Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.What is "the truth about man"?
Wonderful question. First, let us note that the Pope starts out by saying this:
I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences ...Here, I understand the Pope to have adopted Galileo's own method of resolving conflicts between scripture and science, as expressed by Galileo here:
Galileo said: "...I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstration ..." In the same paragraph, Galileo said: "For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words."
The Pope is apparently adopting this method of dealing with scripture -- that physical reality prevails over the simplistic reading of scripture. The Pope goes on to say:
... knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.After seeming to accept physical evolution, the Pope goes on to discuss man's "spiritual soul" and he says what you quoted above, and which I repeat here (now that it's in context):
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.The Pope continues:
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. [That's physical evolution. No problem. Now the Pope carves out the special spiritual exeption to evolution:] The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.So what I read here is that physical evolution isn't a problem for the Church; and man's spiritual nature is a whole separate issue, which theology claims for itself. Personally, I have no problem with this at all.
this is the evil--tyranny we are dealing with!
Personal attacks and no debating the issues/subject!
Brags about her banning reord!
We need a civil rights revolution now---JUSTICE--FREEDOM--LIBERTY for the oppresssed!
Liberation now!
They students need to learn Haeckel's bogus embryology-as-recapitulation-of-evolutionary-history or that the appendix serves no useful purpose.
I have a question. Without implying any condescension in my question... have you tried to search this out yourself? Some of these Bible *difficulties* can be resolved with a minimum of effort.
10 or 12 years ago there was a list of 100 Bible contradictions floating around USENET. Then I saw the list grow to 200. Around that time a team of us got together as well as you can get together on the internet and searched out each "contradiction" with yours truly as general editor. Unfortunately that was long before the general populace could write to a CD and that data is long lost.
Out of that list of 200 we were able to answer 199 of the 200 "contradictions" satisfactorily to the majority of skeptics. That one remaining "contradiction" wasn't even much of anything. Although I don't remember the exact issue it had something to do with how long a king actually reigned, whether 16 or 36 years or similar numbers.
You see, there was a different number listed on some ancient manuscripts. The number in question looked something like an "F" or an "E" or that was the analogy we used. One manuscript had a smudge mark on it and was translated one way, where the other manuscript didn't have the smudge mark and was translated another.
Of those 200 "contradictions" that was the only remaining issue. A smudge mark on an ancient document prevented us from answering all but 1 out of 200 from a very hostile group of skeptics. A smudge mark prevented some from seeing the real issue, that being Christ Jesus.
Please don't let a smudge mark get in your way.
I see your placemarker and raise you mine:
Its-easier-to-complain-about-something-instead-of-researching-it-myself, placemarker.
Conversely, if someone aces all his exams in divinity school, yet he steadfastly refuses to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died for our sins, would he be qualified to be a preacher? I think not.
The only "science" against evolution is what you read in the creationist propaganda books. There is little if any creation science in the scientific publications
This has got to be the most simple and stupid debate tactic ever. Dismissing all members of a group based on the actions of one or a few individuals. Should I condemn all religions for the religous-ispired attacks 9-11? Grow up please.
Gotcha!
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.