[Matchett-PI]

Which theory of evolution are you talking about?

“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit 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. ...”

Excerpted from:

Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html

John Paul II

Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996

70 posted on 02/10/2006 10:44:06 AM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70

[DallasDeb]

I believe that little by little, the church is giving away its basic beliefs. If I person can’t open the Bible, read Genesis, and come up with the correct message that God created man (and woman) in his likeness, unique from all the other animals, then that person cannot believe anything in the Bible.

[Wacka]

Let the Catholic bashing begin.
It soon will here.
After they purge the Mormons, the Catholics are next.

[pnh102]

It is indeed true that the Catholic Church and other churches have accepted evolution.

However, there are many kinds of "apples and oranges" comparisons that crop up when dealing with this topic.

The main point of confusion starts with the origin of life. There is currently no scientific explantion for why life began. We as Christians believe that God originated all life. However, evolution itself does not contradict the notion that God could have created life initially, and all life forms, including ourselves, evolved from that creation.

Converesely, the ascent of humans as the dominant species of life on Earth illustrates both the evolutionary principle of "survival of the fittest" as well as the Biblical principle that God gave to humanity all of the resources of the Earth as explained in the Book of Genesis. In this regard, the two concepts reach the same conclusion, albeit through different means.

In essence, the debate isn't really "evolution vs. creationism" but rather, how does evolution, as it is observed, fit in with church teachings?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Here is the complete text:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

A good refutation is found in section 64 and later. Written during the province of John Paul II,

“...acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe...

“Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe.”

[Varda]

The Church doesn’t have a problem with the biological science known as Darwinism i.e evolution by the mechanism of natural selection. The Church does have a problem with Philosophical Materialism (this is a worldview) that is sometimes called Darwinism or is said to be an outgrowth of it.

[RobbyS]

The limited theory of evolution described in Origin of Species is not the same as “darwinism,” which incorporates philosophic materialism.

[Campion]

1. Everyone needs to define their terms. What do you mean by "darwinistic evolution," for example?
2. As has already been noted above, he's referring you to a secondary source that is attempting to summarize a primary source document. Is the summary fair? Complete? Slanted in a particular way? The only way to know is to go back to the primary source. Also, note just what kind of teaching document the primary source is.
3. Also, note that Papal authority is not retro-active. Your correspondent seems to be under the impression that something BXVI wrote before ascending the Papal throne automagically has more authority than something written by any other (e.g.) Prefect of the CDF (Cdl. Ratzinger's previous position). It doesn't. You might conclude that's probably sound theology (since BXVI is a sound theologian), but the author's subsequent election to the Papacy doesn't invest the document with any more authority than it previously had.

[Claud]

Oh, and I forgot to reply to this:

“even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within Gods providential plan for creation.”

That’s quite accurate, cf. the Augustine quote at post 15. But CAN fall is not DID fall. The Commission is leaving the door open for such a process but not excluding, at least in this quote, other ideas.