Vatican accepts evolution as fact

Fatima Perspectives ^ | August 24th 2004 | Chris Ferrara

[AskStPhilomena]

In what appears to be its latest capitulation to worldly wisdom, the Vatican apparatus now assumes (contrary to the teaching of Pius XII in Humanae Generis) that the evolution of men from animals is a proven fact.

On June 24, 2004 Zenit.org reported that "Vatican Observatory has convoked a range of experts to reflect on a question that at times seems to be forgotten in scientific research: Is there purpose in evolution?" That is, evolution is now assumed to have occurred, and the only debate is over whether it has a purpose. The Vatican called a symposium of experts to meet on June 24-26 to discuss whether evolution has a "purpose."

The Vatican Observatory’s announcement of the symposium states that "in scientific circles, there is a very deep-seated distrust of teleological language, even though researchers may occasionally use the word ‘design’ in an attempt to grapple with the often astonishing adaptive complexes they study … Put crudely, the widely accepted scientific worldview is that human beings or any other product of evolutionary diversification is accidental and, by implication, incidental."

Well, that’s right, of course. And what is the Vatican’s response to this worldview? Read it for yourself, if you can believe it: "The purpose of this symposium is not to dispute this worldview, but to inquire whether it is sufficient and, if it is not, to consider what we need to know and ultimately how we might discover the requisite information with one or more research programs." So, the Vatican does not dispute the view that the emergence of human life is merely incidental to the process of "evolution," whose truth is now apparently assumed.

The symposium (whose results have not yet been published) was asked to address five questions:

-- Can we speak of a universal biochemistry?

-- How do levels of complexity emerge, and are they inevitable?

-- Can we properly define evolutionary constraints?

-- What does convergence [different species displaying the same traits] tell us about evolution?

-- What do we mean by intelligence? Is intelligence an inevitable product of evolution?

Notice that every question presumes that evolution has, in fact, occurred, even though there is abundant evidence showing no gradual transition from one form of life to another (as evolution supposes), but rather the sudden appearance of every basic form in the fossil record, which is precisely what one would expect to see if God directly and specially created each kind, as the Book of Genesis recounts.

In Humani Generis Pope Pius XII warned that "the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."

Moreover, Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical letter Arcane Divinae Sapientiae (Christian Marriage) that Adam and Eve, and they only, are our first parents and that Eve was created from Adam's body:

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.

The Church says that no one may doubt these things. Yet how can these things be reconciled with the view that Adam and Eve (and who knows how many other humans) "evolved" from apes and that Eve was not formed from the body of Adam, as the Vatican now seems to suppose, in calling for a symposium to discuss the "purpose" of evolution.

So the question must be asked: Do those who are in charge of the Vatican’s approach to "modern science" still believe in what the Church teaches concerning the origin of the human race? Or are we witnessing yet another sign of the great apostasy in the Catholic Church beginning at the top, which was predicted by the Third Secret of Fatima?

[bornacatholic]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

[Mr. Mojo]

Six days, man. ......and in 4004 BC. Get with the program ;)

Forget the fossil record, radiometic dating methods, and all that other "scientific" nonsense. The Devil's work, all of it.

[megatherium]

Just like all intelligent people once thought that the speed of light was a constant...

(eyes rolling) Not that hoary business again. The earliest several published measurements of the speed of light were several percent greater than the modern (extremely stable) value. So young-earth creationists decided that light was much faster a few tens of centuries ago. This explains why we can see galaxies that are millions of light years away. But that's a hell of an extrapolation! Physicists say that if the speed of light were higher, all the physics tied to it would change as well; the results would be tremendous. Chemistry, etc. wouldn't work properly.

But what I want to argue here is that we don't need to believe in a God who created a world that looks really old even though it is very young. We can believe in a God who created a beautiful world and universe that are intelligible to us -- everything makes good sense if you understand the science. No need for contrivance ("do you believe in progeria?"). Newton and the other great scientists who created the scientific revolution in the 17th century were all profoundly devout men. Modern science would not have arisen without the understanding that God created a universe amenable to human understanding. Newton thought he was learning about God by studying his creation. He was right.

[dangus]

>> What is the source of your quotes.
>> There has been no Church-approved apparitions in the last 30 years.<<

Even some apparitions which have not been approved have *some* credibility in mainstream Catholic circles (Medjugorje, etc.) After all, the Church does take some time to approve an apparition. Most are completely disreptuable (Brooklyn, Worcestor, etc.), however.

[Stubborn]

I have not looked it up, but it sounds as though its full of theory. :-)...lay it on me, whats it mean?

[Dominick]

LUCY COME FORWARD "I wish at this time, My children, to repeat again the need to write, to speak, to meet with the Holy Father in Rome, and plead with him to have Lucy come forward and tell the Third Secret word for word." - Our Lady, June 18, 1986

From Veronica Lueken the very condemned Bayside apparitions.

- "I wish at this time, My children, to repeat again the need to write, to speak, to meet with the Holy Father in Rome, and plead with him to have Lucy come forward and tell the Third Secret word for word, as I give to you each evening on My appearances upon the grounds of Bayside, and Flushing Meadows." - Our Lady, June 18, 1986

Bayside is false.:

DECLARATION CONCERNING THE "BAYSIDE MOVEMENT"
November 4, 1986 Letter of Bishop John Mugavero of Brooklyn

In recent months, doubts have been raised by members of the so-called "Bayside Movement" concerning the official position of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the alleged "apparitions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and other heavenly beings, to a woman by the name of Vernica Lueken.

...

