Vatican Agrees with Darwin

[the captain]

So it looks like now-a-days the only thing that the Catholic church is definatly against is Harry Potter.

Wonder how long til that changes?

 

[the captain]

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.

I don't know what you think you're talking about, but at my junior high school in Ohio we started covering the theory of evolution in about the sixth grade. It was also covered heavily in every science class I took in high school.

So please, try to know what you're talking about before you spout anymore of that "what stupid americans" bullshit.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

i have been waiting for someone to try and say 'god created Evolution' for a long while now

 

[acer840]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

 

[Caliostro]

Oh god(hehe)... spineless,absolutely spineless. Am I the only one seeing what's happening here? (well if you don't then: Growing number number of Atheists with Evolution being one of the main reasons, way to solve the problem? fix your beliefs until it works with them the church has been doing this sort of thing ever since ancient times (Christmas anyone?))

On that note I guess it is kind of good that they can adapt to popular times and all, so good on them for finding a loop-hole.

It's so obvious it hurts... It's like watching an has been circus freak doing tricks for attention... "...Hey...hey...I can do this!...I can dance!...Oh, you l-like you tapdance? I-I...I can tapdance... I'm tapdancing!...Breakdance?? sure! Sure! look! love me..."

Sadly for them, their demise is inevitable.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Well, I have to say I didn't expected this from them. On the other hand, creationists are a minority in Europe and if I'm correct most of them are Protestants.

Also, I think adjusting your beliefs to modern science is a good thing for a religion. Hinduism does it as well. You certainly do not need to litterary believe every story in your holy book when following a religion, you can also see them as more abstract life lessons.

 

[bjj hero]

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

So youre saying Im half right? Lot was abrahams nephew. All that stuff about angel rape, throwing your underage daughters to a mob to be gang banged, nuking cities and turning disobedient wives to salt is historical fact?

I expect a little more evidence than one work of fiction. ITs like stating the Odyssey is fact.

 

[Azeban]

You see, I hate a bunch of things about Catholicism, but some things about it are advantageous over the other forms of Christianity in my book. For one, there's alot less emphasis on prayer and alot more emphasis on being a good person. Which makes sense, if you think about it. If there is an all knowing and all powerful God, I doubt his ego would be fragile enough to need me building it up by telling him "Good job"

Secondly, a much smaller emphasis on the Bible. Which is good considering that the only things useful from the Bible nowadays are the morals of the story rather than scientific data.

Not to say that Catholicism is perfect mind you. The whole not ever getting laid or masturbating thing (for priests) really fucks with a person's head, which I think causes that disturbing little tendency for molestation.

 

[Soulreaverm]

This is something that is only news to non-Catholics.
You'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic who believes the world was created as it is now in seven days.
The Bible is a collection of stories, written by people, and that's official Catholic doctrine.

 

[Abedeus]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.

No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.

But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.

 

[acer840]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.

No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.

But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.

Huh? I guess I missed the part where I said I was spiteful and hatefilled. I only mentioned that that churches change what they say, do and believe to match the current popularity. Calling Darwin a heritic when he first came up with the theory of evolution and then adapting thier own beliefs to match the trend and evidence is being hipocritical. This is why I don't believe in religion, because it is fallable and changed to suit people.

And I never said they were evil, I was just referencing he looks like Palpatine.

 

[Kevvers]

They have learnt from the whole Galileo debacle.

Actually, there was a good scientific reason to disbelive Galileo at the time--no stellar parallax could be observed, which a heliocentric model predicts.

Whether there is good reason or not to disbelieve the theory is irrelevant because he used his Papal powers to force him to retract his theories -- which were correct -- because they were contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. So really it was Science vs. Wrong Science and Authoritarian Religion. Charging him with heresy is important because they were putting him on trial for supporting heretical lies as opposed to the doctrinal truth. If they are going to align their religion to a particular scientific world view they should be damn sure they're correct, because if the science is wrong it implies the religion or at least the Catholic Church is wrong. According to the Catholic Church at the time their 'true scripture' proves something that is just false. Therefore the scripture is wrong, therefore the Church is wrong. Oh well, its not the like pope is supposed to be infallible when he decides these things, is it?

Also Galileo was not "kind've a prick" as you put it, he was a decent human being, the father of modern science and who has done more to edify mankind than any amount of popes.

 

[Abedeus]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.

No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.

But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.

Huh? I guess I missed the part where I said I was spiteful and hatefilled. I only mentioned that that churches change what they say, do and believe to match the current popularity. Calling Darwin a heritic when he first came up with the theory of evolution and then adapting thier own beliefs to match the trend and evidence is being hipocritical. This is why I don't believe in religion, because it is fallable and changed to suit people.

And I never said they were evil, I was just referencing he looks like Palpatine.

Okay, few things.

The "spoiler" thing you have in your post is filled with spite and hatred towards the fact that churches don't earn money, and the collection plates are required for them so they don't fall apart after 5 years. It's not like God will pay for the heat, electricity, food, water and so that priests can make a living.

Also, you might call humanity a bunch of hipocritics. You might not know it, but when when Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer, said the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way, people called him a liar, not just clerics, but also his colleagues and friends. And when it turned out he was right, people suddenly became hipocrites if they believed his theory?

It's called "learning from mistakes". If the Church learned that being ignorant and rejecting a simple and really viable theory is wrong, then where's the harm?

Not to mention, John Paul II already acknowledged the theory of evolution.

 

[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

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.

Unfortunately this being an internet forum is not the right place for me to actually present all my arguments for not being a Christian. However I will list a few things that if I were to analyze them they would require a book each but I will only do so in order for people to understand where I stand.

