A Letter to Pope Benedict About Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
**A Letter to Pope Benedict About Evolution

** November 6, 2005

Your Holiness:

SUBJECT: Evidences for creation ex nihilo and against evolution of life from non-life for PAS meeting Nov. 13.

It has come to our attention that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) will be reviewing the theory of biological evolution of life from non-life beginning November 13, 2005. This review will be in light of the church’s 2000 year support of scripture and the recent discussion of the Intelligent Design (I.D.) theory by such Catholics as Dr. Behe, professor of molecular biology. But I.D. proponents do not mention the age question which is critical to the gospels.

more…
 
When did someone on this forum start using CNN polls to help justify their position? It seems everyone on this forum loves to trash them as bias. I doubt a majority of Americans believe the Earth and everything on it were literally created in just six days. If you are going to take that literally, then I assume you take every word in the Bible literally; from man being created twice in Genesis to the fact that the walls of Jericho actually fell instead of it being a metaphor, etc. etc.
 
Actually, I think it’s great! Keep pushing that hard scientific evidence. Dinosaur footprints along side human footprints, radiometric dating is bogus, the Grand Canyon was deposited and eroded during Noah’s flood, polonium halos, the lack of dust on the moon, the second law of thermodynamics does not allow for evolution, etc… That will probably change their mind.

Peace

Tim
 
i have serious reservations about creationists. their whole foundation is a literal interpretation of the creation account and not on reason. as they say, genisis wasn’t written as a science book. modern science as we know it didn’t come around to at least the middle ages. even augustine said that if we found contradictions in the bible we are either interpeting it wrong or have a bad translation.

dei verbum clearly states that scripture faithfully describes that truth which God intended us to know for the sake of our salvation. the genisis account has a much greater ontological and universal truths about the human experience then any science book could ever have.

why would God make the universe appear to be older then it is? why would he be trying to trick us? this is similar to a heresy called nominalism. continental drift is a fact, we can measure the spreading by GPS. at the current spreading rate it will take hundreds of millions of years to bring the continents back together.

science has it’s place, religion has it’s place. both should not contradict but should work together in revealing truth about God.
 
oat soda:
why would God make the universe appear to be older then it is? why would he be trying to trick us? this is similar to a heresy called nominalism. continental drift is a fact, we can measure the spreading by GPS. at the current spreading rate it will take hundreds of millions of years to bring the continents back together.

science has it’s place, religion has it’s place. both should not contradict but should work together in revealing truth about God.
Click to expand...
God may not have made the universe to look older than it is. We may just be wrong in our conclusions.

Correct - faith and reason cannot contradict. However, science is contained in God’s creation and can say something about God on its own. IOW science is a contributor to the absolute truth, it does not have the final say.
 
God may not have made the universe to look older than it is. We may just be wrong in our conclusions
Click to expand...
the problem is a good theory will fit many observations time and time again. this is exactly the case with evolution and the scientific origins of the universe and age of our earth. of course there is a point where science can’t tell us anything, like before the big bang. we need to know what science can and can’t tell us.

exactly why do you think the universe or earth is younger then what scientist tell us it is? why are nearly all of them unanimous on the age of the earth? only creationists who base their theory on a non-catholic understanding of scripture and ignore the mountain of evidence that shows evolution is a fact and the earth is much older then a literal interpretation of the bible tells us it is.

this is the same technique mormons use to support their faith. they presuppose something is true, that the BOM is historically accurate, then they look for evidence that might agree with this book and ignore anything contrary by saying we really can’t know for 100% so all we have is faith. this is totally wrong and i hope we don’t fall into this error of catholic fundamentalism.
 
40.png
buffalo:
God may not have made the universe to look older than it is. We may just be wrong in our conclusions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like the idea the Earth is <10,000 years old.
 
oat soda:
the problem is a good theory will fit many observations time and time again. this is exactly the case with evolution and the scientific origins of the universe and age of our earth. of course there is a point where science can’t tell us anything, like before the big bang. we need to know what science can and can’t tell us.

exactly why do you think the universe or earth is younger then what scientist tell us it is? why are nearly all of them unanimous on the age of the earth? only creationists who base their theory on a non-catholic understanding of scripture and ignore the mountain of evidence that shows evolution is a fact and the earth is much older then a literal interpretation of the bible tells us it is.

this is the same technique mormons use to support their faith. they presuppose something is true, that the BOM is historically accurate, then they look for evidence that might agree with this book and ignore anything contrary by saying we really can’t know for 100% so all we have is faith. this is totally wrong and i hope we don’t fall into this error of catholic fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
I do not make that claim. I suggest it is possible that we are not intepreting the raw data correctly.

