Creation vs Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilhelmus7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part VII of **In ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“The Pope’s attitude is consistent with a genuinely scientific
view that any theory must ultimately square with observed

fact or experience. The Pope iterated in his statement that

Catholics are free to examine the evidence within the

theological conception of human nature. He makes it clear

that it is more proper to speak of "several theories of

evolution" because different philosophical positions

underlie these different explanations of the mechanisms of

evolution (John Paul II 1996, this issue p 382). John Paul’s

reservations center on the need for careful scrutiny of the

philosophical anthropology, that is, on the philosophic

notion of human nature and the human person associated

with any theory of evolution. These concepts are crucial to

the Church’s interpretation of scriptural accounts of man

as a creature created in the image and likeness of God

(Genesis 1:1, 27-29). While the Church can accept the

physical origin of the human body, it must reject any theory

that has spirit emerging from matter or being a "mere

epiphenomenon of this matter" (John Paul II 1996, this

issue p 383).

(continued…)
 
Part VIII of **Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“On this point, John Paul II’s teaching is entirely congruent

with the position taken by Pius XII in 1950. Both Pius XII

and John Paul II draw on the philosophical conception of

human nature, which takes man to be a substantial unity of

body and soul following Aristotle (1968) and Thomas

Aquinas (1970). This concept of human nature is

foundational for Catholic teaching on human dignity,

intellection and personhood. On this view, John Paul holds

that the soul is ontologically different from the body and

must be created immediately by God (John Paul II 1996,

this issue p 383). For the soul to emerge from matter, as

some evolutionary theories contend, is not, and never has

been, an acceptable concept in Catholic teaching.

In the Pope’s view, it is further the case that the transition

from body to spirit is not the kind of question that is

resolvable within the competence or method of science.

Ontological distinctions lie within the realm of theology and

philosophy. Science observes the phenomena of life,

places them on a time line, and describes those features

that are specific to human beings. But metaphysical

knowledge, moral conscience and religious experience fall

within the competence of philosophy; their ultimate

meanings and their accord with the Creator’s plans fall to

theology (John Paul II 1996).

(continued…)
 
Part IX of **In **Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘**Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following: “John Paul II thus would oppose the type of evolutionary
theory that makes evolution or natural selection an overarching explanation for all aspects of human life. The sweeping attempt to Christianize evolution in an “Omega Point” such as Teilhard de Chardin (1959) proposed is not mentioned. To say, as some do, that all reality is reducible to the single process of evolution converts evolution into an ideology, a way of life, the source of all morality and meaning. This is somewhat akin to the search for “a theory of everything” in physics (Weinberg 1992). Similar

overinfatuation with a single scientific theory has led others

to posit relativity, indeterminancy or chaos theory as the

ultimate explanation of all things. These are forms of

scientism, the slavish imitation of science and the

translation of scientific theories to domains other than

those for which they were developed (Popper 1961).

Steven Weinberg, Stephen Jay Gould and John Paul II

agree for different reasons that meaning and morality are

beyond the purview of the methods of science. Science

provides knowledge, observation and theoretical

frameworks for philosophical and theological reflections.

The universe, animate and inanimate, exhibits an interplay

of determinism, chance and opportunity. These are

fascinating phenomena to study and contemplate. They

are insufficient as arguments for how we should live and

why we should live that way. To seek God is more than an

“explanation” of how the universe operates (Coyne 1996).

Creationists and those Catholics who hold to a literal

interpretation of the Bible will find little solace in John

Paul’s reflections on evolution. They would insist that one

cannot be a theist and believe in evolution. Human beings,

they say, must be descended from one pair of ancestors,

Adam and Eve, and each species must be created by God

separately, in keeping with a literal interpretation of

Genesis. For Creationists, therefore, humans could not

have evolved from other species, or lower forms, even

physically. Catholic teaching agrees that the human soul

cannot evolve from matter, and that each human soul is

created by God. But it does not require that each species

be individually created. The human body could have

evolved physically over time, so long as the soul was

created by God. (continued…)
 
**Part X of ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“Another point at issue between the Pope and Creationists is the way we approach scriptural interpretation. Pope John Paul II is consistent with evolving Church teaching on the relationship between scriptural revelations and natural knowledge, i.e., between faith and reason (John Paul II 1993). The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which convened a decade after The Origin of Species, taught that faith and reason are separate domains. Each is free to develop according to its own methods, principles and laws. Later Pope Leo XIII (1893) held that what is genuinely

demonstrated as scientifically true will be capable eventually of reconciliation with scripture. Scripture itself, while not a myth, nonetheless was not intended to be a textbook of natural history; writers of the sacred texts spoke in figurative language suited to the time in which they wrote (Pius XII 1943).

