Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
This would be a better term: "bigoted."
If the theory of evolution (though we must ask which one) were suddenly gone tomorrow without a trace, it would make no practical difference at all in most fields of biology.
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.
From the link you provided which is an English translation from French, in your opinion, is the Pope:
I haven't said my motto in awhile: context is everything.
Whatever you do, please do not think I'm saying or endorsing anything in particular here.
1. Endorsing evolutionI haven't said my motto in awhile: context is everything.
2. Endorsing special creation
3. Not taking either side
I really made an effort to answer your earlier question, and I went way out of my way, even to including the guts of the Galileo matter, to put it all in context for you. I shall try once more to answer the question you just raised:
I think the Pope is accepting the theory of evolution regarding man's physical nature, and is asserting special creation for man's spiritual nature.
Whatever you do, please do not think I'm saying or endorsing anything in particular here.
Not a problem.
So easy to say. This growing body is published where? AnswersinGenesis? ICR?
After reading your post again and trying to look at it from your perspective, I see that. Please ignore my earlier question.
I think the Pope is accepting the theory of evolution regarding man's physical nature, and is asserting special creation for man's spiritual nature.
It's my opinion, and I'm not Catholic so I could be way off base here, that the Pope isn't saying either way. When I first (i.e. months ago) read the link you provided I thought the Pope wasn't endorsing evolution. After reading a lot of different opinions on his words I think he's, as I just said, not saying either way.
Past experience with the NCSE has demonstrated an extreme bias on their part, so I tend to read very carefully everything they say. Having said that, I think the link you provided is a good translation. There are others that, IMO, don't hold up to scrutiny.
Some places I've been reading today are here, here and here.
With this I want to be careful - it is not my intent to offend. It is quite possible the Pope being who is is, is also being political. There, I said it. That's been on my mind all day.
Paleontologists suck as paleontologists.
Whale bones.
You're not offending me. I agree with what I think you're saying -- the Pope is trying to have it both ways. But I think he's done a very good job of it. One thing is clear -- he's not supporting a fundamentalist reading of Genesis, that is, he's not coming out and bashing evolution. The institution he heads ended up looking like fools over the Galileo incident, and they seem determined not to ever let that happen again. The Pope does not want the Church to end up in an intellectual backwater, while the world passes them by. This is entirely admirable.
Actually that's not what I was referring to, but thanks for the info.
So the so called "contradiction", lies within the english translation and the mind of the reader. As usual...
That's not how I would have said it ;-), but yes.
But could an Apollo Astronaut believe the moon is made of cheese?
I was wondering if by pinging you in that post it would cause some confusion. I pinged you because you had responded to Dimensio.
The question *to Dimensio* was: "Without implying any condescension in my question... have you tried to search this out yourself?"
Sorry for the confusion
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.