Posted on 05/21/2005 5:12:39 AM PDT by Tantumergo
On the morning of Sunday, April 24, 2005, during his Coronation ceremony homily Pope Benedict XVI made a clear indication that he is distancing himself from the theory of evolution. Translated from the Italian, the pope stated:
“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”
Moreover, if the pope were not giving an indication about his reservations concerning the theory of evolution, he simply could have said that we are all willed and loved by God, but to preface this with a denunciation of evolution means that the pope wanted to put in opposition the Christian viewpoint of a created universe over against the haphazard world of chance espoused by evolutionary theory.
Those of us who know the pope are not surprised at this sudden turn of events. Members of our Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation met with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in October 2002 and explained to him the scientific evidence against evolution and the scientific evidence for creation, evidence that prior to our visit the Cardinal had not been made aware.
Thank God we have a pope who is willing to take a critical look at the claims of modern science. Please continue to pray for him that God enlightens his mind.
Ping
With apologies to Galileo, "E pur s'evoluto!"
Very interesting.
My Father thinks that if evolution is true, there is no God. My grandfather, born in 1888 pretty much believed the theory was probable and it never shook his Faith in God in the least. In fact, though I hate to say it, I'm pretty sure my Grandfather's Faith was more developed and more muscular than my Dad's.
I have no idea whether it's fact or fiction 'cause I never really studied it much. But even if it's true does it necessarily mean God doesn't exist or He isn't the God we've all been sure he was? In my mind, The Lord can create all anyway He wants. I'm not capable of understanding Creation, so why take a hard stand against adaptation?
I'm like my Grandfather, I guess. Faith has to do with things unseen and unknown, so the theory doesn't shake my Faith in God.
Best regards...
ping
First, the Pope did not say that we were not the product of evolution. He said we were not a meaningless product of evolution. In other words, he is denying the philosophical conclusions that some people draw from evolution. Second, no pope has ever said or ever will say that we are MERELY the product of evolution, because Catholic teaching is that our spiritual souls are not the result of any merely material process. However, I doubt very much that Pope Benedict denies that our bodies are the result of an evolutionary processes. Third, Mr. Sungenis, for all his marvelous contributions to Catholic apologetics, has very little understanding of science. He has made arguments about astronomy that show that he does not have even a college freshman physics major's grasp of basic physics. (I am a professor of theoretical particle physics, with an international reputation in that field. I have published over a 120 research papers. My Ph.D. is from Princeton Univ. And I say with absolute confidence that Sungenis has virtually no understanding of physics.) Sungenis should stick to what he knows, and stop embarrassing himself and the rest of us.
With no intent to derail the thread, I like Jimmy Hendrix too.
Best regards as well.
How I wish I would have been gifted with a greater intellect to be able to understand physics, or applied myself more diligently to the study of it so, that I would at least understand more than I do now. If I can't visualize a concept, I can't seem to understand it. That was always my problem with the higher math and science.
"But even if it's true does it necessarily mean God doesn't exist or He isn't the God we've all been sure he was?"
No, it doesn't mean that, even though it is a theory concocted and promoted by atheists in order to provide a materialist explanation for the existence of life.
However, whether it is true or not as a scientific theory is of great importance, because it fundamentally affects the paradigm or worldview within which people operate. Not least, from the moral perspective, if you keep telling people for long enough that they are simply monkeys with big brains, then we should not be surprised if they eventually start acting like monkeys with big brains, and before you know it you will have a world filled with Hillary Clintons!!!
It has also been the bane of Catholic theology for the last 70 years. Once "theologians" such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ got it into their heads that evolutionism was the way that the world worked then modernism received a massive boost. No longer was the deposit of faith something that had been delivered once to the saints in a world of fixed and immutable truth, but now everything was involved in a process of development - a process of becoming rather than being. Everything that had gone before could be discarded or re-interpreted to fit with a process of updating and adaptation to the world in which we lived. All history was caught up in an evolutionary flow of progress of the advancement of man, headed towards that point in the future where mankind would evolve into the cosmic Christ. Teilhard de Chardin was roundly condemned by Pius XII, but the Jesuits are still trying to rehabilitate him to this day.