“The Pope’s statement on evolution will come as no surprise to well-informed Catholics. It will, however, need to be studied by those believers who have not kept pace with the advances in science or the development of scriptural studies, especially since Vatican II. Many Catholics need to understand that evolution is not “just a theory,” i.e., anybody’s guess. They must recognize that a theory is a substantial explanation of observed data, still

open to development but no longer to be disposed of as frivolous speculation. Biologists who take evolution to be incontrovertible as it now stands, or embrace it as an ideology, will perhaps find

the Pope’s distinctions meaningless or irrelevant. Creationists will find them scandalous. These demurs notwithstanding, the Pope has clearly, competently and responsibly engaged one of modern culture’s most significant ideas. All Catholics dedicated to both faith and reason should be grateful for guidance through a complex thicket of ideas to the realization that science is not a

threat to faith. Faith and reason are ultimately reconcilable

since truth cannot contradict truth. I hope biologists too will

examine John Paul’s thoughts as they examine the scientific evidence pertinent to the origins and nature of human life. Between the Creationist and the evolution Absolutist, there lies a middle position that fosters dialogue and an openness to truth as it emerges in careful study of the living and the physical universe. To that end John Paul II has contributed, as will his successors, to the continuing dialogue between scientific progress and theological reflection.

(Continued…)
 
Part XI of In Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘**Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

REFERENCES

Aquinas Thomas. 1970. Summa Theologiae. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Aristotle. 1968. De Anima, 412. In R McKeon, editor. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House. pp 18-30

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1994. Mahwah (NJ):Paulist Press.

Chagas C. 1986. Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Restoration of the Academy (1936-1986): Inaugural-Address of President Carlos Chagas, October

27, 1986. Citta del Vaticano: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum.

Coyne G. 1996. The universe: scientific understanding and

its theological implications. Origins 26:481.

Dorlodot Canon. 1922. Darwinism and Catholic Thought. New York: Benziger Brothers.
Gaudium et Spes. December 7, 1965. Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the World (Second Vatican Council). 1984. In Gremillion J, editor. The Gospel of
Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching since Pope John. Maryknoll (NY): Orbis Books. pp 243-336.

Gould S J. 1997. Nonoverlapping magisteria: science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains. Natural History 3 March:16. Honderich T, editor. 1995. Oxford Companion to Philosphy. New York: Oxford University Press.
John Paul II. 1979. Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Origins 10:391.
John Paul II. 1979. Encyclical Redemptor Hominis. Origins 8:625.

John Paul II. 1990. Apostolic Constitution. Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Washington DC:
U.S. Catholic Conference.
John Paul II. 1994. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission,

Acta Apostolicae Sedis 86:232-243.

John Paul II. 1995. The Gospel of Life. [Evangelium Vitae]. New York: Random House. John Paul II. 1996. Messgage to Pontifical Academy of

Sciences, 22 October. L’Osservatore Romano 30 October: 3,7.

Kramer W. 1986. Evolution & Creation: A Catholic

(continued…)
 
Part XII of Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘**Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

[continutation of REFERENCES]

Understanding Huntington (IN): Our Sunday Visitor
Publishing Division.

Leo XIII. 1893. Encyclical Providentissimus Deus.

Marini-Bettolo C B. 1987. The Activity of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Second Edition. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Messenger E. 1949. Theology and Evolution. Westminster (MD): The Newman Press. Morris H. 1974. Scientific Creationism San Diego (CA): Creation Life Publishers.
Morris H. 1997. The Beginning of the World Denver (CO): Accent Books.
Muckerman H. 1906. Attitude of Catholics towards Darwinism and Evolution. St. Louis (MO): B. Herder.

Mynarek H. 1967. Der Mensch: Sinnziel der Weltent-wicklung. Munich: Schoningh. Nemesszeghy E. 1971. The Theology of Evolution. Cork: Mercier Press.

Nogar R J. 1963. The Wisdom of Evolution. Garden City (NY): Doubleday.

