Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

thisislondon.co.uk ^ | 04 September 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.

The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.

Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said from Rome. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".

"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."

Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- was "almost off the radar screen of the people in this group," he added. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally.

Fessio said Benedict took part in the discussions but said nothing different from previous public statements, in which he has recognised evolution as a scientific fact but argued that God ultimately created the world and all life in it.

As the Pope put it at his inaugural Mass after being elected in April 2005, "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

Annual get-togethers

Benedict, who taught theology at four German universities before becoming archbishop of Munich and then the Vatican's top doctrinal official, has held these annual get-togethers since the late 1970s. The international group debates in German.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has long been rejected in the United States by conservative Christians who want to have a Bible-based view of creation taught in public schools, where the church-state separation bars the teaching of religion.

More recently, Darwin's critics have campaigned to have "intelligent design" taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. President George W. Bush and other conservative politicians support this drive to "teach the controversy".

The "ID movement" does not name the designer as God, but its opponents say that is the logical conclusion and call this an unacceptable bid to sneak religion into the teaching of science.

Schools in some parts of the United States teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution but a Pennsylvania court banned it there last year, saying it was religion in disguise.

Catholic teaching accepts evolution as a scientific theory but disagrees with what it calls "evolutionism," the view that the story of life has no role for God as its prime author.

Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a close associate of the Pope, was one of four speakers who addressed the meeting. He raised eyebrows last year with a New York Times article that suggested the Catholic Church supported the "ID movement".

Schoenborn and Benedict have said several times over the past year that intelligence in the form of God's will played a part in creation and that neo-Darwinists who deny God any role are drawing an ideological conclusion not proven by the theory.

They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.

[Elsie]

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.

 

---

Ya think they ever opened up the BOOK during their 'pondering'???

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

 

 

NIV Genesis 2:18
   The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I sure hope EVOLUTION will make a helper suitable for him!"

 

(Modern translation paraphrase.)

[Elsie]

Some religious denominations reject evolution, and others are okay with it.

"Wide is the path..."

[Elsie]

Amen!

[Elsie]

 

Or put in simple language, evolution may have created us, but God created evolution, so ultimately God is still our creator.

 

Which 'GOD'?

 

The CHRISTIAN view of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in.

 

 

---

---

 

Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came to pass.

 

---

Indeed!!

---

Genesis 1

 

 1.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2.  Now the earth was  formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
 3.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

 

 

This is a GOD who creates by speaking; but; how LONG did it take?

 

Now Jesus was a man who had God-like powers.  Was HE God?   The Book says so.......

 

 

 

 

NIV Colossians 1:13-17
 13.  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
 14.  in whom we have redemption,  the forgiveness of sins. 
 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
 16.  For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
 17.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

 

NIV Revelation 4:11
   "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

 

 

NIV Revelation 10:6
   And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!

---

---

 

Notice that when this man speaks, things happen RIGHT NOW!   Not after some times passes and the body heals itself.

 

 

 

NIV Matthew 8:2-3

 2.  A man with leprosy  came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
 3.  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured  of his leprosy.

 

 

NIV Matthew 21:19
   Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

 

 

NIV Mark 1:41-42
 41.  Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
 42.  Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.

 

 

NIV Mark 5:41-42

 41.  He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
 42.  Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.

 

 

NIV Mark 10:51-52

 51.  "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.   The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
 52.  "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

 

 

NIV Luke 5:13

  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And Immediately the leprosy left him.

 

 

NIV Luke 5:24-25

 24.  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
 25.  Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.

 

 

NIV Luke 8:44

  She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and Immediately her bleeding stopped.

 

 

NIV Luke 13:12-13

 12.  When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity."
 13.  Then he put his hands on her, and Immediately she straightened up and praised God.

 

 

NIV Luke 18:42-43

 42.  Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."
 43.  Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

 

 

NIV Acts 9:33-35

 33.  There he found a man named Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years.
 34.  "Aeneas," Peter said to him, "Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and take care of your mat." Immediately Aeneas got up.
 35.  All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

 

 

NIV Matthew 8:13
 13.  Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

 

 

NIV Matthew 15:28
 28.  Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

---

---

 

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant;  how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

[Elsie]

I am bookmarking for posting to the CreoTrolls (assuming they have the wit to understand your post).

Some of us will merely amke jokes about sweaters for the E's to titter over.

[StJacques]

". . . P.S. You must have been taught by Jesuits!"

Well you're on the right track, though it would not be correct to say that I was "taught by Jesuits," so much as it would be to say that I was "influenced by Jesuits."

