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?
Figurative language is marked by use of metaphors and other figurative type language devices, or things that are "emblematic", meaning that they stand for something. Please explain to me what in the creation account is figurative AND either 1)What the metaphors or other language devices are, OR 2) What the symbols are and what they mean.
Issuing a blanket statement does not make it so. Since the normal way to read is literally, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise the default setting is literal.
"Since the normal way to read is literally, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise the default setting is literal."
The normal way to read the BUPERS manual is literally; that does not hold for all written material. The default setting here is allegorical, and the burden is on anyone who wants to prove that it should be understood literally.
If you're really interested, you might try reading this article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm
True. But those things that are not read literally have some evidence there that points you to a figurative reading. The natural way to read is literally.
"The natural way to read is literally."
I don't think that's true at all. And as the article I linked shows, there are lots of things that points to an allegorical reading of the creation story.
May I respectfully suggest that I have been spoon-fed nothing. I do not take anything on authority; I only accept something because I am familiar with the evidence and I understand the arguments for and against it -- everyone with scientific training understands that is their responsibility to understand the evidence and arguments for themselves.
So which is it ? Are you trying to argue concerning the origin of the text ? If so, we are done because I have not the time to do so. If this is your tact then the least you can do is admit that you have no basis to read Genesis figuratively other than "I feel like it".
***For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, ***
Good catch!
***6 24 hour periods ***
Yes! as in...
"And the evening and the morning were the first day."
Hard to miss that.
Why do I feel that this closet pervert is overstating the facts? I just can't help believing.
Since I would rather go get a root canal than participate in those pathetic evolution-creation threads, that's all I need to say.
I know for a fact that the Vatican has accepted evolution for a long time. Beating the dead-horse details and nit picking about minutiae is so a waste of time.
That's why it's called faith. No posturing is necessary.
"I visited the link briefly enough to see that it constituted a textual criticism."
In other words, you didn't read far enough to discover that it addresses your question.
"the least you can do is admit that you have no basis to read Genesis figuratively other than "I feel like it".
Oh, give me a break. You can't seriously believe that the reputable theologians who read Genesis as an allegory have no defensible reasons to do so.
I suggest you look at this site, long and hard. What they have done there is take scientific articles for over three years that are published in peer-reviewed or respected journals, and show how most models laid out by science are not supported by the evidence.
This is no "wacko-creationist" approach to the evidence, it is secular scientists critiquing the models based on evidence that is surfacing that contradicts long held beliefs. Geology and Cosmology are two fields that are literally being turned upside down.
Thank God we have some dedicated servants of the Most High who have been willing to take these articles and compile them as a string of evidence which exposes the weakness of worshiping science.
Modern technology is shooting down the theories that have contradicted God's word, removing the need for us to explain away so many of the passages of scripture to our skeptical friends. Praise God!
A good moto is to believe God's word, the Old Testament isn't fables you know. If it were, Jesus was one confused individual!
That, my friend, in an oxymoron.
Still waiting to hear YOUR reasons for reading Genesis as an allegory.
Practically all philosophers, theologians, and scientists disagree with your opinion.
People deny God-science can not and you know that
True, science ignores all gods equally.
the past popes have said that-
Between the latest pope and a couple of ancient popes who never had the chance to study evolutionary science, who wins in your mind? And why?
Science is a mere tool used to understand God's universe.
Science is a major tool used to understand the universe. Gods don't enter into it.
If your view and defending your view is not that important than why are you bothering to post about this story???
You really have no response to back up your belief in theistic evolution- no real hard facts about what either the Church or Science teaches regarding the play.
What you are doing with your position is saying that Genesis can not be historical- so you are really calling the bible a fable to explain our origins. You do not believe the bible is factual. If the bible is not factual that Adam was created from the dust of the earth i.e. inorganic matter and Eve was created from his side- which is what orthodox rabies believe and the past popes and Doctors of the Church- then were does that leave your belief on the bodily resurrection of Christ or his ascention into heaven or the miracles or the fact that he spoke of Jonah in the belly of the whale for three days as a historical even??
I think you have been brainwashed because you go with modern scientific opinion which has clearly been disproved in regards to the fossil record and in regards to the fact that macro evolution can not be proved with missing links or so called punctuated equilibrium.
Where is your faith in all of the things I have asked you above??
You're putting ideas in my head.
I said that not everything in the Bible is factual; surely you know that allegory and parable are used extensively.
The origin of man has no effect whatsoever on belief in the Resurrection of Christ.
you go with modern scientific opinion which has clearly been disproved in regards to the fossil record
On the contrary, fossil records prove that the earth is many thousands of years old, not 7500 as the fundamentalists believe.
Jonah was not in the belly of any whale for any period of time. That is a prophetic allegory of Christ's time in the tomb. In fact, all of Jonah may be an allegory.
Whether it is or not is not important. The truths contained in Jonah are what are important.
You never answered my question about your Satanic name are you trying to get a rise out of people or are you a Satanist or both??
You know that you are ignoring the fact that even the ancient Greek philosopher knew about macro evolution and posited forms of the theory. These theories were rejected by the early Church fathers based on there own observation skills and understanding of nature and on divine revelation which you hold in contempt. So there really is nothing new under the sun as the bible says.
Although science progresses in terms of technology, the principles of it often do not. There are immutable facts of nature like the law of entropy.
My grandson picked it. So what?
You know that you are ignoring the fact that even the ancient Greek philosopher knew about macro evolution and posited forms of the theory. These theories were rejected by the early Church fathers based on there own observation skills and understanding of nature
And so you think no one else has learned anything new in the last 20 centuries? Just what kind of papyrus scroll are you typing your post on then?
and on divine revelation which you hold in contempt.
Really? Where did I say that? Since you are so poor at it, I suggest you refrain from further assumptions about other poster's beliefs and motives.
So there really is nothing new under the sun as the bible says.
Right. Just like the ancient Greeks, we talk on cell phones, watch television, use computers, cook with radar waves, navigate using artificial satellites, and conceive children in petri dishes.
Although science progresses in terms of technology, the principles of it often do not. There are immutable facts of nature like the law of entropy.
There is no "law of entropy"; however, there are several Laws of Thermodynamics which is what I think you meant. Not that they apply to anything you've said though.
Your views in this regard are condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. Read them. Jesus was not speaking of Jonah situation as metaphor but as a fact in that he was in the belly of a whale for three days- then he used this situation as a simile to his own that he would be in a tomb for three days and would rise out of that situation also which to all eyes would appear hopeless as Jonah’s situation was in the belly of a whale.
The origin of man has everything to do with Christ and his resurrection and incarnation. Do you believe in original sin and the fact that we had a single set of human parents from which spring all of mankind? Do you at least believe this fact?
And the Church put Galileo in prison because he said that the earth revolved around the sun.
Thomas Aquinas believed that the woman's womb was nothing but a repository for the male semen, which contained the germ of life.
The Church has had a sorry record in regards to science. I'm glad to see that JPII and enlightened theologians are embracing science, and debating its ideas.
Of course I believe in original sin and that ensoulment took place at a specific point in time.
In fact, my beliefs in this area mirror those of dsc. Read his posts; he expresses much better than I the Catholic view of evolution.
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.