Paul VI. 1964. Christ the beginning, way and goal of the council. Council Speeches of Vatican II. In H Kung et al., editors. Glen Rock (NJ): Paulist Press. p 22.

Pius XII. 1943. Encyclical Letter on the Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies. Divine afflante spiritu N. 33, 36, 37.

Pius XII. 1950. Humani generis. Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII. Washington DC: National Catholic Welfare Council. pp 16-17.

Pius XII. 1950. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 42:575-576. Popper K R. 1961. The Poverty of Historicism. New York: Harper and Row. Rahner K. 1965. Hominization. New York: Herder and Herder.

Ruffini E. 1959. The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith New York: J.F. Wagner.
Teilhard de Chardin P. 1959. The Phenomenon of Man. New York. Harper.

Weinberg S. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature. New York. Pantheon Books.

This is the conclusion of Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘**Theology and evolution in dialogue’, by **Edmund D. Pellegrino.
I hope this will be of some help. Thank you.
 
Theistic evolution all the way. Adam and Eve didn’t exist any more than Ask and Embla did.
 
40.png
ISABUS:
All Catholics dedicated to both faith and reason should be grateful for guidance through a complex thicket of ideas to the realization that science is not athreat to faith. Faith and reason are ultimately reconcilable since truth cannot contradict truth. I hope biologists too will examine John Paul’s thoughts as they examine the scientific evidence pertinent to the origins and nature of human life.
Click to expand...
Like I said all along…
The domain of science is a friend of the Catholic Religon,
The domain of science is a friend of the Evolutionist Religon.

There you have it, we share a mutual friend.
 
Heathen Dawn Adam and Eve didn’t exist any more than Ask and Embla did.

Many scientists speculate that there may be as many as ten dimensions that do exist. Perhaps Adam and Eve live in another dimension.

There are other worlds few humans can see until they evolve into a truly loving spiritual being. Only then does the gateway open where one can behold the magnificence of God’s undeniable, infinite power in the grandeur and wonder of ALL that is Creation.

Peace.
 
40.png
wanerious:
How are these new snowflakes different, in the context of creation, from beings who differ genetically from their parents?
Click to expand...
He knows the very hairs on our heads. * We don’t differ from our parents genetically, in the sense that no new information is created. I’m not sure if it snowed before the Flood, but after God rested, no new types of things were created. That is the plain meaning of the Scriptures, and yet evolutionism posits that new things are being created theoretically at any moment.
from ISABUS article:
Catholic teaching agrees that the human soul cannot evolve from matter, and that each human soul is created by God. But it does not require that each species be individually created.
Click to expand...
This is a dodge from the plain meaning of Scripture, and the Pope has not stated anything dogmatically.
Gen. 1:11:
…and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind…
Click to expand...
It would be inventiveness to say that the types of things and creatures were not individually created.
Gen. 1:21:
And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds…
Click to expand...
The plain meaning is that things were individually created, by type.

At this point in history it is often heard that ‘faith and science do not conflict’ with the subtle, tacit meaning to be that ‘faith can simply be bent to whatever science discovers’. Yet Our Lord did not indicate that Science was one of the primary virtues. I think science is probably an element of Prudence, which comes after Faith, Hope, and Charity. Much as we reject the Protestant doctrine of “the Rapture” as a new revelation and therefore bogus, it would be bogus to suppose that for close to 2000 years Christians were misled as to the nature of Creation. Many Christians are afraid of science, which they see as successfully displacing faith in the public mind, and with their fear, they try to accommodate science, rather than insist that we must live by Faith (and Love). From their fearful stance, they suppose that it doesn’t really matter if we were amoeba (or whatever) at some point in the distant past. Yet it does matter. When we cease to be created beings, made for a purpose, at the center of Creation, in God’s own image, * then life becomes a lot less meaningful: and therefore evolutionism is false. God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Evolutionism is irrational with respect to Faith, and it is a conjectural series of theories, each with many problems in any case.
“These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.” ST, I, Q 68, a 2.
 
40.png
csr:
He knows the very hairs on our heads. * We don’t differ from our parents genetically, in the sense that no new information is created. I’m not sure if it snowed before the Flood, but after God rested, no new types of things were created. That is the plain meaning of the Scriptures, and yet evolutionism posits that new things are being created theoretically at any moment.

Originally Posted by from ISABUS article
Catholic teaching agrees that the human soul cannot evolve from matter, and that each human soul is created by God. But it does not require that each species be individually created.

