Thank God for Evolution!

[drpmjhess]

“science is truth”? No. “Truth cannot contradict truth.” All truth eventually leads back to, or points to, God. Let’s not leave God out of the equation. God bless,Ed

All human knowledge is an approximation to the truth. Truth is like an asymptote. The theory of evolution has been corroborated consiliently by more and more evidence every year since 1859. In direct inverse, the theory of Young Earth Creationism has been discredited every year since 1859.

 

[wildleafblower]

It is precisely canons such as the above which condemn as erroneous those who reject the Lateran IV definition of Creation.

There are no macro-evolutionary teachings which have magisterial support. If a Pope or other Church dignatary supports a teaching contrary to a conciliar decree they are in error. History has witnessed such cases, e.g. Arianism.

Peter

Absolute nonsense Peter Wilders. Look at # 5. in my message 616. * We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and** ratified**, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.*(Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 18 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.JOHN PAUL II)

Lateran IV definition of creation was ratified by the Popes in Vatican II. Each Pope can re-define what was previously written by another Pope. So Peter, are you going to excommunicate the Popes of Vatican II? You seem to be implying they are heretics!

 

[drpmjhess]

There are no macro-evolutionary teachings which have magisterial support. If a Pope or other Church dignatary supports a teaching contrary to a conciliar decree they are in error. History has witnessed such cases, e.g. Arianism. Peter

Magisterial support is utterly irrelevant when considering macro-evolution. Neither the Pope, nor the Dalai Lama, nor the Chief Rabbi, nor the head Imam have anything worthwhile to say about macro-evolutionary theory. That is, they don’t unless they moonlight as biologists, in which case their work and replicable findings would be as valuable and as subject to critique as that of any other scientist in the open courtroom of professional judgment.

 

[edwest2]

It is interesting to note that in the quote of Pope John Paul II, the science aspect is emphasized whereas the God aspect is deemphasized. That has been consistently the case with some people here.

Regardless of what the world says about science and its supposed separation from theology, the Church recognizes that the two are complementary. The Church considers the science as to what it reveals about God’s truth. Some here would hold science as being somehow above God’s truth or more mportant than God’s truth. This is not so. For all Christians, all science must be viewed through the deposit of faith and the Teaching Authority of the Church. As mentioned in Humani Generis, written in 1950, some look at the books of the Bible as if learned men had never looked at them before.

What is happening here, in some cases, is propaganda. which is an organized program of publishing selected information. Specifically, a daily effort to attempt to obtain universal belief in evolution among Catholics to further non-Christian ideological aims.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Peter_Wilders]

**Neil_Anthony asks:

Peter, can you refer us to any theologians besides yourself who interpret Lateran IV in a way that rules out evolution?**

Yes, but the subject is such a hot potato that at this stage they prefer not to be named. A recent study of the subject which ended this year has been awarded the ‘imprimatur’ and ‘nihil obstat’;

It should be sufficient for you to know that to our knowledge all orthodox theologians (e.g. such as St Thomas, Suarez, Sylvestre de Ferrare, Cardinal Mazella) spanning five centuries, up to the introduction of ET, agreed with the meaning of Lateran IV which precludes macro-evolution. This is not something new, just someting that got overlooked in the rush to embrace evolution - a theory without proof.

Peter

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Wildleafblower posted:

Lateran IV definition of creation was ratified by the Popes in Vatican II. Each Pope can re-define what was previously written by another Pope.

To hold such a view is to be in serious error.

Vatican Council I solemnly and infallibly condemned with an “anathema” the view that, “in accordance with scientific progress, the Church’s dogmas can sometimes be given a different meaning from that which the Church has understood and understands” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3043)

Peter

 

[wildleafblower]

Peter Wilder and Ed,

Yes, the Popes do re-define what previous Popes have written. Pope John Paul’s Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” is such an example. You both can dabble with old stuff and be guilty of “error” while I’ll live in future. You both think ‘the theory of evolution’ isn’t viable.(1) I’ll stick with the winning team Nicola Cabibbo, president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pope John Paul II. You had better not be calling us heretics!

**JUBILEE FOR SCIENTISTS
ADDRESS OF PROF. NICOLA CABIBBO
TO THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
25 May 2000 **

*Holy Father,

Coming from the land which gave birth to Nicolas Copernicus, You have engaged in a process of reconciliation between the world of Science and the world of Religion. Some of the many important contributions You have given to this process are:

• The conclusion, in Your solemn address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1988 of the Galilei controversy which for centuries had marred the relationship between the scientific world and the Church.
• As a fitting consequence of this, the opening-up of the secret archives to all interested scholars.

