Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Steve40]

Haven’t we always allowed for the possibility of Evolution? I thought only literalist Evangelicals (like those in Jesus Camp) taught otherwise?

The rule for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that unless proven otherwise or by necessity hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Scripture. See Pope Leo XII Encyclical Providensious Deus and quotes from St. Augustine. Since evolution is not proven we are required to believe what the Bible says. Without this rule for proof you can come up with all kind of modernist heresies. You just can’t believe something different about Scripture because of a wild theory.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

**Richmiller **has pinned his colors as an evolutionist to the mast as have some other thread participants. At least this is an honest approach and should be acknowledged as such.

The point at issue is Pope Benedict’s latest declaration that there is proof for evolution. Although the Holy Father has a right to his opinion as has anyone else, his affirmations as head of the Church are given much more credence that those of lesser rank. The problem is that he is a philosopher and theologian not a scientist and his proposition regarding evolution is a scientific one. Objectively speaking, therefore, he is out of the bounds of his teaching mandate in making a pronouncement on a scientific subject. Nevertheless, the innate tendency of the faithful is to give his words the kind of respect normally reserved for pontifical teaching on matters of faith and morals.

If the proof he speaks of is so recent that it is unknown to the scientific community then it should be announced to all concerned without further delay. The discoverer(s) would undoubtedly be awarded a Nobel prize and the debate would be at an end. There is no indication from the scientific media, however, that the long awaited break-through has happened. In fact, at the present time representations are being made by senior biologists protesting at his statement and saying there is no experimental evidence to support the theory of macro-evolution and that all evidence is now pointing in the opposite direction.

This should come as no surprise to His Holiness as he cited in his 2003 book “Truth and Tolerance” two well known secular evolutionary biologists Szathmary and Maynard Smith confirming there was no proof. One can, therefore, logically deduce that either proof has subsequently been discovered, or he is referring to proof for micro-evolution which no modern scientist has ever questioned.

In the light of the Lateran IV definition of Creation and the latest experimental proof that stratified sedimentary rocks take significantly less time to form that imagined, the notion that evolution could be proved is difficult if not impossible to accept.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks, and I just want to mention that the scentific explaination is that the rock layers were layed down at the same time. This discredits the so called fossil record greatly.

Only to those who have absolutely no understanding of the fossil record.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

The rule for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that unless proven otherwise or by necessity hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Scripture. See Pope Leo XII Encyclical Providensious Deus and quotes from St. Augustine. Since evolution is not proven we are required to believe what the Bible says. Without this rule for proof you can come up with all kind of modernist heresies. You just can’t believe something different about Scripture because of a wild theory.

Fortunately there is no such thing as a “wild” theory.

For something to be called a theory is must conform to the preponderance of the evidence. So by your definition we’re all OK with evolution.

His Holiness is very wise.

 

[Steve40]

Fortunately there is no such thing as a “wild” theory.

For something to be called a theory is must conform to the preponderance of the evidence. So by your definition we’re all OK with evolution.

His Holiness is very wise.

Unfortunately it isn’t my definition that applies. The rule says to hold to the literal and obvious meaning unless by necessity you must depart from it. Since evolution is not proven it is not necessary to depart form the literal and obvious meaning. Changing the meaning of Scripture based upon modern ideas is a foundational principle of modernist heresey. We should hold to this rule even in Genesis or modernist heresey will gain more of a foot hold. When evolution is proven, then and only then can you disregard the literal meaning of Scripture.

 

[steveandersen]

Unfortunately it isn’t my definition that applies. The rule says to hold to the literal and obvious meaning unless by necessity you must depart from it. Since evolution is not proven it is not necessary to depart form the literal and obvious meaning. Changing the meaning of Scripture based upon modern ideas is a foundational principle of modernist heresey. We should hold to this rule even in Genesis or modernist heresey will gain more of a foot hold. When evolution is proven, then and only then can you disregard the literal meaning of Scripture.

Well the fact of evolution (the observations) is quite clear and can’t be denied

The theory of evolution (the mechanism to explain the observations) is one of the most supported theories in science.

So as I said it appears to meet your criteria.

 

[edwest2]

Do not falsely quote Pope John Paul II, he said evolution 'was more than a hypothesis" not “more than a theory.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

My brothers and sisters in Christ, ignore the daily deception of the evolutionists who insist on their way but not God’s way. I can not insist that you believe or not believe in evolution, but that you follow Church teaching in this regard. Also, do not allow these same people to dictate to you what is reasonable or not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

 

[edwest2]

Who said anything about public schools?

God bless,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

Do not falsely quote Pope John Paul II, he said evolution 'was more than a hypothesis" not “more than a theory.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

I went from the Latin version of the document. They are synonyms in Websters so I chose the simpler venacular in translating.

