Posted on 08/28/2004 9:10:46 PM PDT by 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?
***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.
If you cast aside the notion that God created the world, you may suffer no harm for it in this life - but your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will. The devil move people away from the true knowlege of God quietly and in stages.
Let me pull from another post...
Jesus coninually spoke of Adam as a real historical person. Jesus continually refered to the account of creation as literally, historically true.
If Jesus was wrong about creation - wrong about such a central event in the Bible, then how do you know he's not also wrong when he says,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
I submit to you that if what you believe is true, you CANNOT know that he was not wrong and that your faith, therefore, is just mere personal opinion and preference.
I emplore you to take the time to look up the verses in the Gospels where Jesus refers to creation and seek to discern his opinion of the event - whether he views it as allegory or literal truth.
If you consider yorself smarter and more knowlegeable than Jesus Christ, would you find it hard to be his follower?
These are changes in the fine structure, which are unproven, and impossible to measure. The change would be 2x10^-23 percent a second. This is measurable over quasar distances, which are some of the most distant objects known. Light from them takes 4 billion years to get here, which means your statement is only proved by using objects much older than 7200 years.
***Light from them takes 4 billion years to get here, which means your statement is only proved by using objects much older than 7200 years.***
But it theoretically opens the door, does it not?
***Why not post a verse?***
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." - Mark 10
(male and female from the BEGINNING of the creation - not asexual)
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" - Matt 19
...he also accepted the compatibility of the two supposedly contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis ch. 1 & 2. (Quoted 1:27 & 2:24 in Matt. 19:5 "male and female ...home one flesh")
"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." - Mark 13
"And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" - Mark 2:27
"As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:" - Luke 1:70
(Prophets, people who speak fopr God, have been around since the beginning of the world - not several billion years after the beginning when they finally evolved the ability to speak!)
"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" - Luke 11
The blood of the same has bees spilt since the beginning [Able])
(Implicit acceptance of the special creation seventh day of rest)
None of these verses support or deny a six day creation.
***It opens nothing that would alter the speed of light more than a vanishing percentile.***
I am not arguing that the speed of light would effect our discussion, but merely using it as an example that things science has considered constant might not necessarily be so - like the growth rate of living beings.
***It also brings out another problem if the universe is 7200 years old, why are we seeing light from 4 billion light years out?***
God created a mature universe, just as He created a mature man - I don't think that is so hard to accept. Adam had the bones of a mature man. The Sun looked as if in early mid-life (not a nebula).
***None of these verses support or deny a six day creation.***
"The sabbath was made for man..."
The sabbath, the literal seventh day of the week, was creeated for man (i.e. man-scaled) to rest on.
Jesus saw the Sabbath as a literal, 24hr, once a week, period of rest CREATED specifically for man by God.
If the seventh day was on the scale of a geological age then Jesus statement looses all meaning.
In your opinion, was Adam a literal, historical man?
also...
The verse...
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." - Mark 10
supports a literal, special (non-evolutionary) creation of man. Man was not created an an asexual organic blob that evolved sexual reproductitive abilities eons later. Jesus said God created us male and female from the beginning.
If you loose the requirement for evolution, you loose the need to insert geological ages into Genesis and your back to the literal, plain sense meaning of the text - 6 days.
***Indeed. That doesn't say anything about the other six days***
It is safe to infer from the context of Genesis that if one day of the seven is literal then all seven are literal.
To do otherwise would indicate one is attempting to read one's agenda into the Scripture and not seeking to elucidate the meaning of the scripture.
***The first man? Yes, he did exist.****
Within the context of Gen 1, if the man is literal, the day is literal.
***I believe if I don't screw up, I get to purgatory and then heaven,***
I'd skip purgatory if I were you.
"And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,...
For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
- Heb 10
The connections are incidental, and still don't prove anything.
I dont have anything else to add here.
Exactly. This is a God that can:
And people think he needed to use evolution? I don't think so.
By definition, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
Theres (sic) probably not many scientists who are saints.You would be surprised at the number of us who are believers in Christ. Many recognize, along with D. James Kennedy, that evolution is a fairy tale for adults. It simply isn't "science" because it is not an "observable" that can be tested in the laboratory. Many of us are offended by the number of known falsehoods that are presented in modern texts, simply so that proponents can maintain their anti-supernatural bias. It takes more "blind faith" to be an evolutionist who believes that the "highly improbable" happened than it does to take God at His Word and believe in the pre-existent One who created the earth and later was incarnated and died to save all who believe in Him.
Darwin's whole theory hinges on the idea of a simple one/few cell organism that evolved. The biochemists who work on RNA and DNA realize the complexity of these molecules and understand that there is simply insufficient time for such a molecule to develop by "chance." I just spent a week with a creationist who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and prefers to let God speak for Himself in the Scriptures. As One with a Ph. D. in Polymer Science and Engineering, I am not embarrassed to join my Biochemist friends in calling Jesus Christ 'Lord.'
*** in a vacuum ***
Critical phrase.
***I just spent a week with a creationist who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and prefers to let God speak for Himself in the Scriptures.***
This man, in addition to his Ph.D., has the wisdom of Solomon.
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.