This is a dodge from the plain meaning of Scripture, and the Pope has not stated anything dogmatically.

[snip]

At this point in history it is often heard that ‘faith and science do not conflict’ with the subtle, tacit meaning to be that ‘faith can simply be bent to whatever science discovers’. Yet Our Lord did not indicate that Science was one of the primary virtues. I think science is probably an element of Prudence, which comes after Faith, Hope, and Charity. Much as we reject the Protestant doctrine of “the Rapture” as a new revelation and therefore bogus, it would be bogus to suppose that for close to 2000 years Christians were misled as to the nature of Creation. Many Christians are afraid of science, which they see as successfully displacing faith in the public mind, and with their fear, they try to accommodate science, rather than insist that we must live by Faith (and Love). From their fearful stance, they suppose that it doesn’t really matter if we were amoeba (or whatever) at some point in the distant past. Yet it does matter. When we cease to be created beings, made for a purpose, at the center of Creation, in God’s own image, * then life becomes a lot less meaningful: and therefore evolutionism is false. God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Evolutionism is irrational with respect to Faith, and it is a conjectural series of theories, each with many problems in any case.
“These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.” ST, I, Q 68, a 2.
Click to expand...
[Isabus shaking her head in disbelief] CSR, it’s apparent to me that I could spend from here to eternity presenting to you the facts about the Vatican’s stance TODAY regarding Evolution and Adam and Eve. Would you believe Pope John Paul II if he was staring you in the face and disagreed with what you have stated above?

Let me ask you, if the Pope told you something you didn’t want to hear or believe in, would you remain a Catholic? Would you believe the Pope? Also, the Catholic definition for “dogma” is as follows:

Dogma (Gr., ordinaance). A truth directly proposed by the Church for our belief as an article of divine revelation. The vulgar notion of a dogma, as an arbitarary doctrine imposed nobody quite knows why, is thus seen to be at fault; the content of a dogma is truth revealed by God and therefore must be believed: it is not assumed to be true because many believe it.
(The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,1952, Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 73)

The Pope doesn’t need a revelation regarding evolution when he has the finest known scientists in the world sharing with him what they have discovered. I’d say Pope John Paul II is a wise man. Is he not?

Peace.
 
40.png
ISABUS:
Let me ask you, if the Pope told you something you didn’t want to hear or believe in, would you remain a Catholic? Would you believe the Pope?
Click to expand...
Fortunately, the Pope never said Catholics are required to believe in the theory of evolution.

What Magesterium document states that Catholics are required to believe in theory of evolution?

Please cite sources. (I learned this line from my scientist friends)
 
Originally Posted by ISABUS
Let me ask you, if the Pope told you something you didn’t want to hear or believe in, would you remain a Catholic? Would you believe the Pope?

*Social Catholic, why don’t you simply answer my question?
“Let me ask you, if the Pope told you something you didn’t want to hear or believe in, would you remain a Catholic? Would you believe the Pope?”
*
SocaliCatholic replied, "*Fortunately, the Pope never said Catholics are required to believe in the theory of evolution. *

*"What Magesterium document states that Catholics are required to believe in theory of evolution? *

Pope John Paul II doesn’t wish to MAKE anyone BELIEVE what they don’t want to believe in. It’s about free will. Freedom of Choice.

“Please cite sources. (I learned this line from my scientist friends)”

*Look at the references found within my earlier post and do some research yourself. We can then compare notes as to what Pope John Paul has said about “evolution”. ** In the meantime, you can help yourself to discover some answers by emailing these folks.
PONTIFICAL** ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Casina Pio IV
V-00120 VATICAN CITY
TEL. +39 0669883195 - FAX +39 0669885218
TELEX : (504) 2024 DIRGENTEL VA**

**E-MAIL: academy.sciences@acdscience.va**
 
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is not an organ of the teaching Magisterium. Neither is the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another. Jn 13:35
 
CSR wrote:The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is not an organ of the teaching Magisterium. Neither is the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
*Go here : *http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/index_10121999.htm

*All branches found within the Vatican are rooted to the Magisterium! ** ****Evolution and the Conception of Man, ****Pope John Paul II ***Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences ****October 22, 1996 stated: **** “5. The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers… Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet”; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575) . . . . 6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. 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 etaphysical 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."
conservation.catholic.org/magisterium_is_concerned_with_qu.htm%between%
**CSR, if the Pope told you something you didn’t want to hear or believe in, would you remain a Catholic? *
*
 