The word hypothesis is actually derived from the Greek word hypotithenai, or “to suppose”. Do you really think that the synonym use alters the meaning in any meaningful way?

Speaking of languages, do we not again have a problem per Genesis? Does Genesis 11:1-9 mean that modern linguistics science, like evololution, attacks your faith? According to Steve40’s interpretation of the Magesterium, the answer would be yes. Just as Genesis 1:16 would make physics, astrophysics, and astronomy all heretical as well (since they have the audacity to claim that, contrary to scripture, the moon does not emit light)…

It is not my place to judge others ideas, but it seems a little hypocritical to raise the spectre of ‘falsehood’, particularly while placing yourself theologically apart from the Magisterium.

Peter Wilders: Whenever someone uses the word “proof” in the affirmative when discussing science it is a clear indication that they do not, in fact, have any training in the scientific method. Contrary to popular belief the scientific method is not intuitive to our species. In fact, many of the core concepts, like repeatability and peer review, are a recognition of the fact that human nature leads us to the opposite result. For an entertaining look at the scientific method, though one that touches on some serious subjects, I’d recommend a book by Michael Shermer called WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE STUPID THINGS. Shermer confeses that he was once anything but a skeptic (in the science sense) and his observations about our nature are sometimes quite astute.

Best Regards

 

[I_Believe]

God is the Omnipotent Source of All. Whether He created us in a few days or allowed us to evolve should not matter. :juggle:
Even if we could prove either way, and I doubt we ever will with certainty, we are here because of Him.

And He has Blessed us with a man very apt to lead His Church.

God Bless our Holy Father.

 

[edwest2]

I contend that the evidence for evolution is unconvincing. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I am free to believe the earth was created, along with man, in six days.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

The evidence for the theory of evolution is as sound as that for the theory of gravitation. I find it odd that Catholic creationists (like their Protestant counterparts) accept some of modern science but reject other aspects. For example, they reject the Aristotelian four-elements theory of matter (accepted by St. Thomas Aquinas) in favor of contemporary atomic/elemental theory, and they reject Galenic physiology in favor of Vesalius’ and Harvey’s theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood. For reasons beyond my ken, they also reject the ancient geological column in favor of silly “flood geology,” and they reject plate tectonics and continental drift. My own theory is that Catholic creationists are fundamentally untutored in the ways the sciences actually operate; moreover, they are probably untutored in biblical exegesis.
Peter

 

[Steve40]

Well the fact of evolution (the observations) is quite clear and can’t be denied

The theory of evolution (the mechanism to explain the observations) is one of the most supported theories in science.

So as I said it appears to meet your criteria.

How could you have a fact of a process without a valid mechanism? Evolution is a theoretical process of how humans came into existence? Human existence is a fact but the process on how we got here including evolution is not.

Since we are so gulable that we believe everything the world says without asking inteligent questions we need Pope Leo XII’s and St. Augustine’s rule on the study of Sacred Scripture. I’m sticking with them. When the process of evolution is proven I’ll throw out the literal and obvious meaning is Genesis.

 

[edwest2]

Anyone can prove gravity whenever they wish. The same with electricity.

Evolution presumes things happened in a certain order. That is not at all clear. Early geologists assumed an old age for the earth long before modern dating methods. It may interest you to know that an individual person can arrive at certain conclusions about evolution and creation without belonging to a particular camp.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

How could you have a fact of a process without a valid mechanism?

Where did you that idea from Steve’s post? Of course we have a valid mechanism.

Evolution is a theoretical process of how humans came into existence? Human existence is a fact but the process on how we got here including evolution is not.

You are making the mistake of applying the term theory improperly. It’s not a guess or an idea. You are an engineer, you should know better.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Early geologists assumed an old age for the earth long before modern dating methods.

That is absolutely true, and they were right!! They didn’t know how old, but they knew it was old. The evidence was obvious even back then.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Due to the flood mentioned in the Bible, I think the dating method is not accurate. Also, polystrate trees going through multiple layers indicates they were buried rapidly, making the layers not as old as claimed.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Ed, I’m still trying to work my way (with difficulty) through the logic of your posting. Gravity is not a fact but a theory, just like evolution. The fact is that things fall off tables; gravity is the theoretical explanation of that fact. The fact is that biological organisms are all related genetically; the explanatory theory is that we have descended with modification from common ancestry. You may be confusing fact and theory.
Peter

 

[Steve40]

Where did you that idea from Steve’s post? Of course we have a valid mechanism.You are making the mistake of applying the term theory improperly. It’s not a guess or an idea. You are an engineer, you should know better.

Peace

Tim

Sometimes engineers make a best guess. It’s called managing your assumptions. Evolution scientists do not do a very good job of managing their assumptions. But if nothing that is substantial depends upon you work you wouldn’t take the time to manage your assumptions either. Theories have assumptions and evolution has more than I can bear.