Conference on Evolution

[catholic1seeks]

Where can I find all of the information on the recent Vatican conference on Evolution? Is there a specific website???

THANKS!

Maybe it can help answer most of our evolution Qs on here!

 

[Verbum]

Hi Cath__,

The conference is ending today. It is organized by the Pontifical Gregorian University in collaboration with Notre-Dame University. You can find the program here :

unigre.it/eventi/conferenza_evoluzione/documenti/090303_Brochure_Conferenza_evoluzione_en.pdf

I suggest you consult the sites of one or other of the two universities in the days to come.

Verbum

 

[grannymh]

The Official Site for the Conference on Evolution is:

www.evolution-rome2009.net

Check out links.

Blessings,
grannymh

All human life is created by God.

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

This “Pontifical Conference” on evolution is a farce. It was sponsored by a liberal Catholic university who invited mostly athiest scientists, and none of the hundreds of scientists who refute evolution. For the other side of the story go to

evolutionnews.org/2009/03/exotic_science_and_theology_in.html

What must be kept in mind is that neither the archbishop’s public remarks, nor the “pronouncements” resulting from the upcoming symposium constitutes magisterial teaching. No Catholic is doctrinally bound by either. What is binding on Catholics is the 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, promulgated by Pope Pius XII. One will search that document in vain for the support of evolution claimed by Catholic evolutionists. In fact, Fr. Patrick O’Connell, a personal consultant to Pope Pius XII, made it known in his book, The Origin and Early History of Man, that Pope Pius XII complained about those who misrepresented his teaching.

A measure of balance has been provided by republication of the 1959 book, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION JUDGED BY REASON AND FAITH. The author, His Eminence, Ernesto Ruffini, was, at the time, Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Every time someone trots out a list “hundreds of scientists who doubt evolution”, I notice a tiny minority of them actually have doctorates in biology. There’s a good reason for that.

I generally advise those who oppose the Church’s teaching on evolution, to compare those lists with “Project Steve.” It’s made up those with doctorates in biology or a related field, named “Steve.” It’s well over 800 now. And I ask; “how many Steves do you have?”

Usually the same person who was touting “hundreds of scientists” does a quick 180, and says “as if the truth was a matter of popularity.”

Then I smile at them and nod.

Pope Pius XXII and his successors have acknowledged that evolution is consistent with Christian belief. The only condition is that science not deny divine providence.

The Church accepts plumbing on the same conditions. Any plumbing manuals that deny divine providence are unacceptable to the Church.

 

[grannymh]

This “Pontifical Conference” on evolution is a farce. It was sponsored by a liberal Catholic university who invited mostly athiest scientists, and none of the hundreds of scientists who refute evolution. For the other side of the story go to

evolutionnews.org/2009/03/exotic_science_and_theology_in.html

What must be kept in mind is that neither the archbishop’s public remarks, nor the “pronouncements” resulting from the upcoming symposium constitutes magisterial teaching. No Catholic is doctrinally bound by either. What is binding on Catholics is the 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, promulgated by Pope Pius XII. One will search that document in vain for the support of evolution claimed by Catholic evolutionists. In fact, Fr. Patrick O’Connell, a personal consultant to Pope Pius XII, made it known in his book, The Origin and Early History of Man, that Pope Pius XII complained about those who misrepresented his teaching.

A measure of balance has been provided by republication of the 1959 book, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION JUDGED BY REASON AND FAITH. The author, His Eminence, Ernesto Ruffini, was, at the time, Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo.

Admittedly, I don’t know all the projects which pertain to Intelligent Design. So I am wondering if anyone is looking at the very beginning of life. It would seem to me that is where one would find intelligent design rather than looking in nature. If one “tree of life” is possible, an Intelligent designer could have two “trees of life” formed from the same material and subject to the same environment but with slight differences in genomic structure.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

To the “Barbarian”: I don’t invent fantasies. Google the Creation Research Society with its 1700 members who refute evolution and you can count the biologists for yourself. FYI: the eminent Polish geneticist, Dr. Maciej Giertych attended the “Pontifical Conference” but was not allowed to speak because he refutes evolution, and he was amazed that the theologians and clergy attending were not aware that the scientific community is itself divided on the issue. I can send you his report if you don’t believe me. It’s OK to disagree, but it’s evil to deceive people by hiding other points of view.

Patrick of London Ontario

 

[The_Barbarian]

To the “Barbarian”: I don’t invent fantasies. Google the Creation Research Society with its 1700 members who refute evolution and you can count the biologists for yourself.

