Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

The News Herald ^ | Nov 18, 2005 | NICOLE WINFIELD (AP)

[VOYAGER]

...be in the minority among Catholic scholars...

How can that be construed as not being a plus?

[sinkspur]

Unfortunately for yourself and this Catholic, the rest of the authors of Books in the Bible took Genesis literally. You and this guy are denying the entire Biblical account with your desire to allegorize.

Explain cramming the entire ecology of the earth into a wooden boat.

[narses]

"Explain cramming the entire ecology of the earth into a wooden boat."

Miracles are not part of your reality? How sad.

[sinkspur]

Miracles are not part of your reality?

Not in the story of Noah.

By your definition, anything that can't be explained in Scripture is a "miracle." That means that God regularly operated outside the processes he created, in the Old Testament.

An allegory is a story that explains something else. Scriptural allegories talk about God operating in the history of the Jewish people. It is the TRUTH that is important, that God was present in their history, not the accuracy of the stories explaining that truth.

If you want to call the burning bush a "miracle," go right ahead. It's the lazy way to deal with the special relationship the Jewish people had with God at the time of Moses.

[narses]

So miracles didn't happen in the Old Testament? Is that your odd claim?

[ELS]

but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.
Apart from believing it as an act of faith, how does he know that?

He's the Pope.

Actually the quote that BikerNYC highlighted was by the Cardinal of Vienna, not Pope Benedict in x5452's original post.

[x5452]

Benedict refuted the notion of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" the cardinal paraphrased it and labeled it 'neo-darwinian'. The only thing you can really dispute is whether neo-darwinian is an appropriate label for that.

Personally "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" seems classical darwin to me.

[SoothingDave]

Yes, and that is ONE view inside the Church. It is my understanding that many views, including the literal, exist.

That is true, so we really should not be sniping at each other over this. The Church is univeral enough to permit a literal or non-literal take on these episodes.

[SoothingDave]

You were making the point that the 'philosophers' came to realize that since the world was so ordered, there had to be a devine "Orderer". My point is that they also thought the sun revolved around the earth therefor their 'order' was flawed hence their revelation of an "Orderer" was thusly flawed or that the the "Orderer" was flawed.

Now you said this twice, but it still is illogical.

If I fail to have a complete understanding of how my computer works, indeed if I hold erroneous notions about its workings, this does not disprove the fact that the PC is indeed a product of a designer who had a sense of order when designing it.

Our inability to understand perfectly the order does not make a disproof of an orderer, or a mark of his imperfection.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The Church is univeral enough to permit a literal or non-literal take on these episodes.

I want my cake and eat it too!!! :)

Whats up Dave?

BigMack

[Diamond]

You obviously do not know your ancient history. Egyptians' hieroglyphics go back 5000 years and beyond. The Sumarians left us 'cunniform' writing dating from 6000bc.

Exactly. Which is why the original basis for a late date of Genesis authorship is mistaken. Please do not attribute to me the "higher" critics' ignorance of these facts that you have listed. Their ignorance was the original basis of a late date of Genesis authorship, which you accept.

Finally, do not swallow whole any Christian teaching when it purports to be "truth". What is truth for one is a lie for another.

hmmm. If "what is truth for one is a lie for another" then how can that statement itself be true?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

If they allow homosexual priests, why not deny God creating all we see and don't see? I say it goes together like a hand in a glove ... another rational reason not to be a Catholic.

I'm not R.C. and your remark is a cheap shot. Does the church to which you belong have any sinners, and if so, does that necessarily mean that your denomination "allows" it? I think you ought to apologize for that particular misrepresentation, not to me, but to those of the Roman church on this thread.

Cordially,

[SoothingDave]

I want my cake and eat it too!!! :)

Unity in essential matters, liberty in other matters.

Whats up Dave?

Hanging out. Getting ready for the snow.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I'm not R.C. and your remark is a cheap shot. Does the church to which you belong have any sinners, and if so, does that necessarily mean that your denomination "allows" it? I think you ought to apologize for that particular misrepresentation, not to me, but to those of the Roman church on this thread.