Therefore, in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hereby declare that:

1. No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers.

2. The "messages" and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, undermine the legitimate authority of bishops and councils and instill doubts in the minds of the faithful, for example, by claiming that, for years, an "imposter (sic) Pope" governed the Catholic Church in place of Paul VI.

3. Those who persistently maintain that "no ecclesiastical permission is required for the publication or dissemination" of information concerning "revelations, visions or miracles," are erroneously interpreting the directives of the Holy See when they attempt to justify the publication of the propaganda literature on the "Bayside Messages."

[dangus]

A megatherium is a large, extinct, primitive mammal. Oddly enough, it seems to have been related to anteaters.

[Dominick]

I know about the measurement problems, I never considered for a second that someone would be able to claim the measurement was accurate but the speed of light actually changed! Is this the position?

[dangus]

BAYSIDE?! AS IN BAYSIDE, QUEENS?! Bwa-HA-HA-ha. Our Lady of the 'Hood?

[Stubborn]

All I can tell you is that the church's interpretation disagrees with your interpretation.

My Bible (Haydock Bible http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11050.html ) says that the first cause of all things must be God, who, in a moment, spoke, and heaven and earth were made; heaven with all the Angels; and the whole mass of the elements, in a state of confusion, and blended together, out of which the beautiful order, which was afterwards so admirable, arose in the space of six days: thus god was free to manifest His free choice in opposition of those Pagans who attributed all to blind chance or fate.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***This would not explain growth rings being doubled over a year.***

No, but it is an example of how the aging process can occure faster than conventional wisdom would expect.

Here is another one. When God created Adam, He created a fully mature human male - not an embryo. Adam, for all appearances (likely) looked like he had existed for over 30 years - even after his first fwe minutes of existence.

Likewise, when God created the trees (Gen 1:11) they no, doubt were created mature - growth rings included.


***It is a constant.***

But not under all conditions, just like time.

[Stubborn]

LOL!

[dangus]

Ok, Now that I've wiped the laughter from my eyes... And I probably shouldn't have mocked "Our Lady of the Hood," since even in Jesus' time they asked, "Can anything good come from Galilee?" It would be just like Our Lady to appear in such a humble setting.

Also, it is certainly true that bishops have suppressed and condemned what were later recognized as authentic apparitions. But in those cases, the witnesses acted in humble submission to the "duly-annointed," rather than in open rebellion. It was the grace of God which led them to overcome the obstacles placed in their way, not that of rebellion.

[Dominick]

Likewise, when God created the trees (Gen 1:11) they no, doubt were created mature - growth rings included.

He would have to have created dead trees, fossil records and the like going back millions of years. If you think this destroys your faith, I can't address that.

***It is a constant.***

But not under all conditions, just like time. Time not being constant, and those who had to take qantum mchanics understand this is also unprovable. Please explain.

[JHavard]

Lets talk about what the church actually says rather than what it could POSSIBLY say? None of these are even though about by the Church.

I believe me Ferrara, is just sending up the Vatican's trial balloon, and as usual your legal staff has worded everything to where there is never a statement made by the hierarchy or the Magisterium, that can't be denied or obfuscated.

As usual, some RC’s will defend the new Catholic position and some will deny it. Then as time goes by, they will all decide that rather then risk the responsibility of answering to God for their own personal beliefs, it’s safer to let the Church take the responsibility.

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Every man is going to answer for himself, and he won’t be asked who’s script he followed, but what did he believe from his own study, and how the Holy Spirit led him to what he finally believed.

JH :’)

[Dominick]

Also, it is certainly true that bishops have suppressed and condemned what were later recognized as authentic apparitions. But in those cases, the witnesses acted in humble submission to the "duly-annointed," rather than in open rebellion. It was the grace of God which led them to overcome the obstacles placed in their way, not that of rebellion.

When an apparition conflicts with public revelation, the apparition must be discarded. Lourdes was suppressed until the Truth could be known, and Bernadette submitted to the Church in all things, she didn't have a protest meeting or hire a publicist.

[general_re]

I never considered for a second that someone would be able to claim the measurement was accurate but the speed of light actually changed! Is this the position?

PMFJI, but if I may, the position that the speed of light is not constant during evolutionary timescales is held by (some of) those who have a vested interest in proving the universe to be a recent development, to put it euphemistically - e.g., Barry Setterfield and few others who have grasped hold of his theories. It should be noted, however, that this is definitely not the position of mainstream physicists. In fact, the argument that a slowing speed of light supports a young universe has been rejected by many creationists as well, chiefly the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

[Dominick]

I believe me Ferrara, is just sending up the Vatican's trial balloon, and as usual your legal staff has worded everything to where there is never a statement made by the hierarchy or the Magisterium, that can't be denied or obfuscated.

Is there a statement in there?

I would not think Ferrara could send up any trial balloon. This isn't even a new position by the Vatican. It also doesn't conflict with Genesis.

What I see and what I understand are two different things, I could never devise a scientific test for consecration of any sort, but I know it happens with the eyes of Faith.

[dangus]

I'm glad to encounter anyone with a sense of humor on such threads :^)

[PetroniusMaximus]

***...fossil records***

You mean where all those intermediate forms are?


***Time not being constant, and those who had to take qantum mchanics understand this is also unprovable. Please explain.***

James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, ‘Cosmic laws like speed of light might be changing, a study finds’, New York Times, 15 August 2001;

Cho, A., Nothing stays constant, New Scientist171(2304):11, 18 August 2001.

Barrow, J., Is nothing sacred? New Scientist163(2196):28–32, 24 July 1999

See the article by John Webb, August 27 2001 in Physical Review Letters.