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?
So to prove that evolutionists are dishonest, you link me to a page wherein an author says that he is having a book that he wrote revised due to the discovery that some of the information within was incorrect?
That teaching applies to the original autographs, not the translations.
Having said that, while there may be stylistic differences in translations, we have enough copies to compare and get back as close to the originals and their original content to have a very high degree of confidence in the substantial meaning of the entirety of Scripture.
Why can't you admit that Haeckle's drawings were fraudulent?
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Christopher Ferrara is becoming more and more like someone leading Catholics astray. Happenstance is such that I just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on creation during lunch today. Read paragraphs 270-301. There is not one mention of evolution and the Church's teaching is as traditional in the CCC as it ever was. This article is nothing but fear-mongering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm
Something from the BBC.
There is no theory that shows any change. There are a few publicatons that show small vanishing changes in the fine constant.
The BBC article doens't reference any publications.
I need to get back to work (I hate Mondays!) but there was something in the Discover magazine's tribute to Einstein about the speed of light having some fluctuations. I will check Discover's website when I get a chance.
Yes. The current theories in physics that light is slowing down are talking about billion-year time frames. None of this can explain why we see galaxies that are millions of light-years away if the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
"When some part of the Vatican speaks, then the pope must take responsibility. There is an implicit assumption that he agrees, unless he speaks up and clearly denies that they are speaking on his behalf."
He doesn't speak up and deny error when different Cardinals come out with contradictory theological positions (more's the pity) - so he's not likely to do so on an issue which he probably believes lies outside of his competence.
"Of all the scandalous actions he has been guilty of, those which have caused the most scandal and the most damage to the simple faith of Catholic believers have been his statements that "Hell is not a place, but a state of being," and his statement that "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory." "
If he was really saying that evolution is an established "fact", then I would agree with you. However the statement: "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory." is typical of the modernist ambiguity and double-speak that pervades post-conciliar theology, and is capable of a quite orthodox interpretation.
For instance I very much agree that "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory" because it IS more than a theory - it has achieved the status of a diabolical philosophy which has become one of the pillars of modernist scientific materialism.
What exactly did the Pope mean when he used this phrase? Was he being deliberately enigmatic so that he was not seen to nail his colours to any particular mast?
"A symposium like that described in this article must be seen as part and parcel of the pope's worldview, one that is radically dialectical and non-creationist."
That may be reading far too much into how he operates and how involved he is in the various organs of Vatican beaurocracy - especially at this stage of the pontificate. If he is a "non-creationist", then he has embraced heresy.
"Often the Intelligent Design theorists will take an agnostic viewpoint for pragmatic reasons. They say, "We are only disproving evolution. We have no positive alternative to put in its place." This might be fine for debating purposes.."
Agreed.
"..but for the purpose of having a coherent philosophy by which a man can live his life, it fails utterly, and there is only one valid replacement, divine revelation."
Again I agree - but it is not the purpose, place, or within the power of science to provide man with coherent philosophy. Science is only equipped to answer basic questions about the material universe and it should be met at this level.
Science needs to be restored to its limits and neither creationists nor evolutionists should be encouraged to stray from their field into philosophy and theology when pursuing the origins question. All scientists need to be brought back down to earth and see themselves for the intellectual pygmies that we truly are.
Obviously I agree with you totally that the only place where man can find a truly coherent philosophy is from divine revelation. This includes teaching the biblical truth of God's creating Adam and Eve specifically as progenitors of all humanity.
However if the Church qua Church attempts to do this at the scientific level, it will meet with much greater credibility problems than will qualified Christian scientists who can take the fight to the evolutionists in the academic arena.
One solution is that light was carried along with the stretching of the space/time fabric so that the initial light from far away objects was present constantly from the beginning.
I can answer this. I will tonight.
They were fraudulent.
Glad to hear you admit that evilution has been inudated with fraud from the beinning, not many will admit to frauds.
Your inital claim was that current textbooks are presenting them as non-fraudulent.
The textbooks that include Haeckle's drawings and premise of each stage of embryonic development depicting evilutionary stages do indeed present them as non-fraudulent by default, simply by their inclusion of them.
Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?
With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that.
Ok, there are several solutions, the speed of light slowing down, and time speeding up, as it appears is the case would be one. Light being carried along with the stretch of space/time fabric is another. I'd be interested in your solution.
I would agree, but these days, it's very difficult to define a point of reference. Heck, since Klinton, there isn't even a common definition of "is".
"It's just a jump to the left! and a step to the right!"
LOL! - signs of a misspent youth?
placemarker
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.