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. What we know of JPII's position is his statement that "Evolution is more than a theory."
This kind of BS is what you get when a Pope surrounds himself with so-called experts in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the majority of whom are non-Catholic and every one of them being an evolutionist.
Correct. So how did it come about that the pope surrounded himself with atheist evolutionists in his Pontifical Academy of Scientists? Was it a secret plot of which he was totally unaware?
Evolutionism is the greatest con-trick ever fobbed off on the "scientific community" and because the N.O. Church now affords greater authority to men-in-white-coats than it does to Scripture and Tradition, most Western prelates have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Quite true again. Belief in evolution is an acid that eats away at any faith and must in the long run eventually dissolve it.
However, as the Pope's charism extends in no way to the validation of speculative pseudo-scientific theories, the Church will be far less scathed by this silliness than it will by the secondary heresies that "evolutionism" spawns.
I disagree. 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." 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.
The question of origins isn't primarily a religion vs. science issue - it is a science vs. pseudo-science issue and it should be fought out on these grounds.
I have to disagree on this point also. Real science, like that being done by Michael Behe, can do the important work of proving the fraudulence of the Darwinist fairy tales. But the argument that the Darwinists come back with, "Okay if evolution is false, then what is your replacement," can only be answered through divine revelation.
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, 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.
"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.