Example: If one wears glasses that filter out blue light he will never see that the sky is blue. God knows the sky is blue, but we cannot see this because our vision is limited by the blue filter. (So why would God make the sky to appear something other than blue?) Therefore some of our conclusions about the sky might be wrong.
 
Example: If one wears glasses that filter out blue light he will never see that the sky is blue. God knows the sky is blue, but we cannot see this because our vision is limited by the blue filter.
Click to expand...
as a catholic, we must accept that absolute truth exists and that we can know it. the whole point of science is to answer questions based on observations. first comes the observation, then the conclusion. then we test the conclusion.

we can trust our senses because things do exist and have being and everything points back to a first cause -God. but what you said is not science.

science deals with things we can measure by using our senses. if we can’t see, hear, touch, or feel it, then we have know way of knowing that it exists and is effectively outside the sphere of science.

if by observing the earth it appears to be very old, around 4.5 Ga, then it is old until observations tell us otherwise. we should accept this old age as a scientific fact.
 
oat soda:
science deals with things we can measure by using our senses. if we can’t see, hear, touch, or feel it, then we have know way of knowing that it exists and is effectively outside the sphere of science.

if by observing the earth it appears to be very old, around 4.5 Ga, then it is old until observations tell us otherwise. we should accept this old age as a scientific fact.
Click to expand...
No - I did not claim that. Indeed we are limited by our 5 senses. But I was not using this in my statement.

I was suggesting that we could have a filter on our senses and perhaps that affects our conclusion.
 
40.png
wabrams:
When did someone on this forum start using CNN polls to help justify their position? I doubt a majority of Americans believe the Earth and everything on it were literally created in just six days.
Click to expand...
I read the letter but haven’t looked over the fact sheet or the info that followed. It seemed great except for the conclusion that the majority of Americans believe in a literal 6 day creation. Unfortunately I think the author of the letter lost credibility by making that jump.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Actually, I think it’s great! Keep pushing that hard scientific evidence. Dinosaur footprints along side human footprints, radiometric dating is bogus, the Grand Canyon was deposited and eroded during Noah’s flood, polonium halos, the lack of dust on the moon, the second law of thermodynamics does not allow for evolution, etc… That will probably change their mind.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Ha! Ha! 😛 You can prove anything with Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.
You only see what you want to see, and spend all that energy defending …what??? Ha! Ha! 😛
 
40.png
Dandelion_Wine:
I read the letter but haven’t looked over the fact sheet or the info that followed. It seemed great except for the conclusion that the majority of Americans believe in a literal 6 day creation. Unfortunately I think the author of the letter lost credibility by making that jump.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
40.png
buffalo:
SUBJECT: Evidences for creation ex nihilo and against evolution of life from non-life for PAS meeting Nov. 13.
Click to expand...
And here I thought the Bible taught that life came from non-life when God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

One of the things that sets the Catholic Church apart is her willingness to actually consider the findings of science in her understanding of the Bible. What the majority of Americans believe should have no bearing on what the Church teaches. The Church is concerned with Truth, not opinion.
 
In my opinion Creationists have gravely damaged the cause of hard science establishing the obvious, overwhelming evidence (both scientific and purely rational) for a Creator. Without their literal interpretation (which Church Fathers such as St. Augustine never espoused) of Genesis, it would be Fundamentalist Evolutionists alone going through scientific, rational and logical contortions to vindicate their “theories”, all of which are idealogically driven (they’re terrified of true ID!). Now they’re able to conflate ID with Creationism and define the argument.

I can never understand (actually I sort of can) why Fundamentalists see Christ constantly teaching in parables but won’t accept that the same God revealed many things in the same manner in Genesis and elsewhere. I think that Pope Benedict once wrote that Man’s being created from the “dust of the earth” implies that we are intimately related to nature which could accomodate evolution…but not evolution as taught! (personally I think that evolution is a theory in dire trouble on credible scientific grounds though!).

If Creationists would back off, the poster boy for ID would be Albert Einstein! “God doesn’t play dice” is one of hundreds of quotes from him (some written for introductions to religious books) that support ID. Creationists latching on to ID has muddied the waters, helped function as artificial life support for secular atheism and (lets face it) legitimately CAN be viewed as a way to establish an official religion in public schools. True proponents of ID as a result are now faced with a two front war against two types of Fundamentalists. This didn’t have to be the case.
 