*** The recognition of the theory of evolution, and the acknowledgement that the recent discoveries in molecular biology represent an “impressive manifestation of the unity of nature” (Co-88). **

In re-establishing a discourse between the world of science and that of religion, Your aim goes beyond mere reconciliation, it delineates a process towards a new unity. In your letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, you clearly define the scope of this process:

“As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth towards mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion… Each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and of who we are becoming”.

As the focal point for the meeting of science and religion You thus pose the sapiential dimension, which in the Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” You define as “a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life”. To this You add: “This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values”. In the conclusion to the Encyclical You urge scientists “to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person”.

The science driven advancement of technical capabilities poses ethical problems, which can only be clarified through an intense and open dialogue between science and religion. This is certainly true of the new methods for the modification of living beings, with their promise of improved cures for many diseases, but which may in some cases endanger the integrity of the human person.

Other ethical problems are of a more global nature, threats to the well-being of entire populations and of humanity as a whole. Ethical problems of this scale, be it those arising from nuclear weapons or from possible alterations in the natural balance of the environment, require decisions at the level of national and international public policy, and on these themes You have generously offered your advice and the authority of Your voice.

The rapid advance of scientific knowledge and technical capabilities poses a problem of justice and equity. Most of the scientific knowledge is produced in the rich counties, and it is these counties which most enjoy the economic fruits of the new technologies. The gulf between rich and poor widens, and the poor become more and more dependent on the rich for their basic necessities. The problem is wider than science, and You have even recently raised Your voice against this injustice. The poor contries must become able to contribute the advancement of scientific knowledge and to partake equitably in the fruits of progress.

Holy Father,

We are deeply grateful for this great occasion to celebrate in Your presence the Jubilee for men and women from the world of learning. This ceremony and Your words will remain forever in our memory. For this and for your work and guidance we are grateful.

Thank you. *
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

l. evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is interesting to note that in the quote of Pope John Paul II, the science aspect is emphasized whereas the God aspect is deemphasized. That has been consistently the case with some people here.

**It’s emphasised to make a particular point Ed. That’s how debates are done. **

Regardless of what the world says about science and its supposed separation from theology, the Church recognizes that the two are complementary.
**Yes the world does separate science from theology. Science is CALLED science, and theology is CALLED theology for that very reason. The Church makes a THEOLOGICAL determination that based on it’s faith, ALL science must ultimately be complementary to God. Not so very difficult to understand Ed. **

The Church considers the science as to what it reveals about God’s truth. Some here would hold science as being somehow above God’s truth or more mportant than God’s truth. This is not so.
**You always claim some here are doing that but of course you never actually address anyone directly and refuse to state who these people are. I suggest they do not in fact exist but are simply your straw opponents. Eight times now I have said we have no disagreement and you still continue the argument. **

For all Christians, all science must be viewed through the deposit of faith and the Teaching Authority of the Church. As mentioned in Humani Generis, written in 1950, some look at the books of the Bible as if learned men had never looked at them before.

What is happening here, in some cases, is propaganda. which is an organized program of publishing selected information. Specifically, a daily effort to attempt to obtain universal belief in evolution among Catholics to further non-Christian ideological aims.

**Yes and when you address one of these people head on instead of refusing to quote anyone specifically, we might give some credence to your accusation. As it is, you continue to pontificate without ever referencing the offending person or persons post. I submit there is no such person/s and you are simply using this ruse to continue furthering your personal desire for Ed’s version of creation. Either state here who you claim is attempting to falsify the truth to undermine Catholicism or stop this senseless childish methodology. **

 

[edwest2]

You live in the future?

From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 64:

Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” (“Message to the Pontifical Acadmy of Sciences on Evolution” 1996). In continuity [emphasis mine] with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially [emphasis mine] Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible [E M] with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot [E M] be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[TMC]

Peter_Wilders:
To hold such a view is to be in serious error.

Peter

Certainly you would agree that the Church refines and redefines doctrine and dogma through time? Even during the time of the Apostles it appears Peter changed his mind at least once (and maybe twice) on one of the most important theological questions of the day - whether the old law applied to Christians. Since that time we have had 21 more ecumenical councils. Was each merely copying over what the last had declared?

The Church has developed and sometimes outright changed doctrine in the past. Was it error when the Council of Constantinople changed the Nicene Creed? Heresy when a regional council (Toledo III) added the filoque? When Pope St. Leo III decreed that the Creed could not contain the filoque, wasn’t he more than “redefined” but simply reversed when Benedict VIII put it back in?

 

[hecd2]

Yes, I am the presenter BUT I am not a “creationist” famous or otherwise. I am a Catholic who disagrees with evolution being taught as a fact when it is contrary to Magisterial Teaching.

The term “creationist” used over the last 30 or so years connotates with Protestant fundamentalism. Catholics having followed the creation/evolution debate cannot associate themselves with the latter position because Catholics argue from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants.

Peter

So you are a Catholic Young Earth Creationist. YE Creationism is found amongst Protestant fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists and thankfully rare Catholic fundamentalists like you.