How many “Steves” do you have. Remember, “Steve” or some variant, PhD in biology or a related field. Count and get back to me. Then we’ll see how many Steves we have. Good luck. If it’s an embarassingly tiny number, feel free to just let it drop.

FYI: the eminent Polish geneticist, Dr. Maciej Giertych attended the “Pontifical Conference” but was not allowed to speak because he refutes evolution, and he was amazed that the theologians and clergy attending were not aware that the scientific community is itself divided on the issue.

The last time I compared the numbers from the Discovery institute with Project Steve, about 0.3% did not accept evolutionary theory. If you think that’s a “division”… You’re not a biologist, are you? Guess how I know.

I can send you his report if you don’t believe me. It’s OK to disagree, but it’s evil to deceive people by hiding other points of view.

I bet those rascals didn’t allow any flat earth theorists in either. How one-sided.

 

[DavWan]

This “Pontifical Conference” on evolution is a farce. It was sponsored by a liberal Catholic university who invited mostly athiest scientists, and none of the hundreds of scientists who refute evolution.

I believe they did not invite proponents of ID, because ID presumes things outside of focus of science, and the focus of the conference is science. If a conference had been on a theological topic, science would have been outside the focus

Let’s remember that how God caused all of creation to come into being is beyond what science can determine. What science does is to point to the evidence and say that it seems most likely that it happened a certain way physically.

The faithful ought not to confuse science with Scientism. We need to contend with the latter, not the former.

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

Those scientists who refute evolution incorporate more observable data into their refutations than those who support evolution. This is the esscence of the scientific method. Creation scientists don’t need to quote scripture to prove their theory. They are well qualified to enter into purely scientific debate when the pro evolutionishts will let them. If you don’t know this, you need to get their papers or read their books. Scientific observations fit better with bible stories than with stories of evolution. Just like archaeology is digging up more and more proof of bible stories being real. To talk of the bible as you would a plumber’s manual, is not only disrespectful, it is to miss the point that plumbers don’t need to call on God to finish the job, science does.
Add to this the element of divine revelation and you have to remember that Jesus, who knew everything, accepted those stories without question. Since Jesus and his disciples saw flesh form before their eyes, it wouldn’t take much to imagine a whole human take form just as easily. But now in these latter days we can do such signs and wonders through scientists, our modern day prophets, they can deceive many, even the elect, into thinking it’s impossible without them and their theories.

 

[cassini]

To the “Barbarian”: I don’t invent fantasies. Google the Creation Research Society with its 1700 members who refute evolution and you can count the biologists for yourself. FYI: the eminent Polish geneticist, Dr. Maciej Giertych attended the “Pontifical Conference” but was not allowed to speak because he refutes evolution, and he was amazed that the theologians and clergy attending were not aware that the scientific community is itself divided on the issue. I can send you his report if you don’t believe me. It’s OK to disagree, but it’s evil to deceive people by hiding other points of view.

Patrick of London Ontario

Patrick, don’t waste your time arguing with the Barbarian, he goes on every post that mentions evolution defending his imbicilic theory. Trouble is, he is able to call on Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI to support his ‘intellectual’ illusion and no Catholic can win against that trio on a Catholic forum.

As regards the one sided conference on evolution, well here is the teaching of the Church the evolutionists use incorrectly for their own purpose:

HUMANI GENERIS, Pope Pius XII, 1950:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Note it says the ANTI-EVOLUTION arguments MUST be included in any such conference held under the auspices of the Church.

Shows you who is running the Church these days, doesn’t it?

 

[StAnastasia]

This “Pontifical Conference” on evolution is a farce. It was sponsored by a liberal Catholic university who invited mostly athiest scientists, and none of the hundreds of scientists who refute evolution. For the other side of the story go to.

Patrick, you are entirely wrong about this. The conference was superb, and very strongly Catholic in terms of its participants. Its presenters included solidly Catholic scientists such as William Stoeger. It was an excellent conference – we sat through over thirty-five hours of PowerPoint lectures on a wide range of fascinating topics, from the Big Bang and stellar evolution to design and teleology, to the evolution of human culture and religion, to the theological implications of evolution.

There was one moment of negative excitement on the first day when a Turkish anti-evolutionist (Oktar Babuna) grabbed the microphone and started haranguing Francisco Ayala about there being no transitional fossils. Gennaro Auletta and other organizers had to wrestle him away from the microphone, after which the conference proceeded for five days without a hitch.

