Darwinian Evolution Incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and Author of Catholic Catechism

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 07.11.05

[Campion]

It's a historical fact that reading Copernicus' book would earn you death at the hands of the Church.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence for that "historical fact"?

Copernicus was a Catholic priest. AFAIK, he was never tried for heresy, or even formally accused of it.

[Campion]

Copernicus also had a brother who was an Augustinian monk, a sister who was a nun, and an uncle who was a bishop.

And he was buried in the Catholic cathedral where he had served.

Doesn't sound like a heretic to me.

[DennisR]

It would have been better to title this "Darwinian Evolution incompatible with Reality."

[Brilliant]

He wasn't a heretic, although he did wait until he was on his deathbed to release his book for fear of what the Church would do to him. But my point is that when it comes to science, the Church says one thing, and then later it might very well say the opposite thing. When they say that a particular branch of science is inconsistent with their faith, you've gotta remember that it's just their current interpretation of the Bible. In a few years, their interpretation might change, and then they'll say that it's not inconsistent. It's happened many times before. It happened with the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. But that is just one example.

[Brilliant]

He was not tried because he did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, for fear that he'd be persecuted. That's also a historical fact. All you've gotta do is look in a history book.

[Sun]

I figured there was more to this story.

Some people here seem to have an agenda. Hmmmmmmm

[Brilliant]

The whole Church did not, but the leadership did. Here's an example of a link.

http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/pre20th_europe_church.html

"The book was published in Latin, so the general public was not able to read it. Academics could, but few learned people were willing to face the Church and risk death. It wasn't even until 73 years after it was published, 1616, did the Church consider it important enough to place on its Index of Prohibited Books."


There are plenty more. I'm not sure you're understanding my point, though.

My point is simply that it's easy to interpret certain passages of the Bible to speak to scientific matters, but there are also interpretations of those passages that do not necessarily conflict with science. The Church takes a traditionalist approach. It assumes that its traditional interpretation of the Bible is the only possible one, and therefore that evolution is inconsistent with the Christian faith. It makes that assumption, just as it once made the same assumption in connection with the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. Ultimately, that particular position was disproven to virtually everyone's satisfaction, and of course, the Church now claims that the Bible is not inconsistent with the notion of a sun centered solar system, despite the traditional interpretation that prevailed at the time of Copernicus.

So if it's so easy to reinterpret these passages in the Bible, then why do they take these unyielding positions in the first place? Especially on matters that are not central to the Christian faith?

Stick to the basics--Jesus Christ and Him crucified. You don't need to rebut the scientist's version of evolution in order to get to that point, and popularizing the idea that you can't be a Christian if you believe in evolution is not a good strategy to win souls.

[editor-surveyor]

"The orthodox geocentric or Ptolemaic theory of the day involved "epicycles" to explain retrograde motion, and actually did fit the data better than Galileo's theory."

Absolutely. - In fact Ptolemy's model is still in use today in stellar navigation, and surveying. The U.S. military still teaches the method in the military academies, and also OCS. When GPS is down, it is the best way available.

[editor-surveyor]

" when it comes to science, the Church says one thing, and then later it might very well say the opposite thing"

The church cannot be seriously concerned with science, since it is the product of the fallible mind of man. The church seeks the mind of God.

[ScubieNuc]

so if God wishes for me to believe in him then at the appointed time I will.

God does want you to believe in Jesus. So much so that he prepared many. The Apostle John was one of those who was sent to tell you about Jesus. He witnessed, taught, and wrote down the message of Jesus so that all may believe in Jesus. Please Read some of what he wrote.

John 1:6-13 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. (This includes you, AntiGuv.)

He was not that Light (Jesus), but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.

[That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (That includes you).

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I have a feeling that you will say something like, "Yeah, but......" When you do that, that is the same as rejecting the written word of God. When you reject what God has given to us to believe on Jesus, then you are calling God a liar.

1John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this (the written word or the Bible) is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath called him (God) a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

And this is the record (The written word or the Bible), that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Now that you have read this, you have no excuse after you die. You know the options, the choice to believe is in your hands. I pray that you choose Jesus.

Sincerely

[Celtjew Libertarian]

When I look a painting, I know there is a painter.

You haven't checked out a sunset recently. Or, on a smaller scale, seen a good example of picture agate.

[ScubieNuc]

so if God wishes for me to believe in him then at the appointed time I will.

2 Cor 6:2b ... behold, NOW [is] the accepted time; behold, NOW [is] the day of salvation.

Nobody is promised tommorrow!

Sincerely

[Radix]

"You can't be serious. You also can't be completely unacquainted with the Catholic Church and the concept of the Trinity."

The Trinity is just that, a concept.

In the interest of maintaining a good manner I won't give you a history lesson on how that silly notion became dogma.

Unless of course you ask nicely and I can find some spare time.

[newguy357]

What created God?

You probably think that's profound.

[bondserv]

The Trinity is just that, a concept.

In the interest of maintaining a good manner I won't give you a history lesson on how that silly notion became dogma.

Unless of course you ask nicely and I can find some spare time.

A concept that is clearly scriptural:

The Father, Son & Holy Spirit all posses the unique attributes of GOD. Omniscience, Omnipresence & Omnipotence. Their fellowship has always been perfect & Holy.

Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Jhn 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:10
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Rev 1:11
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 2:8
8And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

[Central Scrutiniser]

I went to Catholic school K-12, we were taught evolution in science, and I'm glad that we were. None of the silly creationist nonsense ever crept into our science classes.

[AntiGuv]

No, actually I think it's quite simple.

[Radix]

"A concept that is clearly scriptural:"

 

 

Actually it is not scriptural at all, despite your misunderstanding of the referred verses.

 

Homoiousios and homoousios were the words which caused a lot of dissent in the early 4th century AD.

 

An iota of a difference there was between them, but the definitions were substantially different.

 

Emperor Constantine ordered the diverse factions who espoused contrary views to come to an agreement in about the year 319. The result was the Council of Nicea a few years later and the Nicene Creed which is pretty much where the first notion of a so called Trinity was ever pronounced.

 

You will not find the word "Trinity" in your Bible, and you won't find any real evidence of it either. In fact. Everything in the Bible is pretty much about the fact that there is only one God.

 

Try Deuteronomy 6:4 for example.

 

If I had more time and energy, I'd get into it with you (or anyone) but honestly, this site is not really about religious debate.

 

So I bid you good night, and Happy Googling.

[caffe]

I really don't care what the Catholic Church claims or not claims - I do care about the inspired Word of God and know that His Word is truth and yes God literally created Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam's rib.