The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[MISFIT]

By Philip PullellaPosted 2008/09/16 at 4:07 pm EDT
VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters)  The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned."

Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools.

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science."

Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution.

"In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said.

"Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly," he said.

Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.

(Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan in Paris and Patsy Wilson in Washington; editing by Robert Hart)

Note to the moderators: I was going to put this in the sub forum, but noticed it is locked, If I am violating any rules please feel free to delete this thread just let me know you are going to first. Thank you.

 

[dadof10]

By Philip PullellaPosted 2008/09/16 at 4:07 pm EDT
VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters)  The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

What's your point, and why is the title "The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!"? The story is that the Vatican won't apologize to Darwin posthumously, not that evolution is a "valid scientific approach to the development of humans". That was settled in 1950.

 

[MISFIT]

By Philip PullellaPosted 2008/09/16 at 4:07 pm EDT
VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters)  The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

What's your point, and why is the title "The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!"? The story is that the Vatican won't apologize to Darwin posthumously, not that evolution is a "valid scientific approach to the development of humans". That was settled in 1950.

What's your point? Did you read it? It says the Vatican in true Vatican style is once again going with the flow to make everyone happy. They say evolution does not conflict with the Bible, now I don't know what Bible the Pope has but mine does not mention dinosaurs turning into birds or monkeys turning into man.

 

[dadof10]

What's your point? Did you read it?

Yes, I actually did. Did you see the quote below? It was in the body of the story you posted and in my post. I'll put it in red for you so you can read it more closely

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996.

That the "Vatican says evolution is right" is a 57 year old story (in fact, even older), and was not the point of the article you posted. The point is that the Anglicans are apologizing and the Catholic Church is NOT.

"The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain."

Maybe it was you who didn't read it?

It says the Vatican in true Vatican style is once again going with the flow to make everyone happy.

I have heard MANY complaints about the Church over the years, but never that She "goes with the flow". That's a laugh considering that the opposite has been the MAJOR complaint against Her from every quarter throughout history, especially within the last 100 years from the liberals.

They say evolution does not conflict with the Bible, now I don't know what Bible the Pope has but mine does not mention dinosaurs turning into birds or monkeys turning into man.

The Pope has the same creation story as you do, we just leave open the possibility that it can be interpreted other than strictly literally, after all, do you really think the Creator God, pure Spirit, had to rest on the 7th day?

 

[MISFIT]

Yes I read It I posted it!! The Catholic church was created by it "going with the flow to make everyone happy." If it wasn't for constantine blending Christianity with Paganism to make everyone happy there would not be a Catholic church.

 

[dadof10]

Yes I read It I posted it!! The Catholic church was created by it "going with the flow to make everyone happy." If it wasn't for constantine blending Christianity with Paganism to make everyone happy there would not be a Catholic church.

OK, prove it. Provide quotes from historical documents or the ECF's of the changes that occurred after 313 ad. when paganism was supposed to have crept in to Christianity. You would think that someone would have protested a little, huh. Show ANY ECF's who taught the Protestant doctrines of Sola-Scriptura, Sola-Fide and invisible church before 312 (sheesh, before 1400) ad. You can't just make an ignorant statement like this and expect not to get called on it.

And please, no Dave Hunt or Lorraine Boettner "history". They have been debunked over and over again. Just accurate historical accounts, thanks.

 

[MISFIT]

Believe what you want but history says other wise.

Well where to begin hmm.... Holidays. Christmas, Jesus was more than likely born in October during the feast of trumpets NOT December during the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. So why do we celebrate the birth of Christ on a pagan holiday? Or how about the old Pagan festival of the dead? Later renamed all souls day or as you now call it all saints day.

Of course we could always get on the subject of Mary shall I go there? No where in the Bible is she worshiped or prayed to or even held in high regard. Yes she was the earthly mother of GOD incarnate, but she was simply human. She had other children and like all of us was born with original sin. Also the Hebrew word for virgin means young woman. Do I believe in the virgin birth? Yea I do, but she was not a virgin all of her life, if she was then tell me where Jesus' half-siblings came from? Why does the Catholic church hold her in such high regard? Simple to satisfy the Goddess worshipers that otherwise would not have converted.

Now look I'm not going to get into a whole "are Catholics Christian" thing, I have no problem with Catholics (a lot of my family is Catholic), but there are many things I disagree with the Catholic church on, and too many things that they have added over the centuries that just don't line up with GOD's word.

Also I have no idea who Dave Hunt or Lorraine Boettner are, so you wont have to worry about me quoteing them.

 

[MISFIT]

Here's a video you may or may not like, but I find it to be insightful.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80aLm0oJ-VY

 

[francisdesales]

Yes I read It I posted it!! The Catholic church was created by it "going with the flow to make everyone happy." If it wasn't for constantine blending Christianity with Paganism to make everyone happy there would not be a Catholic church.

this is just crazy talk that comes from not thinking...

WHICH Church was being persecuted the year before the Edict of Milan, where Christianity was made legal by Constantine? This same Church just suddenly blow away because Constantine removed the fear of persecution from it?

This is very interesting - the death knell sounded on an organization because it is no longer persecuted by society!!! Never heard from again because they are not being thrown to the lions!!! Wow, the imagination of some people. :crazyeyes:

The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine...

Regards

 

[one_lost_coin]

There are elements of evolution that are undeniable and that any amateur dog breeder knows. The Church proclaims that there is no contradiction between science and faith. This truth is what has freed the Church to appreciate more deeply the work of God in Creation.

353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God. - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[cyberjosh]

Ok guys, let's try to let cooler heads prevail here. Now Dadof10 has already pointed out the tidbit about not posthumously apologizing to Darwin, but still as it stands the article clearly states that this week the Vatican said "the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible", unless of course they are lying. Now, giving the article the benefit of the doubt, does the Vatican have a good reason for thinking it's compatible?

