I'm amused you advance yourself as an authority on what I and 'my evo buddies' believe. How long have you realized you had these powers?
Check this out: What the Pope said
A typical piece of dishonest creationist prevarication. Perhaps you should look at this
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
...and particularly the note at then end. This blows your entire 'mistranslation' theory out of the water.
EWTN Note on translation:
The English edition at first translated the French original as: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution." The L'Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope's statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions
I reproduce, again, the official translation as per l'Osservatore Romano English edition.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studieswhich was neither planned nor soughtconstitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Note that, in addition, Michelangelo's source does not question the rest of the paragraph, after the first sentence, which continues the argument that evolution is not just a hypothsis, but a theory supported by a "convergence in the results of .... independent studies... (which) constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Have a good day, Michelangelo, and nice try portraying yourself as a concerned neutral observer. Alas, it appears you're just another tendentious creationist who thinks he can get by with an out-of-context quote because no one will check what he posts. Unfortunately for you, experience has taught me that if a creationist claims the sun rose this morning, it's advisable to take a quick glance out the window.
"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain... (not!/link)---."
I sincerely doubt you read his link. Otherwise you would have realized you were barking up the wrong tree. The link Michael_Michaelangelo posted concluded that the translation on which you were "pontificating", was the correct translation.
Q: So, bottom line, the best rendering of the statement should be what?
A: According to the native French-speakers I have consulted, the best translation is:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
It agrees with you on that point, however it goes on to say that the Pope did not endorse evolution nor change the position of the Roman Catholic Church on it.
Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?
A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research."
The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.
According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.
Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize" (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition" (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).
In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is constructed in French suggests that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he believes in evolution or not and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the scientific community.
The webpage states that the RCC avoids such matters.