The thing is, Peter, that your position has been rejected by popes and other Church leaders for at least the last 50 years. Obviously you think you can discern the teaching of the Church more clearly than the last several popes and you hold that all the millions of thoughtful Catholics who accept the fact of evolution are in error and are heretics (including Ratzinger and Schoenborn.)

You scorn Protestant (and, I assume, Jewish and Islamic) fundamentalists, but your view is indistinguishable from theirs - the rejection of reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

The problem with so many of these posts is that participants say what they think, rather than speaking from the authority of the Church.

Of course! That’s the error that PhilVaz and Rossum and Tim (Orogeny) and drjmphess and spiritmeadow and Benedict and Schoenborn and JPII have fallen into. Silly them for not realising what is so obvious to you. It’s a great pity that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven have been given into the hands of heretics these 50 years, that the heirs of Peter have been so blind when you see so clearly.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

What about me? Put my name in there so I can delete this message. Please. You can write, (Wildleafblower never fails to amaze me since her research supports the Holy See.) Either way, as a researcher it takes hours and hours of time. And I’m not paid to do it but do because I support Vatican II. And I’m sick and tired of fighting this stupid war game where people don’t think evolution is a fact

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, I am the presenter BUT I am not a “creationist” famous or otherwise. I am a Catholic who disagrees with evolution being taught as a fact when it is contrary to Magisterial Teaching.

The term “creationist” used over the last 30 or so years connotates with Protestant fundamentalism. Catholics having followed the creation/evolution debate cannot associate themselves with the latter position because Catholics argue from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants.

Peter

I liked the experiments demonstrating that rock strata can’t be used to date fossils. How old is this research, and what are scientists doing about it so far?

[See this movie for info:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1397992746961471793 ]

 

[hecd2]

Peter Wilders:

**The Barbarian’s post states:

You’re saying the Pope is wrong about this? He says that common descent is “virtually certain.” How could he be so deluded about Magisterial Teaching?**

Not deluded; misinformed…
The pressure from the Pontifical Academy of Scientists on the theologians and hence the Pope prevents the latter knowing the absence of tangible proof for long ages. Ironically, new evidence is now being produced showing that rocks can form rapidly. (See www.sedimentology.fr)

Peter

PREVENTS the pope from knowing about scientific evidence? Ah yes, popes for the last 50 years have been so dumb that they are easily deluded and misinformed, while you see clearly. That explains the situation fully then.

And see this:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
that demonstrates that Guy Berthault, the owner of the website you link to, is a creationist crank whose claims to have revolutionised geology are unjustified pride. The fact is that he has been and will be utterly ignored by the professional geological community because his claims are scientific hogwash.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps this article will enlighten a few here:

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/3/3.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

**

Neil_Anthony asks:

Well Peter, you are quite an exceptionally clever and brave person, aren’t you? Not only are you so clever that you can clearly discern truths about which recent popes are so dumb that they are sheepishly deluded or misinformed, to the extent that they, in turn, mislead the faithful into error and heresy, but you are also so brave that you are willing to make a stand on a subject that all other living Catholic theologians cravenly avoid because it is “a hot potato”. We understand now.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Perhaps this article will enlighten a few here:

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/3/3.htm

Beats me how an article by a militant creationist who is not a scientist and who has about the same academic or intellectual authority as a Kent Hovind or a Ken Ham can be “enlightening”? This outdated article is just the same old anti-intellectual, anti-science, showboating garbage riddled with error and ignorance that the likes of Hovind and Ham produce. Worthless.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[zian]

[See this movie for info:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1397992746961471793

]
I gave it a listen through the presenter’s (Peter’s) interviews with Fondi and Sermonti, but then I just got tired of listening to such willful ignorance.

Have a go at the Index to Creationist Claims, won’t you?
talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

References abound there that are from scientists who would dispute the assertions of Fondi and Sermonti.

 

[Cling2Cross]

So you are a Catholic Young Earth Creationist. YE Creationism is found amongst Protestant fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists and thankfully rare Catholic fundamentalists like you.

The thing is, Peter, that your position has been rejected by popes and other Church leaders for at least the last 50 years. Obviously you think you can discern the teaching of the Church more clearly than the last several popes and you hold that all the millions of thoughtful Catholics who accept the fact of evolution are in error and are heretics (including Ratzinger and Schoenborn.)

You scorn Protestant (and, I assume, Jewish and Islamic) fundamentalists, but your view is indistinguishable from theirs - the rejection of reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

These are Popes that seem to have compromised with the science of the day. Scripture is quite clear!

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11 KJV)

Tell me…when did the Genesis Flood happen in accordance with the Bible (approx 4500 years ago)? When to evolutionists say A catastrophic event took place (65 million years ago)? Who are you going to listen to?