It would be long story for me to tell it all but let me just say that when I was attending what was then called the University of Southwestern Louisiana (now the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) I developed a close association with a number of Jesuits and Franciscans at St. Charles College, a Jesuit seminary located about 20 miles north of Lafayette, and I would join them informally on numerous occasions, and especially for seminars and discussions they would have on Latin America, as I had lived in both Colombia and Mexico. And not all too infrequently we would get together at a local restaurant or a Saturday barbeque at someone's home and enjoy wide-ranging discussions. I honestly cannot say that I ever discussed the Theory of Evolution with them, my own personal "long-term project" if I can call it that, was Catholic Theology and St. Augustine's writings on the "Just War," a topic I loved to discuss because I noticed it made priests nervous, which almost amounted to mischief on my part. But I was always very impressed with the educational background so many of these priests -- and a number of nuns as well -- had in their personal resumés. There were Ph.Ds and others with graduate degrees from such wide-ranging fields as Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, Physics, and even Microbiology among them and; across the wide spectrum of their number, from universities such as Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, Princeton, and more. Needless to say, it was a very intelligent group. But it did make a lasting impression upon me of the intellectual side of Roman Catholicism that has stuck with me to this very day. I lost touch with them all went I left to go to Graduate School at Texas A&M and I never renewed that association, I am sad to say.

[StJacques]

"If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??"

Actually, the truly puny impression of God is the one which limits the extent of his omniscience in denying that he can predetermine that the exact outcome of a contingent materialist process he created will be the emergence of the material form of modern man, waiting to have his spiritual soul created. When opponents of the Theory of Evolution argue against the contingent material development of man for religious reasons they frequently do so using language which typically states that evolution asserts the emergence of man as an accidental event, which cannot be true if God's omniscience is to be supported. But making this argument presupposes that God's intervention can only be as the primary cause of the material origins of mankind and, in doing so, denies that God is capable of acting through secondary causes, contingent upon the workings of the material processes he himself has created, to bring about man's material origin in the exact form he originally intended. To hold forth that the providential creation of the material form of man can only have been from God's direct action is to view God as incapable of creating a contingent material process whose result would be man as his material form is recognized. And any argument advanced which attaches a notion of incapable action to God is one which sees him as puny, since by design it limits the breadth of action God the creator may undertake.

What is frequently held up in argument against the possibility that God did not permit the material form of man to develop naturally is that the translated form of the written word of revelation; which in ordinary language says that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days, man as a gender before woman, and woman as a gender from man; tells us that the biblical story of creation negates the possibility of evolution as a sufficient cause for man's material origins. But even here there is a second theological error. Unlike the instance discussed above, in which denial of the possibility of God the creator acting through contingent material causes to create man's material form underasserts the scope of God's omniscience, here the mistake is to overassert the capabilities of human beings to understand the true nature of God. The written word of God as revealed in the Bible is presented to mankind with the warning, in both the Old and New Testaments, that man must be careful not to overestimate his abilities to understand the true nature of God, whose magnificent omniscience is beyond mortal comprehension. St. Paul himself notably made this argument to the Greeks in describing the primacy of faith over reason. So in their insistence upon taking the translated word of revelation contained in the biblical story of creation in the Book of Genesis as literal fact, which amounts to a positive conclusion that it must be literally true, proponents of the Creationist world-view demonstrate their belief that they do understand the true nature of God, by throwing all skepticism and contrary argument to the winds.

The two arguments which support the Creationist case can therefore be presented as not making merely one doctrinal error of Christian theology, but two. In the first instance God's omniscience is underasserted by the denial that he is capable of acting through the contingent material processes he created to bring about the precise result he desired. In the second instance humankind's rational ability to understand God's true nature is overasserted by holding forth the undeniability of the literal reading of the translated word of revealed truth contained in the creation account of the Book of Genesis. And it is in these twin errors that we can relate the extent of their divergence from Christian theological ethics.

The basic rule of a Christian life, as taken from separate biblical quotations first brought together in form by St. Augustine, is that a Christian is to live in this world without becoming of this world. As a theological argument this advances the notion that a Christian must recognize both his fallibility, in that he is commanded to live in the world never entertaining notions of his own perfection; as well as his own depravity, meaning that he must not become of the world and deny God what is rightfully his own. The Creationist argument for the biblical story of creation contained in the Book of Genesis is especially noteworthy in that it commits both errors simulataneously. On the one hand there is the fallible mistake of refusing to live in the world in asserting their own perfection in knowing God's true nature by their unquestioning postulation of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as true, even as it is contradicted by a mountain of established scientific observation. On the other hand there is the depraved error of limiting the boundaries of God's omniscience in restricting the notion of divine causality to God the creator as as a direct cause of man's material origin, denying that it is possible for God to achieve or fulfill his plan in exactly the manner in which he intends to do so through the very contingent material processes he created, which is reflective of human thought of this world, which denies God his due in the required human submission before his total omniscience.


