Posted on 01/30/2006 6:37:09 AM PST by PatrickHenry
God's motto is "I AM" not "I EVOLVE". You want that, go to Hinduism.
Very true in the sense the intelligent design advocates are trying to fit God into a humanistic framework. This will never work and is an insult to God, IMO. They are approaching the origin and expansion of life from their (flawed) human perspective and assuming God designed the universe according to their narrow, human viewpoint. At least science respects religion enough to never make any conclusion about the role of God, leaving that to one's faith.
You mean "remnant."
Cute word play. But irrelevant.
Your post demonstrates perfectly how this is an argument over religious dogma, not science. Some Christian denominations have chosen to again attack science as if it were a competing faith.
They are quickly failing, again, because science is not faith, it is reality.
But man cannot worship God "in spirit and in truth" without understanding His Word - the Bible. The Holy Spirit of God gives man understanding of what He wrote and one passage that relates to this whole topic is 1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."
Your name does not to be Timothy for this to apply to you :-)
This is coming from the same group that persecuted those that said the earth revolves around the sun.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
That isn't rational thought you are smelling. You stepped in something.
On a related note, the other day, I hurried out of the house to catch the bus. Once on the bus, I relaxed in my seat. The lady who sat in the seat in front of me had a distinct odor.
I thought, "WHat an unusual perfume. She put it on pretty strong. By the time my stop came, I was gagging.
Sitting at my desk, I still smell the lady's "perfume". In actuality, in my haste leaving the house, I had stepped in a "package" that a neighborhood dog left in my yard.
Excellent short definition of (real) Creationism.
Of course popular antievolutionary creationism is not pantheistic or naturalistic either. Instead it is deistic. It wants to point to a God who is "needed" to explain certain phenomena in the natural world, on the presumption that natural causes are inadequate because they lack or exclude God. But the corollary to a God who is occasionally present is a God who is occasionally ABSENT; which is deism. Likewise the assumption that natural causes exclude God, or can be sufficient (even of limited sufficiency) without God, is to exile God from portions of reality, which is again deistic as opposed to theistic.
True. They attacked science and lost. As creationists have done continually since Scopes.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
True. Which is another example how creationism is just a mere disagreement within the Christian faith. It really should not involve science, as science is not faith based. But unfortunately some segment of Christians have chosen to attack science. They are failing, just as the Catholics failed against Galileo.
That is an over-simplified summary of the historical record.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
He may be a priest who also happens to be the chief Vatican astronomer, but he has no theological teaching position in the Catholic Church. He is only giving his personal opinion.
Indeed. ID, although less bad on the grounds of ludicrous biblical interpretation, is arguably WORSE than "creation science" in regard to the theology of creationism. It is even more insistently "God, er, 'Intelligent Designer,' of the gaps" oriented than old fashioned creationism, and therefore equally or more deistic as opposed to theistic.
And his personal opinion on the subject agrees with John Paul II.
True. There are also many varieties of deistic creationism as well. As much as I don't believe in evolution, I don't think it is literally-true that God created in six 24-hour days several millenia ago.
This message from the Vatican is sure to be upsetting to those whose religious faith is easily shaken by the mere existence of science and evolution. But those whose faith is solid will welcome this as an affirmation of their beliefs and of the value of science.
Who has been deceased for almost a year. I should really post an article from a few months back about the big argument going on in Vatican circles over intelligent design vs. evolution.
So you throw out chunks of the Bible, and throw out chunks of science too. OK.
That is what the creators of the "Wedge Document" would like to have you believe.
It's not a matter of "throwing out." It's a matter of interpretation. Evolution may be the best "scientific" explanation for life, but it has a hard time explaining how life began.
"Wedge document"?
So now church doctrine will now change?
I should really post an article from a few months back about the big argument going on in Vatican circles over intelligent design vs. evolution.
Since church doctrine can change so easily, were they wrong about God two years ago, or wrong today? Pick one.
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.