40.png
ISABUS:
“Please cite sources. (I learned this line from my scientist friends)”

*Look at the references found within my earlier post and do some research yourself. We can then compare notes as to what Pope John Paul has said about “evolution”. ** In the meantime, you can help yourself to discover some answers by emailing these folks. *
PONTIFICAL** ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Casina Pio IV
V-00120 VATICAN CITY
TEL. +39 0669883195 - FAX +39 0669885218
TELEX : (504) 2024 DIRGENTEL VA**

**E-MAIL: academy.sciences@acdscience.va**
Click to expand...
No thanks. The burden of proof is on you.

Everyone has read what you posted, and so far you’ve failed to show where Catholics are required to believe in the imaginative hypothesis of evolution.
 
SocaliCatholic wrote: “No thanks. The burden of proof is on you.Everyone has read what you posted, and so far you’ve failed to show where Catholics are required to believe in the imaginative hypothesis of evolution.”

CAN’T YOU READ ENGLISH??? Pope John Paul II stated on October 22, 1996,"Fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis."
You can read about what he said on this website: conservation.catholic.org/ma…ned_with_qu.htm

**Social Catholic, it’s obvious you don’t want to believe in what the Pope has said about evolution. You’re a Catholic with a closed mind. A Catholic who doesn’t want to believe in the truth nor believe in the POPE. Amazing!!! *
*
 
40.png
ISABUS:
SocaliCatholic wrote: “No thanks. The burden of proof is on you.Everyone has read what you posted, and so far you’ve failed to show where Catholics are required to believe in the imaginative hypothesis of evolution.”

CAN’T YOU READ ENGLISH??? Pope John Paul II stated on October 22, 1996,"Fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis."
You can read about what he said on this website: conservation.catholic.org/ma…ned_with_qu.htm

**Social Catholic, it’s obvious you don’t want to believe in what the Pope has said about evolution. You’re a Catholic with a closed mind. A Catholic who doesn’t want to believe in the truth nor believe in the POPE. Amazing!!! **
Click to expand...
Your emotionally fueled attacks do not help your cause to sell your propaganda and diverts us from logical discussion.

Evolution as hypothesis or theory it is not a required belief to be Catholic.

You have failed to produce any evidence from the Pope or the Magesterium of the Chruch that any Catholic is required to believe in evolution to be a Catholic.
 
SocCath << Evolution as hypothesis or theory is not a required belief to be Catholic. >>

We are not required as Catholics to accept the “spherical theory” of the earth. We may believe the earth is flat as a pancake as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

We are not required as Catholics to accept the earth rotates or goes around the sun. We may believe the earth is fixed as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

We are not required as Catholics to accept the earth is over 4 billion years old, the universe is over 10 billion years old, and all the species on the planet have evolved over this long period of time. We may believe each “kind” was separately created by God directly from “scratch” over a period of 144 hours about 6000 to 10000 years ago as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

The Evolution of Bible-Science

Project Steve

Moderators may now safely close this thread. 😃 I do need to write another article for my apologetics site someday on the whole Adam/Eve, Genesis, evolution and the Magisterium issue though. 😛

Phil Porvaznik
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
SocCath << Evolution as hypothesis or theory is not a required belief to be Catholic. >>

We are not required as Catholics to accept the “spherical theory” of the earth. We may believe the earth is flat as a pancake as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

We are not required as Catholics to accept the earth rotates or goes around the sun. We may believe the earth is fixed as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

We are not required as Catholics to accept the earth is over 4 billion years old, the universe is over 10 billion years old, and all the species on the planet have evolved over this long period of time. We may believe each “kind” was separately created by God directly from “scratch” over a period of 144 hours about 6000 to 10000 years ago as the Bible seems to indicate. (see links below)

The Evolution of Bible-Science

Project Steve

Moderators may now safely close this thread. 😃 I do need to write another article for my apologetics site someday on the whole Adam/Eve, Genesis, evolution and the Magisterium issue though. 😛

Phil Porvaznik
Click to expand...
Hi Phil hope your doing well,

With all due respect, please don’t tarnish Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mathematics, Physics, and all of science in attempting to establish credibility to the modern day farce we call evolution.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top