Posted on 07/25/2007 12:57:22 PM PDT by mngran
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
“This interpretation is a recently developed accomodation to secular evolution.”
That’s incorrect. The interpretation is not recent, and was around well before secular evolution even became a major issue, dating back to earlier centuries. And secular evolution isn’t accommodated and dignified in any way. In fact, the interpretation counters evolutionists take on things, while not denying solid scientific facts.
“There are many better ways to harmonize observed scientific data with the Biblical chronology than shoehorning billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2”
It may or may not be Billions of years, but there’s nothing that states “the beginning” as being the first day. What’s clear is that the Earth was “became” without form and void which was not God’s doing, because God creates things perfectly and does not create things in vain.
“In short, why doesn’t the 2d law prevent acorns from becoming oak trees?”
Trust me on this one: Oak trees live long lives but over time they’ll end up just as chaotic as our molecular being. The universe is winding down and there’s nothing we can do about it. That includes oak trees. In the long term everything physical wears out and is doomed. Macro-Evolution is a fraud and has no place in reality. I’ll buy “Micro-Evolution” as fact.
The bad news for some people is that admitting to the truth of a winding down universe is equal to admitting the existence of God.
Answer: Oak trees die.
Forgive me, but surely you can see that this is a non sequitur.
In the long term everything physical wears out and is doomed.
And in the "short" term, acorns become oak trees, and you progressed from zygote to voting age. Miraculous suspension of the 2d law?
Macro-Evolution is a fraud and has no place in reality. I’ll buy “Micro-Evolution” as fact.
Ok, we'll change subjects if you wish.
Why does the 2d law prevent "macro-evolution" (a term I'm afraid you'll have to define for me) but not "micro-evolution" (another term you'll have to define)?
Paul was writting to the believers in Corinth, i.e. people who were already saved. These people had assurance of going to heaven because they had placed their faith on Christ and Him crucified.
To these saints, Paul said that you can build on the foundation that has already been laid with six different kinds of material: gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. Fire won’t hurt the first three on the list. Actually, the fire purifies gold and silver and precious stones. But fire certainly gets rid of the last three on the list. Wood, hay, and stubble will all disappear into smoke. The believer is at liberty to build on the foundation with any of these materials: gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.
This teaches that the believer can work for a reward. If any man’s work abides, work that he has built on the foundation that has already been laid, he shall receive a reward. Other works will not pass the test, will vanish just as wood, hay and stubble vanish when they burn, and that will be the loss of those believers. Notice they will lose their rewards, not heaven.
It doesn't bother me that the Pope said Protestant churches aren't real churches. After all, good Protestants say the Catholic Church is false, right? Naturally all good Catholics think that Protestants are mistaken.
What bothers me is a "conservative" Pope who can condemn Protestantism is still defending evolution and reducing the Bible to didactic theological parables. The few Catholic creationists out there (and they do exist, believe it or not) who have been pinning their hopes on this Pope are going to be very disappointed.
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
Get cosmogony wrong, get eschatology wrong!
Jesus never bargained for this tawdry history and garden of thistles.
Here’s the difference simply stated:
True, the acorn becomes and oak tree. However it doesn’t “evolve” into a higher life form. It’s offspring will be oak trees. There’s nothing the acorn can do to be anything other than an oak tree. There is no and there never will be any evidence that the acorn becomes more complex as a living entity other than as an oak tree. It’s DNA is set in stone when it’s an acorn.
However within a species there is evidence that variations occur from generation to generation. Life forms which aren’t fit and don’t adapt become extinct.
Twenty centuries to be exact. Then consider these scandals against the countless saints that the Church has produced, along with the numerous schools, hospitals, orphanages and universities run by brothers and nuns, and instituted by the Church, and a more realistic picture of Christ's Church emerges.
But you're free to hold to your grossly distorted view of the Church. Just don't expect Catholics to be impressed by it.
Jesus never bargained for this tawdry history and garden of thistles.
Really? Which tawdry history did He bargain for when he told us that the weeds would grow up with the wheat? Didn't Jesus Himself choose Judas as one of the 12 Apostles?
Yes, but...
he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.When I imagine someone "escaping through the flames," I imagine some degree of pain and suffering.
Notice they will lose their rewards, not heaven.
That's what the Church teaches. Purgatory is not a third state, in addition to Heaven and Hell. The souls in Purgatory will eventually get to Heaven. Purgatory is a temporary state of purgation or purification, prior to heaven. Nothing unclean will enter Heaven.
Assuming that to be a correct recitation of your position (and please correct me if I am wrong), why does the 2d law of thermodynamics prevent speciation, but not "variations within a species"?
Sorry, I listen to the Bible, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not to a conference of anybody.
the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas
But the Gospels were written in Greek, weren't they? And in the Greek, Peter is called a little rock, a pebble.
The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.
The Greek petros is masculine.
You might ask whether Jesus ever bargained for, say, the following “tawdry history and garden of thistles”:
http://reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html
Then again, why bother? It wouldn’t have any effect on the blind Catholic bashers.
The person, and any godly actions, will pass through the fire which by the way is a figure of speech representing the judgement.
Hell is a real place, with real fire, but this "fire" here is not literal. How do I know? Because Paul did not say that the person escapes through the flames, but as one escaping through the flames.
Apparently violating your definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
However it doesn’t “evolve” into a higher life form.
No. Because evolution occurs as a part of the reproductive process, not the living process.
It’s offspring will be oak trees.
Yes. But not exactly the same oak tree. It will have genetic differences that you might call "micro-evolution". However, without your being able to describe some mechanism that prevents such small changes from accumulating indefinitely, there is nothing that prevents such changes eventually becoming what you might label "macro-evolution" (these two terms being invented out of whole cloth to explain away obvious evidence for evolution).
There is no and there never will be any evidence that the acorn becomes more complex as a living entity other than as an oak tree.
Not one acorn, no. But innumerable generations later the result likely won't be what you would still call an "oak tree".
It’s DNA is set in stone when it’s an acorn.
You need to study how DNA acts in a reproductive process. It does indeed change from one generation to another.
However within a species there is evidence that variations occur from generation to generation. Life forms which aren’t fit and don’t adapt become extinct.
Yes. That's how evolution works. Your problem is the human description of "species". There is nothing whatever preventing a particular population of life from altering their DNA over innumerable generations in a way that we might call them a different "species" in the end.
If creation "scientists" wanted to do real research, they might attempt to find that imaginary wall that they believe keeps species within some bounds of "micro-evolution" for eternity. I might respect them if they actually discovered some biological mechanism that they believe exists and could demonstrate it's operation and explain why it works.
Someone like, say, Ted Haggard?
Unfortunately, the transcript has only been published in Italian. It is available at the Vatican website (www.vatican.va).
What the MSM, and all of the shoot from the lip "evangelicals" failed to capture was that the Pope's "Voice of the Earth" comments were in the context of an absolute respect for human life. His point was that we have the ability to establish or destroy our surroundings to the extent that we can create either a garden or an uninhabitable environment.
Speciation requires increasingly complex information that drives replication. Variation does not require increasingly complex information.
Apparently you don’t buy into the idea of irreducible complexity. Where is the evidence of evolution on the cellular level? The cell is amazing, what’s the driving force behind the “behavior” of cell constituents?
Please explain how the idea of evolution fits into a universe that’s running out of usable energy. Someday the universe will be a cold barren wasteland. No energy, no life. Given that the universe will eventually run out of energy mandates that the universe had a beginning and at one time did not exist. Where did the universe and all this energy come from? Where does evolution fit?
Bless you, my brother in Christ.
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.