Vatican Agrees with Darwin

[Trivun]

It was news to me that there was any conflict between Darwin and the Vatican before. I went to a Catholic primary and secondary school and there was never any mention of 'controversy'. Basic evolutionary theory and natural selection featured in the biology syllabus as normal. Creationism was mentioned in R.E., but it was lumped in the same group as lunar conspiracy theorists and the Flat Earth Society. The 'history' part of the Old Testament doesn't really start until Abraham. Everything before that is a mixture of parable and myth cribbed from other cultures such as the Byzantines.

Ah well. Holding up a big sign aimed at the creationist movement with "WE'RE NOT WITH THEM" written on it is always worth doing, I guess.

-Nick

Yes, but Nick, me and you are both British, so we have a more tolerant view of things. We come from a more diverse backgrounded country and there isn't the same controversy here than there is in America, where they flatly refuse to teach Darwinism in Biology due to the Creationist theory that has been sounded out so much by the Republicans and any other Conservative Chrsitian groups in the USA.

 

[Datalord]

Am i the only one who knows that the church has accepted the general idea of NOT taking the bible literally for decades?
OF COURSE the earth wasn't made in six days, OF COURSE adam didn't like 900 something years. The Old Testament, espsecially genesis and exodus, were originally stories, passed on by word of mouth, that were written down during the Babylonian exile. The stories changed and diverted with the people, hence two stories of creation in the bible. The repetative formula's in the stories (i.e. Evening came, and morning followed) were created to make the general story easier to remember. THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ LITERALLY, it is meant to be read in the context it was written, a story to pass on a general message in an easy to remember format.

The general idea of creation is that God made the earth and life, and life then evolved as God intended. I think it was Newton (but maybe some other scientist) tried to calculate the probability of life developing naturally in the universe, trying to diprove the existance of God, and ended up becoming a theist, not atheist, theistic as in believing in a higher Deity

 

[Niman]

Am i the only one who knows that the church has accepted the general idea of NOT taking the bible literally for decades?
OF COURSE the earth wasn't made in six days, OF COURSE adam didn't like 900 something years. The Old Testament, espsecially genesis and exodus, were originally stories, passed on by word of mouth, that were written down during the Babylonian exile. The stories changed and diverted with the people, hence two stories of creation in the bible. The repetative formula's in the stories (i.e. Evening came, and morning followed) were created to make the general story easier to remember. THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ LITERALLY, it is meant to be read in the context it was written, a story to pass on a general message in an easy to remember format.

The general idea of creation is that God made the earth and life, and life then evolved as God intended. I think it was Newton (but maybe some other scientist) tried to calculate the probability of life developing naturally in the universe, trying to diprove the existance of God, and ended up becoming a theist, not atheist, theistic as in believing in a higher Deity

I dont think this is the Church's official position. Dont forget: the Bible is usually credited as being written by God itslef and the use of the name "Gospel" is not a stranger to the Christian method of proof, i.e. the method of "defining things into existence". (Check out the Ontological Argument, one of Christianity's supposedly most powerfull arguments for God's existence.) If what was quoted above was the Church's position, that would only lead into a downward spiral of self-destruction whose end result would have been evident even today. The reason for this is this:

When we deal with Christians we press then at the essential elements of their doctrine and in our case it is the Bible which is the only source for their religion. If they do not believe in it as it demands them to, I can submit to you that there is plenty of room to argue that we are no longer dealing with Christians but with religious people...theists if you wish (although I fear terms like these will only irritate people. I for one am willing to keep semantics within the topic)!

EDIT: Spelling mistakes and missing words (not a native english speaker )

 

[cleverlymadeup]

i think they really needed to admit it wasn't fake and was real, there's just way too much proof that it has and keeps happening

 

[Bertruam]

I bet the Spanish inquisition never expected that!

 

[JWAN]

It's what every religion does when confronted by Science, they change their view and say "Well, with this interpretation of our beliefs, we knew it all along!"
Though does this mean I have to stop using the "Fossils were put in place by the devil to test your faith" punchline to rest?

where did you hear that one?

You didn't have a childhood like mine.

I don't think you even had a child hood like what you say. I went to a Catholic school for 8 years and i never heard anything like that. Im calling bullshit

 

[JMeganSnow]

Oh, good grief. This is a blatant attempt by religionists to co-opt the prestige of science and muddy the waters for their own purposes. I like how the "Vatican Official" brought in both St. Augustine *and* Thomas Aquinas. Augustine was militantly anti-science and anti-reason, which he referred to as the sinful "lust of the eyes". Aquinas was reason-oriented--he believed that the existence of god could be rationally proven (it can't, his five proofs are logically defective, but at least he tried). You couldn't find two church fathers more philosophically opposed, so where the heck does Darwin fit in on that spectrum? He might as well have said that Obama could be traced to Hitler and Gandhi. It would amount to pretty much the same thing, viz, nothing.

 

[JMeganSnow]

I don't think you even had a child hood like what you say. I went to a Catholic school for 8 years and i never heard anything like that. Im calling bullshit

Yes, because we all know that statistical samples of 1 are definitive.

 

[Ultrajoe]

[HEADING=1]ULTRAFLASH![/HEADING]


News Ultraflash children: This shit is old.

This is just making official what popes been and gone have already said: "Evolution is cool with us, dawg". As exciting as it may be, this is an old, old descision made by the papacy. The church isn't stupid, they know the canon is so full of plot holes it makes Uwe Boll look like Tolkien, but they also know that if you comprimise it then you lose your credibility. It just so happens that now credibility lies with accepting what they already knew. You do not become pope without some brains in your pope-hat, but he has a duty to his faith, and until now that meant supporting it's doctrine.

