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?
You will, of course, provide an example of "complete" fabrication. Perhaps you could start by showing some of his drawings alongside modern photographs of the same subject.
Depression runs in my family.
I call it my 'blue genes'.
But you are not the one claiming they are "complete" fabrications.
That's assuming a constant isotope decay, but really, we don't know what the rate of decay is for sure except from the time the isotope is first measured. We don't know what conditions may or may not have affected decay in the past.
Well, no. But at least I'm willing to offer something of substance, which is more than I can say for our resident howler here.
What post has the images?
Yes indeed, the premise of evilution, that in the beginning was nothing and then nothing exploded into something that evolved into something else. Yessirreeeeeeee, that makes a lot of sense to a blind horse.
I see you have brought a nerf gun to the fight. Whatever became of following an argument to it's conclusion.
I will grant you that science doesn't explain the origin of existence. That's a given. Now pick yourself up out of the gutter of lies you've told and rejoin the conversation.
250, and then 253 has the corrections.
the vatican is losing it. The pc crowd has influenced them in all aspects. The catholic religion does not exist any more.
Oh. I was hoping for a side by side comparison of Heckel and photograph. The server at post 253 seems too slow for me to get the images.
IMHO there is no accuarate way to date rocks, period.
The main problem with isotope decay techniques is the assumption that the isotope itself, and the resultant isotopes of the decay series, will remain as fixed elements in the rock.
In reality, most heavy isotopes are soluble to varying degrees and therefore their concentration in rock can be dramatically reduced by leaching caused by either submersion or simple exposure to precipitation.
As for diffusion, this is very difficult to obtain a standard for the rate of diffusion of one substance into another, especially when nothing is known of the historic conditions under which that diffusion is known to have taken place.
"Ah, the old canard that "the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks". No matter how often you explain that it's not true, creationists still repeat this lie."
Funnily enough I've never heard any argument to the contrary (I don't normally get involved in creation/evolution debates!) - why not try me if you think you have a case to make?
"Some rocks are dated based upon the measured age of the fossils found in them, but that's only after the fossils are dated through other methods that don't rely upon assuming the age of the rocks around them."
And which other methods would they be exactly?
In the case of relatively recent fossils, C-14 dating could be used, though more commonly radiometric dating (which was explained earlier, and is not based on the ages of rocks but rather on known constant rates of decay) is used. And there's more than one type of dating method that can be used, so you don't just measure once and forget it -- you measure with multiple methods to make sure that you get the same result and to account for any quirks that might cause one dating method to give an 'off' result.
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.