The theory has also been used very effectively by heretical theologians to undermine the doctrine of Original Sin and consequently the need of mankind for a Redeemer.
Obviously Genesis is not meant to be a science textbook which gives detailed how-to's of the creation. God could have created by a process of evolution if he had wanted to, however, he gives us no indication in Revelation that He did and there is no evidence from science that he did either.
"Third, Mr. Sungenis, for all his marvelous contributions to Catholic apologetics, has very little understanding of science. He has made arguments about astronomy that show that he does not have even a college freshman physics major's grasp of basic physics."
In that case I am sure you will be able to convincingly disprove his arguments for geocentrism. I look forward to seeing your case presented on his website.
For my part, I am not a physicist at all so wouldn't feel competent to get involved in that discussion. However my academic field was Molecular Biology and I do not see anything wrong with his arguments presented against evolution. There are many notable scientists (particularly in the non-Anglophone world) who have serious doubts about the credibility of the theory of evolution. But one really does not need to be a specialist in a scientific field to critique the theory, because the theory is not built on science in the first place.
Your comment that he should stick to what he knows smacks of the same intellectual snobbery that we hear from theologians who say that one can't read the bible without a degree in theology! If you really knew what you were talking about you would seek to knock down the man's ideas - not the man!
I see.
Obviously Genesis is not meant to be a science textbook which gives detailed how-to's of the creation. God could have created by a process of evolution if he had wanted to, however, he gives us no indication in Revelation that He did and there is no evidence from science that he did either.
Unfortunately, most of us have to resort to other people to help us understand Scripture. I say unfortunate, because understanding something through someone else is a disadvantage in terms of full understanding. I'm not attached to the theory by any means, just don't find it bothersome because I see it as speculative, and requiring a certain amount of 'faith' in and of itself.
But, some of the things you've pointed to are undeniably problematic, such as this:
Not least, from the moral perspective, if you keep telling people for long enough that they are simply monkeys with big brains, then we should not be surprised if they eventually start acting like monkeys with big brains, and before you know it you will have a world filled with Hillary Clintons!!!
Other than good Catechesis, and solid apologetics that counter this, how do you guard against such a lapse? Faith has to be able to withstand this kind of divergent, if pernicious, thought.
Finally, and on brighter note, I thought Hillary was like a monkey with big ankles?
/typical catty female
"I've found myself incapable of believing dicta and doctrines I can't imagine myself at least in principle capable of testing."
In that case I assume you don't believe in evolution then?
"just don't find it bothersome because I see it as speculative, and requiring a certain amount of 'faith' in and of itself."
Exactly so. It is a theory built on faith rather than scientific evidence. To be sure people will try and make scientific data fit their theory, but as soon as non-Darwinists present data which shoots the theory down, the evo's will cling to their faith rather than dealing with the evidence. It has become a pseudo-religion.
"I thought Hillary was like a monkey with big ankles?"
LOL!
"I've found myself incapable of believing dicta and doctrines I can't imagine myself at least in principle capable of testing."In that case I assume you don't believe in evolution then?
It's the "at least in principle" that vitiates your conclusion.
How on earth can you "at least in principle" test dicta and doctrines of events that putatively took place millions or billions of years ago?
Do you have any proof that your ancestor was a monkey, or are you prepared to believe this baloney because a man in a white coat tells you it is so?
A difficult thing for some people to grasp is that everything in empirical science is subject to being questioned, everything is subject to revision. Those who are uncomfortable with this sort of uncertainty tend to reject it, preferring absolute answers to straightforward questions. It's a comforting thought, I guess, that the world is set up that way, but there's very little evidence to support it.
As for the monkey question, either you know biologists and paleontologists make no such claim and you're just being tendentious, or else you don't know and have simply latched onto one of the most elementary (and hoary) of distortions of evolution. Either way, it ought to be beneath you.
This will probably anger the evolvo-cultists, who enjoy using the Pope (who they loathe as much as any other religionist) to attack the creationists (not that I agree with them either). I guess the Pope will become anathema to the cult.
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.