The Vatican Gives "Thumbs Up" To Darwin

[Wilchbla]

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles DarwinRichard Owen in Rome

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin?s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. ?In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,? said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a ?higher power? for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin?s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as ?poor theology and poor science?. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a ?cultural phenomenon?, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on the Pope?s reference to an ?intelligent project? as proof that he favoured their views.

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said that no scholar could ?remain indifferent? to the 200th anniversary of Darwin?s birth tomorrow. There was, however, ?no question of celebrating? it.

The Vatican would ?take the measure of an event, which has left its mark for ever on the history of science and has influenced the way we understand our humanity?. The ?time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation? of Darwin by the Church, he said.

Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin ? above all Creationists ? had mistakenly claimed that his theories were ?totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality?, as did proponents of Intelligent Design.

Darwin?s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation had begun as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. In 1996 John Paul II said that it was ?more than a hypothesis?.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had ?never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish? and that forms of life had been transformed ?slowly over time?. Aquinas had made similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.

He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled with the mysteries of genetic codes and ?whether the diversification of life forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species?. As for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our ?genetic inheritance? with apes, the remaining 3 per cent ?is what makes us unique?, including religion.

?I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,? Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.

Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught in state schools.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his ?forgotten? work in his local parish, to illustrate how science and Church need not be at odds. Several pages celebrate Darwin?s ?significant scientific progress? to mark his bicentenary and also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species.

The Church wants to correct the impression that Darwin?s relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith, he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 705331.ece


Bill

[kevinmiller]

At what point between being an ape and becoming a man did a person get a soul?

[Guest Guest]

At what point between being an ape and becoming a man did a person get a soul?

I think they (Theistic Evolutionists) believe that when apes "evolved" *cough* into men, they received souls. I could be wrong, though.

The most curious thing about theistic evolution is that there's a vast, vast number of millions of years which are not documented in the Bible. After all, we can date the Abraham was about 4,000 years ago or so.
They also believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not literal.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Wilchbla]

Theistic evolution is the most dangerous type. Hitler was one of these. He believed God gave his stamp of approval on ridding the world of inferior humans.

[kevinmiller]

It doesn't make sense, though. If evolution is true, then we're still evolving. If such is the case, monkeys, too, have souls. And if monkeys have souls, do lizards have souls, too? And why don't we have any examples of said evolution. We can't find any evidence of any changes in humans during the 6,000 years of recorded history that we have. Not only that, but we don't even have any examples of "in-between" species. They supposedly dig up men that are in between monkeys and people but why do none of them exist today, not a single one? We have monkeys, and we have people. We have lizards and we have croccodiles but we don't have any living species that are in between any of them and, if it took place over millions of years as they say, there should be a lot of living examples of various species that are in between with gradual changes between monkeys and man.

[Wilchbla]

I once had a Kabbalist explain to me that when Adam was created in scripture that was really an allegory of when man evolved to the point of "self awareness" and thus became a "living soul."

[Wilchbla]

I think they (Theistic Evolutionists) believe that when apes "evolved" *cough* into men, they received souls. I could be wrong, though.

The most curious thing about theistic evolution is that there's a vast, vast number of millions of years which are not documented in the Bible. After all, we can date the Abraham was about 4,000 years ago or so.
They also believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not literal.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

These reprobates (Romans 1) have an answer for everything. The explanation for this is that there are giant leaps in the process of evolution. I forget the term they use to call it but if you've ever seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" (a fairy tale like their theory) there was a black monolith that cause this giant leap in evolution. The apes went from dumb monkeys to being able to use tools just like that and later in the movie the astronaut becomes a "star child" at "one with the universe". Of course, not a single shred of evidence for this crazy thinking. They claim we don't have facts but just blind faith yet they believe in Grimm's Fairy Tales -type of theories like this. This is why I mention to the evolotionist over in the Creation/Evolution board that they are constantly amending and changing what they teach so you can't pin them down. You never will. They'll just come up with some other crazy theory (like Dawkins saying that spacemen created us). The devil has more than enough godless reasonings to supply. So I don't bother debating them anymore.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

They also treat an upward evolution as being pinicled at man, they believe that man is progressing laterally but not vertically. If we were evolved to human, where are those "becoming" human (Darwin believed that Blacks were the lower transitional human, they don't teach THAT in school or on Discovery Channel) and what are humans evolving into??

[kevinmiller]

and what are humans evolving into??

Little green men! :Green

[John81]

Evolution and the creation account in Scripture are not compatible. Scripture states that God directly created man and leaves no room for millions of years of evolution in the process.

Either the Word of God is true in its account of creation or it's not. Those who proclaim the creation account is some form of fanciful writing have in effect opened the door on the slippery slope of "decide for yourself what is and isn't true in Scripture".

[no name joe]

I believe in evolution, at least micro evolution. It is even at work today. Species do evolve through natural selection. It is a fact, one that is readily observable.

Every species of dog that we have evolved with help of humans through selective breeding.

Micro organisms are constantly evolving and becoming stronger as we use antibiotics. We kill off many of the microorganisms, a few of the strong sruvive and reproduce, making them more resistant to antibiotics...one result is staph infection now which is not treatable by antibiotics.

Another example is pests and crops. The use of pesticides on crops kill off most pests, the strongest survive, and reproduce. The characteristics making them resist pesticides survive, the weak characteristics do not, thus it take stronger and stronger pesticides to kill the bugs. The same is true with herbicides and weeds.

Evolution is scientifically indisputable. What is at question is macro evolution. Can one species evolve into another? I do not believe so, but one type of species can evolve into another type of the same species (again....just look at dogs...all modern breeds came from basically the same original dogs...through selective breeding, desireable traits for a given purpose over time gives rise to a new breed of dog....evolution of a species). Now, a dog is still a dog, but sheltland sheepdog is different from an english bulldog.

Micro evolution is undeniably true, and completely compatable with Christianity.

[John81]

Adaptation is not evolution.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Every species of dog that we have evolved with help of humans through selective breeding.

Isn't that the key phrase? Would it have happened if left to themselves?

[John81]

Isn't that the key phrase? Would it have happened if left to themselves?

True, and again, this is not an example of evolution.

[1Timothy115]

I believe in evolution, at least micro evolution. It is even at work today. Species do evolve through natural selection. It is a fact, one that is readily observable.

Every species of dog that we have evolved with help of humans through selective breeding.

Micro organisms are constantly evolving and becoming stronger as we use antibiotics. We kill off many of the microorganisms, a few of the strong sruvive and reproduce, making them more resistant to antibiotics...one result is staph infection now which is not treatable by antibiotics.

Another example is pests and crops. The use of pesticides on crops kill off most pests, the strongest survive, and reproduce. The characteristics making them resist pesticides survive, the weak characteristics do not, thus it take stronger and stronger pesticides to kill the bugs. The same is true with herbicides and weeds.

Evolution is scientifically indisputable. What is at question is macro evolution. Can one species evolve into another? I do not believe so, but one type of species can evolve into another type of the same species (again....just look at dogs...all modern breeds came from basically the same original dogs...through selective breeding, desireable traits for a given purpose over time gives rise to a new breed of dog....evolution of a species). Now, a dog is still a dog, but sheltland sheepdog is different from an english bulldog.
Re: "with help of humans"
Micro evolution is undeniably true, and completely compatable with Christianity.

kindofblue1977

Artificial manipulation by man allows for every example you reference above.
Micro=humans intervening in one way or another; either directly or indirectly through daily activity. There is NO micro-evolution occurring without some mechanical intervention, i.e. human hands.

Macro= "In the beginning God..." and that; all in 6 literal days.