First of all, you say you are a logical person, but if I were to press you on that statement I could say that in virtue of your faith, (if indeed your devotion or "dedication" requires one such leap of faith) one could argue that these two methodologies are actually incompatible. You cannot be logical and yet faithfull (the kind of faith that skips a few steps in its string of arguments). NOTE that I dont use the word logical to imply neither intelligence nor anything else that might be associated with potential. The only thing I am raising here is the difference in methodology. I employ logic in which every step is a necessary step and if not I am aware of it, whereas religiou people do not (in general).

Second. On Christian Ethics. I have read the Bible and I think I am educated enough in Christianity (being an ex-Orthodox myself) to know about them. My position on their ethical theory is this: It is right BUT for the wrong reasons! I have ended up with pretty much the same ideals as Christians teach the world to follow but my starting point was one that cames much earlier in the logical process and can is more defensible than the Christian equivalent.

Third. Christianity requires some form of dogmatism in any division of its faith. That is true and I have not encountered a Christian doctrine that can prove me wrong so far. I'd like to be corrected on this if possible. Therefore, if people who calls themselves followers of that doctrine dispose away with its arguments for its conclusions I am inclined to call these people anything but Christians from now on, because what they are essentially doing is stepping away from the doctrine and finding other arguments for it from other sources to justify their original view based on their original source. Why doesent the credit go to this new source? (It could be the use Human intellect/rationality, science, epistemological arguments in philosophical writtings)

Finally, I am not a Christian because I see no special place for that religion in contrast to other religions and in contrast to anything else that the religions does for one, with anything else in the human world that could serve the same purpose.

I know I can never convince people to lose their faith in an internet forum, but what I can do is present my view piece by piece and let others think about it!

 

[bjj hero]

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.

So your saying most catholics will admit the Old Testament is bollocks? fairy stories? So the 10 commandments are made up, abortion is fine, no encouraged, contraception should be free. I wish youd mentioned this sooner. Your churches stance on contareption has made fighting AIDs in Africa ever so difficult.

So Homosexuality and general bumming is not sinful? Ill start tomorrow.

If the new testament is "fact", an entirely accurate historical document, why is it not studied with the same scepticism as other historical documents?

Texts from Rome, writing from Egypt, after reading something you ask what message does the author want to get across? What does he/she have to gain by exagerating/lying? Would it be adventageous to say the Jesus, who the authors say is the son of god, is magic?

Plenty of novels have morals etc. It doesnt mean they are acurate portrayals of history or fact. Ill be using the Discworld novels for my bible, it has moral stories, is just as likely to be true, is better written and far less judgemental.

 

[Maze1125]

Also Galileo was not "kind've a prick" as you put it, he was a decent human being, the father of modern science and who has done more to edify mankind than any amount of popes.

That doesn't mean he wasn't 'kind've a prick'.
Newton did a huge amount for physics and maths, but he was one of the most arrogant selfish bastards around.

 

[October Country]

Well, good for them, a step towards science and religion not being in direct conflict with each other. In my mind religions should concentrate on the spiritual side and giving people hope and faith, and then scientists should focus on explaining physical occurences and phenomena.

 

[P1p3s]

In your face Inquisition?

Genius

Although - I don't think this helps Darwins case any - when have the Vatican been right about anything?
It also proves how 'up to date' they are given that pure darwinism doesn't exisit anymore, sure the basic premise of evolution does but so much of his 200 year old science, 200 year old perceptions have been revised by modern dating techniques (he was married - that isn't what I meant) the electron microscope, our greater understanding of the universe etc that our current model doesn't really resemble Darwins publications anymore, so way to go purple dress wearing, big hat'ed biggots, way to go for keeping up with the times.

PS any form of incrimental evolution is incompatable with Christian beliefs, the entire premis of the bible is that man couldnt die until he disobey'd God and ate the fruit from the tree he wasn't supposed to. That introduced death as a concept and a reality into the world, if there is no death then there is no natural selection, there are no 'millions of years of genetic trial and error' to see which are the more advantageous traits for survival, because you aren't surving anything! Geez, if the pope didn't even read the first page of the bible how on earth did he get that job!

I mean seriously, you rekon an english lit teacher would get away with "yeah - Jane Ayre, good novel, about a chick, and some robots big angry plasma gun wielding ROBOTS!!!"

 

[Maze1125]

PS any form of incrimental evolution is incompatable with Christian beliefs, the entire premis of the bible is that man couldnt die until he disobey'd God and ate the fruit from the tree he wasn't supposed to.

It's called a metaphor.

Gaining knowledge means gaining sapience.
Death means eternal damnation.

So, the story means that when humans evolved into sapient beings we also gained understanding of morality, meaning we could now end up in hell for sinning.

 

[acer840]

snip

Sigh,
Listing them off; The "spoiler" thing: I call it a joke, most people get them, others over re-act. Intended for comedic purposes, as he looks like Emperor Palpatine and Palpatine wanted to make a Death Star. So for the joke I could only figuer the only income the church gets, (which as a religion is compleatly tax-free) was the collection plates. As I said it's a joke, this obviously makes me a hate-filled person. If a famous comedian made the same joke you would be lauging, not jumping down his throat.

Copernicus; I admit, everyone thought he was wrong, when infact he was correct, as such I would be calling everyone hipocritical. I take that back and will fix it. He called it a "Theory" and as such people called him wrong. He was right. According to religion the Bible is the word of God, then why is it being changed to suit the current political and scientific thought? But if you don't believe in the bible, then why is this affecting you?

Humanity must learn from it's mistakes or else we will never move on into the future. By changing the word of God, the religious groups are trying to keep up with the future. All science is Theorey until proven fact or fiction. But religion says the one book IS the truth.

Also Jhon Paul II did infact acknowledge Evolution, but in the same address he rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul.

/rant