Genesis and Exodus are presented as historic literature and this is shown by hebrew scholars. They are not parables, but a literal history of the world and of Israel. More importantly it tells us why there is death and sufferring in this world.

God did not create death and sufferring on purpose, God is not responsible for it at all! Why would He send a redeemer into the world to fix something that He started? The wages of sin is death and this is a result of the Fall. How then can there be billions of years of death and sufferring before Adam and Eve existed? What will you make of the geneology found in teh Bible from the first Adam to the new Adam in Christ? Christ upheld scripture and spoke of Adam and Noah as real people. Marriage is between a man and a woman because at the very beginning God made them both male and female.

Many need to take heed of what creationism is and a defense of it. Yes most Creationists are Protestants, but understand that Protestant does not = Fundaliteralist. They do not take the Bible literally word for word in the English language. There is first knowing which books are poetic, extended parables, apocalyptic, proverbial, legal codes and historical. There are also conotations in Hebrew/Greek etc that do not translate well into English. These are the results of careful study and each genre of book in the Bible has been determined. Only those who try to compromise another materialistic worldview with their faith will have a problem. The Bible, Christianity and the Catholic faith can be defended thoroughly. Don’t fall for another philosophy disguised as science. It will only undermine your faith. Go out and openly discover what this is all about. Look at both sides and decide which makes the most sense, scientifically and theologically.
 
40.png
jdnation:
Genesis and Exodus are presented as historic literature and this is shown by hebrew scholars. They are not parables, but a literal history of the world and of Israel. More importantly it tells us why there is death and sufferring in this world.
…
Click to expand...
👍 :clapping:
 
40.png
jdnation:
Many need to take heed of what creationism is and a defense of it. Yes most Creationists are Protestants, but understand that Protestant does not = Fundaliteralist.
Click to expand...
I think there’s something called “Fundaphobia”. today we’re called fundamentalist/fundaliteralists for believing in God’s creation of man. tomorrow we’re called that for believing in Jesus’ resurrection from dead.
 
buffalo said:
A Letter to Pope Benedict About Evolution

November 6, 2005

Your Holiness:

SUBJECT: Evidences for creation ex nihilo and against evolution of life from non-life for PAS meeting Nov. 13.

It has come to our attention that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) will be reviewing the theory of biological evolution of life from non-life beginning November 13, 2005. This review will be in light of the church’s 2000 year support of scripture and the recent discussion of the Intelligent Design (I.D.) theory by such Catholics as Dr. Behe, professor of molecular biology. But I.D. proponents do not mention the age question which is critical to the gospels.

more…
Click to expand...

A few remarks:​

  1. It’s not deferential enough 😃 - I think the correct address is “Most Holy Father”.
  2. Who are “we” ? I think that should be changed, so that it will be clear to the recipient who are the senders of the letter; and, say at this point why you are writing.
  3. For “…Dr. Behe, professor…”, read “Doctor Michael Behe, Professor of molecular biology at [name of institution]” - again, let there be complete clarity. The rule for capitalising nouns, is that lower case type is used when unspecified professors are referred to, upper case being used when specific individuals who are professors are named.
  • So: “There are several professors in books by C.S.Lewis”
and
  • “Martians cannot be elected to professorial chairs”;
but
  • “Who on earth is Professor Michael Behe ?”;
and
  • “The United States is well supplied with Professors of Biology”
  1. If the Pope knows something - such as what a conference is about - he won’t need to be told it.
  2. “But I.D. proponents do not mention the age question which is critical to the gospels.”
  3. Try to avoid beginning a sentence with “But”
  4. Another objection to beginning this particular sentence with “But”, is that “but” is an adversative particle.
Adversatives work by adding information to what a writer has just said, which adds to what has been said by way of contrast.

So “My great-aunt is very intelligent,…”
    • information
“…but I did not expect her to be become a Professor of Biology,…”
    • contrast
“…as all her books are about philosophy”.
    • explanation of contrast.
  1. "Sincerely,
[Names & styles of senders follow]"

“Sincerely” is much too informal for a letter to the Pope - something more grovelling is needed 🙂 - not quite “Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness”, unless you want to be, of course 🙂 - but getting on for something of the kind.

Hope that helps. These may seem minor points, but presentation is very important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top