Fat chance of that happening, but I appreciate the support. You are one of the intellectually honest ones around here.

SD

[Diamond]

The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must protect themselves.

Hasn't this guy ever heard of the Hillary Clinton?

Cordially,

[nmh]

Soothing Dave,

They are spiritually discerned. They are quite content to ignore the truth, grimace at homosexuals as priests and believe that being against abortion makes up for other apostate teachings. Conversing with them becomes vile and why I typically don't interact with them.

They can get a Bible and read the truth for themselves. If I were them, I'd pick up a Bible, read it and do some comparisons to what is taught in their "church" and what the Bible states. There is a world of difference. It's no surprise they disregard Creation as stated in the Bible ... and favor man's word and junk science.

[SoothingDave]

You are the vile one, unable to overcome your own prejudice and introducing cheap shots into an argument totally unrelated. That's quite a way to witness for what you consider the truth.

SD

[nmh]

"You are the vile one, unable to overcome your own prejudice and introducing cheap shots into an argument totally unrelated. That's quite a way to witness for what you consider the truth."

LOL!

I have "no prejudice" and I am the best spokesperson for myself. I know many Catholics - like any other group there is good and bad. What I vehemently disagree with is the lies they are taught to believe and chose to believe. The majority of my church is filled with ex-Catholics. When their eyes are first opened their typically in denial, then angry but the truth gives them the comfort they need to overcome their disappointment.

I'm sorry to see that you see truth as "vile".

To state that I see Hillary and Bill as liars is not a "prejudice" nor is it "vile". It's simply the truth. You simply don't like the truth. So you cloak it with name calling to better yourself. I don't flinch at childish name calling. Your name calling is worn out and abused. I suppose it is difficult to defend the indefensible and you in particular are forced to use this empty war of ugly name calling as your only defense. So sad.

The truth will also set you free and you will feel peace inside. To be part of the "body" is extended to all but unfortunately not all receive Him. Be one of the "body".

[nmh]

I was thinking further about you ... .

I always find it amazing when, (I'm guessing now) that YOU believe that Christ rose from the dead and sits on the right side of God ... Christ turned water into wine ... literally walked on water ... and for some mysterious reason you defend a FALLIBLE mortal who states that He didn't create the earth in seven literal twenty-four hour days as He LITERALLY states in Hebrew in Genesis.

Next, you call me "vile" and "prejudiced" for people who take the word of man as "truth" who state otherwise as "truth" in this particular issue. That always amazes me. Why believe ANY of the Bible? All you're doing is selectively defining "truth" according to a fallible mortal.

At one time the Catholic church was upset with Galileo for stating the world was round rather than flat. If they had taken the Bible seriously they NEVER would have believed the world was flat. The Bible stated differently:

(See url:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
for more detail.)

Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." [DD]

Read more...

But, doesn't the Bible refer to "the four corners of the earth." How can a spherical earth have corners? Answer...

Who invented the concept of a flat Earth? Answer...

Click on the word "Answer" for the answer at this url:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

You know, there's still time to become part of the body of Christ. All the rituals and "traditions" in the world won't save you and neither will believing lies save you. Truth is NOT and never will be multiple choice. Nor does "truth" "evolve". A statement with some "truth" in it is no longer "truth" when it contains lies - then it all become false - boolean logic. Something is either true or it is false. Compromise on truth, automatically makes it false.

Lastly "truth" is not "vile" or prejudiced" Truth is what it is, "truth".

[SoothingDave]

Lastly "truth" is not "vile" or prejudiced"

You protest way too much. Deep in your heart you know that bringing up homosexual priests was vile and you bring it up whenever you can because of your own ignorant prejudices. The honest, decent Christians here can see that. You are an embarrassment.

If you truly had the truth on your side, you would not need to throw out these inflammatory things. You would let truth speak for itself.

SD