conspiracy theory? Boy Ed you are way out there. I have no idea what you are talking about now. Who’s conspracy? for what?Yes, the new Conspiracy theory.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, this is just the constantly to be repeated complaint about religion. I recommend ignoring it.
God bless,
Ed
This was an off-the cuff statement made in 2005. Benedict is alrady on record in a long article in which he is in agreement with what has been papal thinking since 1950 . Just Google Ratzinger, Evolution, Genesis, and the full article will pop up.
Faith and reson cannot be opposed. Scientific findings and theories must harmonize with revealed truth. Science is a subset of reason. Correct interpretation of science will always harmonize with Revelation.This was an off-the cuff statement made in 2005. Benedict is alrady on record in a long article in which he is in agreement with what has been papal thinking since 1950 . Just Google Ratzinger, Evolution, Genesis, and the full article will pop up.
As noted, Pope Pius XII in humani generis signaled the end of papal opposition to Darwin’s theory. This was re-innerated by JPII on more than once occassion, the last I believe being before the Pontifical Academy of Science.
What Benedict may be alluding to here is his rejection of Intelligent design if it means that God began the universe and then ceased any other involvement or interest. This is what some in the Intelligent Design business believe. Others of course, are using the more innocuous sounding phrase to hide their fundamentalist agenda of sola scriptura.
So it is obvious that the Church makes no dogmatic claim that Genesis provides a scientific understanding of how the earth and all it contains were created. One can be a perfectly good Catholic without believing such. You of course are free to believe what you will, but I can only say, that continuing to promote what is rationally rediculous to the scientific community and not banned by the Church, leaves you with precious credibility on any issue.
What the second site was for I have no idea. The page that came up off your link had nothing that I could see to do with evolution or this debate.
Science does not dictate to the Church. I think you don’t understand that. The Holy Father has stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. I’m sticking with that. Also, there is a reason Jesus Christ was made flesh and dwelt among us. Viewing revelation from only a scientific perspective will always give you an incomplete answer.This was an off-the cuff statement made in 2005. Benedict is alrady on record in a long article in which he is in agreement with what has been papal thinking since 1950 . Just Google Ratzinger, Evolution, Genesis, and the full article will pop up.
As noted, Pope Pius XII in humani generis signaled the end of papal opposition to Darwin’s theory. This was re-innerated by JPII on more than once occassion, the last I believe being before the Pontifical Academy of Science.
What Benedict may be alluding to here is his rejection of Intelligent design if it means that God began the universe and then ceased any other involvement or interest. This is what some in the Intelligent Design business believe. Others of course, are using the more innocuous sounding phrase to hide their fundamentalist agenda of sola scriptura.
So it is obvious that the Church makes no dogmatic claim that Genesis provides a scientific understanding of how the earth and all it contains were created. One can be a perfectly good Catholic without believing such. You of course are free to believe what you will, but I can only say, that continuing to promote what is rationally rediculous to the scientific community and not banned by the Church, leaves you with precious credibility on any issue.
What the second site was for I have no idea. The page that came up off your link had nothing that I could see to do with evolution or this debate.
By “reson” I presume you mean “reason.”Faith and reson cannot be opposed. Correct interpretation of science will always harmonize with Revelation.
That’s a pretty bad rap! I have never stated the earth is 6000 years old.By “reson” I presume you mean “reason.”
Buffalo, I don’t know how you manage to live in this complex world, unless you are content to swim in a haze of wishful thinking. The fact that you are contributing to this electronic forum means that you presuppose the truths revealed by physics, including the great antiquity of the universe and its subatomic particles. If you have ever used an antibiotic in the last ten years, you unwittingly acknowledge the truth of evolution, because bacteria have evolved resistance to previous drugs, and new antibiotics have to be developed to match the newly evolved super bugs. You can’t have it both ways – inhabiting your fantasy world in which the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn’t happen, and yet blindly accept medical and other technologies that presuppose a world that science understands. I recommend some education in the sciences. Find out how science really works, and learn that scientists are not all Catholic-hating atheists as you seem to assume.
Petrus
Have you ever been in a biology laboratory? A field station? A teaching hospital? Have you ever listened seriously to biologists about why nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution? Have you ever delivered a paper at the AAAS, where you reject evolution?I know how science works.
The data and details of these findings are interpreted through reason. The first thing you need to accept is that these findings are interpreted throught the limitations of our 5 senses and 4 dimensions.Have you ever been in a biology laboratory? A field station? A teaching hospital? Have you ever listened seriously to biologists about why nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution? Have you ever delivered a paper at the AAAS, where you reject evolution?
I work with biologists, chemists, physicists, paleontologists, archaeologists and many other scientists. The world they inhabit is very different from the world you apparently inhabit. Bacteria do evolve – that is why we now have multi-drug resistant bacteria. Do deny that this is evolution is to misunderstand how evolution works.
Remember the words of one of our greatest Catholic theologians, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430): “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? (Augustine, De Genesi, 1.19)
Quite true!Science by its own definition is limited to what it can say about the universe.
SpiritMeadow,Ed no one suggested that “Science” whatever that is, dictates anything to the church. you are deliberately trying to read out the Church’s acceptance of the science of evolution as NOT being in conflict with the church.
I’m guessing you hated Vatican II, and still go to a Latin Mass.
Be blessed dear Ed.
“science whatever that is” Now I’ve been introduced to another dodge. This one I’ll call vague-istry.
Church embarrassed? What does that have to do with anything?/QUOTE]
Ed, SpiritMeadow may be referring to the Church’s embarrassment after the Galileo episode. During the closing decades of the nineteenth century, the Church was reluctant to pronounce too hastily on evolution for precisely the reason that she did not want to make another scientific mistake.
DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?edwest2;2769728 said:“science whatever that is” Now I’ve been introduced to another dodge. This one I’ll call vague-istry.
Church embarrassed? What does that have to do with anything?/QUOTE]
Ed, SpiritMeadow may be referring to the Church’s embarrassment after the Galileo episode. During the closing decades of the nineteenth century, the Church was reluctant to pronounce too hastily on evolution for precisely the reason that she did not want to make another scientific mistake.
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
***Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.
more…