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?
Well, I'm quite surprised, you being an expert on the bible and all.
LOL
You're too funny...
If I'm a PitA, what does that make you sink?
Ah, so you just joined in for the purpose of making smarmy, insulting remarks, then.
You must be inspired by Ecclesiastes 9:11-a: "For I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor bread to the wise, but you can prove that you're cooler than anybody by acting like an a$$hole."
No, I'm inspired to teach the Word. If you were listening, you would learn something.
There's no comma after novel and only one "l" in Philip, Dick.
1. You're wrong about the comma.
2. I have better things to do than to care which of the two common spellings of "Phillip" that author used.
3. Only a dick brings such things up in Internet discussion.
"No, I'm inspired to teach the Word."
Some people hear the voice of God; some people just hear voices.
If you think an inspiration to teach the Word involves being unpleasant with people, it's pretty clear which group you belong in.
1) No, you're wrong about the comma.
2) Phillip or Philip doesn't matter. The author, Philip K. Dick, spelled his name with one l. You are wrong, again.
3) Your language is offensive.
You should be able to discuss these topics without getting so emotional. It must be genetic. Go to sleep. When you wake up, look to the east and see the sun rising and feel better.
1) Let's bet a couple of thousand dollars on the comma.
2) I said I had better things to worry about than which of the two spellings the author used. I'm certainly not wrong about that.
3) My language is exactly the language you used. You find it offensive? Look in the mirror.
4) I'm not discussing a topic just now. What's happened is that I've been ambushed by an obnoxious little turd, and have wasted far too much time on it. And this is the end of that.
The Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, said that evolution is a scientific conclusion that does not deny the existence of God. “Whether evolution is true or not is a separate issue,” he said. “It’s true from a scientific view. God could create an evolutionary world just as He could create a static world.”
I'd heard these evo threads were vicious.
But idiot grammar, too?
Good thing you're not discussing this; it's getting pretty stupid.
One of the basic rules of sound biblical interpretation is that unless something is obviously figurative, or is stated as figurative, it should be taken literally. What textual evidence in Genesis 1-2 points you to an allegory ?
You mean, until proved wrong, assume inerrancy, no matter how ludicrous? It's too much like a criminal saying he's innocent unless caught red handed on tape in front of a live audience.
Difficult to see how that rule produces anything "sound".
I didn't say anything about inerrancy. My point was how to properly read the bible. Apparently some people will read God did this or God did that and saym "Oh that's just a parable", totally without any textual evidence. So again I ask what textual evidence is there of Genesis being an allegory ?
That it's in the Bible.
"unless something is obviously figurative"
The accounts in Genesis are obviously figurative.
You said,"Be a good little Christian:
The Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, said that evolution is a scientific conclusion that does not deny the existence of God. “Whether evolution is true or not is a separate issue,” he said. “It’s true from a scientific view. God could create an evolutionary world just as He could create a static world.”
I guess you are an atheist or maybe a member of the Church of Satan with such a name????
If you think your name is funny or that you fancy yourself the beast- well many thought they were. If you are using it to be cute- you will find out that such a name is no joke. Those who fancy those numbers are in the place where they will finally meet the man of lawlessness after he is defeated. Evolution is not true in any sense. It is false and straight out of the pits of hell and you know it is. Its from the pits of hell because it contradicts scripture.
It is not true in a philosophical, theological or scientific way. People deny God- science can not and you know that the past popes have said that- if you don’t you should. Science is a mere tool used to understand God's universe.
Sinkspur you said in post 50
"Those are details. It is almost impossible to argue a "start from scratch" creation theory, at least where mankind is concerned."
Your statement is wrong. If you are right then Thomas Aguinas is wrong, Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, Pius XII and most of the Early Church fathers and countless Christians who take the book of Genesis and the creation of Adam and Eve as historical events which happened in the way it was written and not a silly myth as you seem to think it is.
Read my post #321 where I quote all of the above on the origins topic including G.K. Chesterton. You take the side of Aldux Huxley and H.G. Wells except that you admit that it was God who put the soul into our first parents. So do you think our first parents were not one man and one woman but a group of people as Karl Rahner thought? In other words a group of "humanoids" who had souls put in them? He didn’t believe in original sin you know. This was condemned by Pius XII. The Church has always taught that God created the first man as an adult man and that woman was taken from the man. God is God he can do anything. Augustine thought God created the world in one day wherease most of the others taught 6 days. Orthodox Jewish Scholars and non Orthodox libeal Jews say that the author/s of Genesis taught that creation was in 6 24 hour periods and that those who believe in evolution will not find its support in scripture because evolution teaches that man evolved over a perioud of thousands of years.
So are you a fan of Teilhard de Chardin ?
It's just not that important.
A direct correlation written in God's own hand, to eliminate any confusion.
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.