Simple question, should only require a simple answer.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It seems to me the message they are conveying is that scripture is not a science book. They are not necessarily taking the side of evolution, but rather stating that there would not be a conflict with it and scripture.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Ok guys, let's try to let cooler heads prevail here. Now Dadof10 has already pointed out the tidbit about not posthumously apologizing to Darwin, but still as it stands the article clearly states that this week the Vatican said "the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible", unless of course they are lying. Now, giving the article the benefit of the doubt, does the Vatican have a good reason for thinking it's compatible?

Simple question, should only require a simple answer.

God Bless,

~Josh

First its a Rueters article with a sensational headline. Second the conference doesn't meet till next year so you will just have to wait for your simple answer. Third the Vatican has its own news service and that is were I recommend you go for more the complete source of the information that the rueters article referenced. You can read the Vatican release of the speech from Archbishop Ravasi here http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulle ... O%20RAVASI

If you are really interested just read the writings by the Popes already suggested till the conference next year. They are suggested in the link above also. If you need me to find the links for you just ask and I will get them.

 

[one_lost_coin]

It seems to me the message they are conveying is that scripture is not a science book. They are not necessarily taking the side of evolution, but rather stating that there would not be a conflict with it and scripture.

I think that sums it up quit well.

 

[Veritas]

That the "Vatican says evolution is right" is a 57 year old story (in fact, even older), and was not the point of the article you posted.

Perhaps 4th century AD older.... (well, maybe not the evolution bit, but the general idea)

This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41. of Augustine's work The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. 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? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Now, giving the article the benefit of the doubt, does the Vatican have a good reason for thinking it's compatible?

Simple question, should only require a simple answer.

I believe in the literal account myself but I also think it doesn't really matter what a Christian believes on that particular topic of how God might have created the earth. No one was there to see it. It wasn't written down "officially" until moses did it. It does have a poetic nature about it. I have friends who are devout Christian who believe evolution happened as well. I just don't think it matters one way or the other for a Christian. It shouldn't be a barrier. I have other friends that reject Christianity soley on that issue. After talking to them; however, they really are close to believing in Jesus and Him raising from the dead. ...and His desire for them to be saved.

I say focus on the core. Jesus is core. Focus on that. All the other stuff is peripheral to the faith

 

[cyberjosh]

It seems to me the message they are conveying is that scripture is not a science book. They are not necessarily taking the side of evolution, but rather stating that there would not be a conflict with it and scripture.

Possibly (although I personally disagree with that stance), but passively not saying anything against it isn't really any better than actively approving it. If a boat stays in "neutral" in the middle of a river its going to move in one direction or another regardless.

I say focus on the core. Jesus is core. Focus on that. All the other stuff is peripheral to the faith

Well said. That is always my primary emphasis at the end of the day.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[dadof10]

Believe what you want but history says other wise.

What historical document have you quoted? All that's here is typical anti-Catholic ranting.

Well where to begin hmm.... Holidays. Christmas, Jesus was more than likely born in October during the feast of trumpets NOT December during the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. So why do we celebrate the birth of Christ on a pagan holiday? Or how about the old Pagan festival of the dead? Later renamed all souls day or as you now call it all saints day.

So what? Because Christianity supplanted the pagan religions of Rome doesn't mean the Church accepted any pagan DOCTRINE. You have to PROVE IT, you can't just say it. A good place to start is with the Early Church Fathers before and immediately after Constantine. They were extremely careful about the purity of the Gospel. If pagan doctrine was being embraced by Christianity, certainly there would be some backlash. There would be at least a few "orthodox" Christians who complained, right? Where are their writings?

On a side note, All Souls Day is celebrated on Oct. 31 and All Saints Day on Nov. 1. They are two seperate holidays.

Of course we could always get on the subject of Mary shall I go there? No where in the Bible is she worshiped or prayed to or even held in high regard. Yes she was the earthly mother of GOD incarnate, but she was simply human. She had other children and like all of us was born with original sin. Also the Hebrew word for virgin means young woman. Do I believe in the virgin birth? Yea I do, but she was not a virgin all of her life, if she was then tell me where Jesus' half-siblings came from? Why does the Catholic church hold her in such high regard? Simple to satisfy the Goddess worshipers that otherwise would not have converted.

I never asked for your convoluted interpretation of Scripture, just HISTORICAL FACT that Christianity accepted pagan doctrines after She was legalized in the Roman Empire. Do you have any?

 

[dadof10]

It seems to me the message they are conveying is that scripture is not a science book. They are not necessarily taking the side of evolution, but rather stating that there would not be a conflict with it and scripture.

Exactly.

 

[dadof10]

Ok guys, let's try to let cooler heads prevail here. Now Dadof10 has already pointed out the tidbit about not posthumously apologizing to Darwin, but still as it stands the article clearly states that this week the Vatican said "the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible", unless of course they are lying. Now, giving the article the benefit of the doubt, does the Vatican have a good reason for thinking it's compatible?

Simple question, should only require a simple answer.

God Bless,

~Josh

If evolution is ever proved beyond a doubt to be scientifically correct, it would not contradict Scripture. The only thing the Church is claiming is that evolution and the creation account in Genesis can be reconciled, they don't contradict.

I'll ask the same question to you I asked to Misfit, If the Genesis account is to be taken only literally, why did a Pure Spirit have to rest on the 7th day? Obviously there is an element of allegory in the account.

 

[dadof10]

First its a Rueters article with a sensational headline.

The actual headline is "Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican" NOT "The Vatican says Evolution is right". The sensational nature of the title of this post is what made me think there was an underlying reason for it other than "for your information..."