouse whatever beliefs they want. On this one, I disagree.
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.