I don’t think any atheist scientist or philosopher could have come away believing that the Church and its theologians regard evolutionary biology as inimical to the faith, and I don’t think any Catholic thinker could have come away believing that methodological naturalism leads ineluctably to metaphysical naturalism. In that regard alone the conference was a very valuable event. I made significant contact with some of the scientists presenting, and continue in dialogue with them. I encountered no hostility to the Church or its theologians, and I found much excitement at the further opening of dialogue in this bicentennial year.

Best wishes,
StAnastasia

 

[DavWan]

Patrick, don’t waste your time arguing with the Barbarian, he goes on every post that mentions evolution defending his imbicilic theory. Trouble is, he is able to call on Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI to support his ‘intellectual’ illusion and no Catholic can win against that trio on a Catholic forum.

As regards the one sided conference on evolution, well here is the teaching of the Church the evolutionists use incorrectly for their own purpose:

HUMANI GENERIS, Pope Pius XII, 1950:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Note it says the ANTI-EVOLUTION arguments MUST be included in any such conference held under the auspices of the Church.

Shows you who is running the Church these days, doesn’t it?

Um, no it doesn’t. This is however a problem with a selective reading of a text without considering what the document is speaking about.

The highlighted part of the section you cited also applies to you. So those comments seeking to undermine the authority of the magisterium because it does not teach what one wants it to are working against what Pius XII called for

 

[grannymh]

Patrick, don’t waste your time arguing with the Barbarian, he goes on every post that mentions evolution defending his imbicilic theory. Trouble is, he is able to call on Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI to support his ‘intellectual’ illusion and no Catholic can win against that trio on a Catholic forum.

As regards the one sided conference on evolution, well here is the teaching of the Church the evolutionists use incorrectly for their own purpose:

HUMANI GENERIS, Pope Pius XII, 1950:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Note it says the ANTI-EVOLUTION arguments MUST be included in any such conference held under the auspices of the Church.

Shows you who is running the Church these days, doesn’t it?

Now, Cassini, I understand where you are coming from so I don’t need a lecture. However, please don’t start unnecessary rumors that some conference is running the Church as if the Holy Spirit has flown the coop. Also, I don’t believe that this conference was a judicial process concerning matters of faith and morals. Something of that order may be coming down the pike according to due process.

I was glad to see in your above quote an example of the Church’s real mission which is to teach the faith. For example, the above read: “the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[StAnastasia]

Now, Cassini, I understand where you are coming from so I don’t need a lecture. However, please don’t start unnecessary rumors that some conference is running the Church as if the Holy Spirit has flown the coop. Also, I don’t believe that this conference was a judicial process concerning matters of faith and morals. Something of that order may be coming down the pike according to due process.Blessings,granny.

Grannymh, as one who was intimately involved in the conference at the Gregorian, I can assure you no one was attempting to “run the Church,” and the Holy Spirit was certainly not absent.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, as one who was intimately involved in the conference at the Gregorian, I can assure you no one was attempting to “run the Church,” and the Holy Spirit was certainly not absent.

StAnastasia

Glad to hear from an eye and ear witness.

 

[Abbadon]

Is it possible for religion to stay out of science?

The Theory of Evolutionary and Cell Theory is as important to biology as The Theory of Gravity is important to physics. I mean it’s fine for everyone to believe what they want to believe but what happens here on earth and has happened still does.

Genetics is the cornerstone of Evolutionary mapping and this helps us understand biology to create new medicines to create better edible goods through both natural and artificial means.

Can’t we just separate the two and leave it at that?

 

[StAnastasia]

Is it possible for religion to stay out of science? The Theory of Evolutionary and Cell Theory is as important to biology as The Theory of Gravity is important to physics. I mean it’s fine for everyone to believe what they want to believe but what happens here on earth and has happened still does.Genetics is the cornerstone of Evolutionary mapping and this helps us understand biology to create new medicines to create better edible goods through both natural and artificial means.Can’t we just separate the two and leave it at that?

Abbadon, yes, religion should stay out of the working of science. But that does not mean religion has no right to comment on the implications of science.

StAnastasia

 

[Abbadon]

Abbadon, yes, religion should stay out of the working of science. But that does not mean religion has no right to comment on the implications of science.

StAnastasia

But isn’t that implication something you as a religious person, whatever religion you may be, have to deal with. It’s not up to science to tell you what to think. Science just says it as it is. You can’t just decide to change the science because it inconveniences your beliefs.

 

[StAnastasia]

But isn’t that implication something you as a religious person, whatever religion you may be, have to deal with. It’s not up to science to tell you what to think. Science just says it as it is. You can’t just decide to change the science because it inconveniences your beliefs.

Yes, quite. If it inconveniences my religious beliefs that astronomy has proven the sun is not a bridegroom (Psalm, 19), I reinterpret my religion accordingly.