Note to doc30:  This post, for its use of Augustine's "basic rule," was Jesuit-influenced

  

[PatrickHenry]

... proponents of the Creationist world-view demonstrate their belief that they do understand the true nature of God, by throwing all skepticism and contrary argument to the winds.

Another excellent post. The point I copied describes an attitude that I see endlessly displayed in the evolution threads. The scientists assert that they have sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution; although they are open-minded to the possibility of evidence which might indicate otherwise. In response, the creationists -- from a posture that presumes perfect comprehension -- assert that this contradicts everything God has revealed, which they assume to understand with unfailing perfection.

[andysandmikesmom]

What a wonderful post...I am copying it for myself to read and reread again...thanks, St.Jacques, you have a way with words, and quite eloquently have stated my very own thoughts on this matter, tho I could never be quite so eloquent..

[StJacques]

"it appears (and I haven't read the whole text) as though this isn't an endorsement of evolution but rather an allowance for the same."

I meant to post a response to this before I did my last post because, you are exactly correct. The Catholic Church will not endorse any scientific theory because all such scientific theories are materialistic by definition and therefore outside of the Church's purview.

[etlib]

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

As long as he wants!

[VictoryGal]

>> Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

> As long as he wants!

Exactly-- who are we finite beings to tell the infinite and timeless God that creating the world quickly is better than taking hundreds of millions of years?

BTW-- once again St. Jacques-- hit it out of the park with your excellent analysis.

[doc30]

Lately, it has been very rare for me to compliment someone on their well thought and well articulated postings. It is even rarer for me to download them for future reference. Thank you for your thoughts. Free Republic is much better because of your presence here.

[Elsie]

As a theological argument this advances the notion that a Christian must recognize both his fallibility, in that he is commanded to live in the world never entertaining notions of his own perfection; as well as his own depravity, meaning that he must not become of the world and deny God what is rightfully his own.

 

Ok, but it appears that some folks may disagree:

 

 

NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
   He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

 

NIV Matthew 5:48
   Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -- Jesus of Nazareth

 

NIV Matthew 19:21
   Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 

NIV 2 Corinthians 13:11
   Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you. -- Paul of Tarsus

 

 

[Elsie]

Note to everyone:


Evidently we can now dismiss all the verses in post #84.

---

NIV Proverbs 3:5-6
5. Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6. in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

[donh]

The Catholic Church will not endorse any scientific theory because all such scientific theories are materialistic by definition and therefore outside of the Church's purview.

Huh. So what did the Church imprison Galileo for, pray tell? Spitting on the sidewalk?

[donh]

The Catholic Church will not endorse any scientific theory

Well, now, that sort of depends on what "endorse" means. In the sense that the catholic church "endorses" the virgin birth, or the 10 commandments, or the principal of salvation thru Christ, I don't believe the National Science Council "endorses" any scientific theory either.

[StJacques]

There is a difference between aiming for perfection, which is something for which every Christian should strive, and achieving perfection, which every Christian should understand is impossible in this life. The origin of this view is in the story of the Fall from Grace of Adam and Eve, who were expelled from the Garden of Eden for original sin, thus tainting humankind with both their fallibility and depravity ever afterwards. They were expelled from the Garden of Eden to live "in the world."

It is in John Chapters 16 and 17, and especially Chapter 17 verses 11-20 while dying on the cross that Christ sums up the entirety of his work as a man sent "into the world" and pleads with the Father to recognize that his disciples are not "of the world," meaning they are not depraved, which is why the world hates them. This is what is achievable, man can avoid depravity by not being "of the world." But he cannot achieve perfection living "in the world." Only one man was ever able to do this and that was Jesus himself.

[StJacques]

The Catholic Church acknowledged its mistake in the handling of the inquisition of Galileo in October 1992 in Pope John Paul II's "Lessons of the Galileo Case." The Pope also issued an apology later on, within a larger apology acknowledging other mistakes of the inquisition, in March, 2000.

[donh]

The Catholic Church acknowledged its mistake in the handling of the inquisition of Galileo in October 1992 in Pope John Paul II's "Lessons of the Galileo Case." The Pope also issued an apology later on, within a larger apology acknowledging other mistakes of the inquisition, in March, 2000.

I'm very aware of this, the release some of the Inquistion's records has been fascinating to me. So a more precise claim would be that the Church doesn't "endorse" scientific theories as of 1992?