Long story short: Even the pope knew about this before you, and he just found out they cancelled firefly (Will he ask god to revive it? We can only pray). Try to keep up, lads.

 

[Necrophagist]

I never thought I'd say this ...

... but the Catholic church is ahead of the times ...

... at least when it comes to current religions.

That felt weird.

Evangelicals in America are the new Catholics, I say. Look at their mega-churches, their political influence, their cultural stranglehold. It's true.

 

[Cliff_m85]

And it only took 150 years. They're getting better!

 

[are.you.the.god.its.me.vader]

well its a bout bloody time

 

[brainfreeze215]

However, this will probably have a depressingly small effect on the American Midwest bible thumper.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I never thought I'd say this ...

... but the Catholic church is ahead of the times ...

... at least when it comes to current religions.

That felt weird.

Evangelicals in America are the new Catholics, I say. Look at their mega-churches, their political influence, their cultural stranglehold. It's true.

Slow down. The pope did say that homosexuality is just as dangerous as global warming. And by that they meant that it's very very dangerous, btw.

 

[Doug]

... even though it would appear to conflict with the book of Genesis. Although the church never officially rejected evolutionary theory, it was common for people to reject evolution on the basis that it contradicted the Bible...

Only if you read genesis as the exact and literal truth.

And why you'd want to do that is beyond me, given the fact the first two chapters directly contradict one another.

Exactly! Add to that, the "bible" isn't the original version. Aside from translations, their where originally more gosbels that in the "official" version.

 

[elemenetal150]

Wow, this is really old news. Pope John Paul the 2nd declared that evolution happened at least 10 years ago and that teh creation story was about he creation of the soul and not the body

 

[Ultrajoe]

Wow, this is really old news. Pope John Paul the 2nd declared that evolution happened at least 10 years ago and that teh creation story was about he creation of the soul and not the body

At least someone reads Ultraflashes, or at least knows what i was talking about... even if they did ignore them.

But yes, this is old news.

 

[Doug]

Wow, this is really old news. Pope John Paul the 2nd declared that evolution happened at least 10 years ago and that teh creation story was about he creation of the soul and not the body

At least someone reads Ultraflashes, or at least knows what i was talking about... even if they did ignore them.

But yes, this is old news.

I thought I'd heard about this before, but I wasn't sure.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD news. For further debate, I refer you to virtually anything I've said on the subject of religion in the past year of me being here.



Note: it's kind of interesting how Genesis follows the development of the universe (outside of the six/seven days). You have nothing. Then you have the heavans. Then the sun, then the land and sea, and then the animals, and finally(?), man.

Big Bang-formation of the sun-formation of the earth-formation of the oceans-development of life-intelligent life.



Just a thought. Colonel Fondant out.

 

[Echo3Delta]

Am i the only one who knows that the church has accepted the general idea of NOT taking the bible literally for decades?
OF COURSE the earth wasn't made in six days, OF COURSE adam didn't like 900 something years. The Old Testament, espsecially genesis and exodus, were originally stories, passed on by word of mouth, that were written down during the Babylonian exile. The stories changed and diverted with the people, hence two stories of creation in the bible. The repetative formula's in the stories (i.e. Evening came, and morning followed) were created to make the general story easier to remember. THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ LITERALLY, it is meant to be read in the context it was written, a story to pass on a general message in an easy to remember format.

The general idea of creation is that God made the earth and life, and life then evolved as God intended. I think it was Newton (but maybe some other scientist) tried to calculate the probability of life developing naturally in the universe, trying to diprove the existance of God, and ended up becoming a theist, not atheist, theistic as in believing in a higher Deity

I dont think this is the Church's official position. Dont forget: the Bible is usually credited as being written by God itslef and the use of the name "Gospel" is not a stranger to the Christian method of proof, i.e. the method of "defining things into existence". (Check out the Ontological Argument, one of Christianity's supposedly most powerfull arguments for God's existence.) If what was quoted above was the Church's position, that would only lead into a downward spiral of self-destruction whose end result would have been evident even today. The reason for this is this:

When we deal with Christians we press then at the essential elements of their doctrine and in our case it is the Bible which is the only source for their religion. If they do not believe in it as it demands them to, I can submit to you that there is plenty of room to argue that we are no longer dealing with Christians but with religious people...theists if you wish (although I fear terms like these will only irritate people. I for one am willing to keep semantics within the topic)!

EDIT: Spelling mistakes and missing words (not a native english speaker )

The thing that I wish non-Christians would understand more than anything else is the difference between the Old and New Testaments. Guys, I know it makes your arguments against Christianity SO much easier to just lump the two of them together as "the Bible," but it's completely wrong to do so.

I'm a hardcore Catholic who is WELL-educated about my faith. Something you may not know: A long time ago (I don't have specifics) there was a council held to decide whether or not the Church should completely DISMISS the Old Testament. Obviously, they did not. The ONLY reason they didn't was because the O.T. gave Jesus legitimacy and context with regard to the old laws.

Like I said, I am truly dedicated to Catholicism, but anyone who can read can see many major contradictions within the O.T. For this reason, and because I'm a very logical person, I have no faith in the presence of any absolute truth (good advice, yes - infallible truth, no) in that book. I'm no less Catholic (or Christian) with this position, because the only purpose of the O.T. is to put Jesus in context.

Therefore, yes, this is very old news to me and any other true Catholic who knows Genesis is not historical. For those of you who attack Christianity because of our perceived faith in the O.T., know that I am just as annoyed by that book as I am by the people who look to it for answers (everything it says is said better and without contradiction in the N.T.). But if you want to have a real discussion with educated Christians, you'd best leave those tired attacks at the door, because we don't use that book in our arguments.