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?
ping
Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?
No, I don't. You've not cited a single textbook that presents Heckel's drawings in the context that he originally intended, so you've failed to demonstrate that his false premise is still being pushed. You are a liar for suggesting that it is.>/i>
Best single discussion of the Heckel drawings ever.
"With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that."
Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!
Do you, or do you not, have a currently used textbook with such claims? Reference it please.
With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that.
A small handful of ancient frauds among millions upon millions of pieces of evidence? Wow, must be a real conspiracy among all those millions of working scientists, huh?!
Haeckle didn't just "fudge" those drawings, they were completely fabricated to fit his false premise. That has been known for a long time. It is patently dishonest to have included fraudulent drawings in textbooks for over a 100 years knowing they were fraudulent.
No, I don't.
Glad to see you all agree there are still textbooks that dishonestly include Haeckle's fraudulent drawings and premise.
Since you agree, there is no need to cite any.
Wrong again.
That has been known for a long time. It is patently dishonest to have included fraudulent drawings in textbooks for over a 100 years knowing they were fraudulent.
Not if they were to illustrate why they were previously included.
So now, where's that textbook? Or were you just lying for the shock value of such a claim?
Since I was clearly quoting another post, you might respond to the author.
Wrong again. Unlike you it's not dishonest.
Since you agree, there is no need to cite any.
You mean you did lie originally about having a fraudulent textbook? Come on, we know, just say it so we can move on from here.
No we don't and you continue to lie.
While not outright fraud, it is irrational and self-serving to "teach" as fact Lyell's method of dating(still employed and taught as reliable today).
Why is it that some people can never stop telling the same lie, over and over again, long after they know it is a lie? Or even admit that they made a mistake? Over and over again, of course.
Sure, I'll be happy to.
Haeckle's drawings were complete fabrications to fit his false premise.
Well there you go. They are reliable, as far as they go. But they are augumented by at least fifty independent measures of age.
Darned right, those whacked out evilutionists have been doing exactly that for over a 100 years.
Obviously they follow the axiom that if you tell the lie of evilution long enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it.
In the beginning was nothing, and then it exploded and evolved, the BIG LIE.
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.
