What Does Everybody Think Of Theistic Evolution?

[FullTruth]

The Vatican's response to Evolution has been a cautious one. They have a provisional finding that Men didn't evolve from simple one-cell life forms, but God did use adaptation to create the first human being. They say that it is okay to believe this or not believe this if you want, and it doesn't make you a 'Bad Catholic'.

I do believe in an universal catholic faith, despite what many people may think of what I am saying.

After being wrong about Galleao, they want to be cautious. The word of God never once said that the world didn't revolve around the sun, or that the world was flat. In fact, the bible did say that God sits above the circle of the earth.

It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in; Isaiah 40:22.

I guess the Vatican should have read that before saying to people, the world is flat, it is not round. J/King

I think the Vatican is cautious right now because they are fearful of being wrong and be seen as a fool.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 1st John 4:18.

Is it comely for those who experience perfect love to fear to be seen as geniuses. . .

Especially when the Bible says this -

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1st Corinthians 1:27.

There are many other things I could discuss here about Charles Darwin. All I suggest is to google Charles Darwin and Freemasonry, and Christianity and Freemasonry. You'd be really surprised by what you may learn.

I, for one, will not believe in Evolution, Theistic or otherwise.

All I want to do here is to sharpen iron. With my last debate, I think you sharpened my iron as much as I sharpened yours. I only want to help you have greater faith in God. The true universal church doesn't recognize religion, but the fruits of one another.

What does everybody else here think?

Edited January 6, 2007 by FullTruth

[goldenchild17]

I don't believe in macro-evolution of any kind nor do I believe any Catholic can in good faith believe in it.

[Akalyte]

i choose not to mix science with my catholicism. I choose not to believe in evolution in anyway at all. God didnt need evolution to make man.

[N/A Gone]

This isnt meant as offensive fallchild, but what do you know about theistic evolution? What do you know about the difference in macro-micro and even the various geno theories in there? What kind of a biological/genetic or infectious disease background do you have? The reason I ask is christians are very common to make themselves look foolish in arguing an issue that is over there head. (If I would have not gone to a theological college I would have pursued a diagnostics with a double speciality in infectious disease and genetics--Im not telling you this to be prideful, but to explain there is a wealth of knowledge out there to quickly judge) Have you read Darwin's origin of species?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwi...ews_on_religion[/url]

A couple questions to keep in mind here are

1.) What soteriological difference does it make if God creates humans as a new species, or if he takes monkeys and blows the spirit into them, adapting-modifying them into humans. (*this isnt a true macro theory btw, more of a hybrid)

2.) The "what" does not matter as long as we seek the "why" and "who," I am close to a protestant theologian that is a professed theistic evalutionist. I have drifted back-forth on the issue myself, but all I see is it does not matter and is a debate that can cause more harm then it ever will cause good.

3.) pure macro evolution is bunk and most reputable scientists have problems with it. It is the great flaw in the debate. Small issues such as plants having cell walls, or exclusive protein types, throw the whole concept off..unless there was an intellegent source working it.

The christian that believes in theistic evolution still believes God created the world, just that he used a form of evalution as his method of creation. There are worse issues in the church than this

[curtins]

I saw this brought up once by a protestant:

Evolution requires death. Yet sin is what brought death into the world. So there can't be evolution before sin was brought into the world.

[Aloysius]

micro-evolution, aka adaption, is a proven fact. the change from species to species is a very plausible archaeological possibility.
'
what the human authors of Sacred Scripture intend to teach, Sacred Scripture is always completely right about, totally inspired and inerrant. therefore, when the Hebrews intended to take the Pagan babylonian creation myths and moralize them while still referencing their believed fact in a first two ancestors, they were totally inspired and inerrantly teaching moral truths about how we had two first ancestors created by God and how their immorality caused all the human race to have a fallen nature.

they inerrantly and with divine eloquence reversed all the generations of the babylonian gods with each day, the first day reverses the first generation of babylonian gods all the way to the reversal of the matricidal 'hero' marduk who created mankind to enslave in the sixth generation with the sixth day when God creates man in love with free will.

there is nothing that indicates the Sacred Authors intended to teach anything about the origin of the two bodies of the first two ancestors. if they intended to teach about that, they would have been totally inerrant. if they intended to twist babylonian myths to teach more profound truths of morality and fallen nature and creation without reference to what came before or after the origin of our bodies, then there is room for investigation into the origin of our mortal bodies along the timeline of creation.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1157675' date='Jan 6 2007, 06:21 PM']
This isnt meant as offensive fallchild, but what do you know about theistic evolution? What do you know about the difference in macro-micro and even the various geno theories in there? What kind of a biological/genetic or infectious disease background do you have? The reason I ask is christians are very common to make themselves look foolish in arguing an issue that is over there head. (If I would have not gone to a theological college I would have pursued a diagnostics with a double speciality in infectious disease and genetics--Im not telling you this to be prideful, but to explain there is a wealth of knowledge out there to quickly judge) Have you read Darwin's origin of species?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwi...ews_on_religion[/url]

A couple questions to keep in mind here are

1.) What soteriological difference does it make if God creates humans as a new species, or if he takes monkeys and blows the spirit into them, adapting-modifying them into humans. (*this isnt a true macro theory btw, more of a hybrid)

2.) The "what" does not matter as long as we seek the "why" and "who," I am close to a protestant theologian that is a professed theistic evalutionist. I have drifted back-forth on the issue myself, but all I see is it does not matter and is a debate that can cause more harm then it ever will cause good.

3.) pure macro evolution is bunk and most reputable scientists have problems with it. It is the great flaw in the debate. Small issues such as plants having cell walls, or exclusive protein types, throw the whole concept off..unless there was an intellegent source working it.

The christian that believes in theistic evolution still believes God created the world, just that he used a form of evalution as his method of creation. There are worse issues in the church than this
[/quote]


Are you saying that those who believe in Creationism are divided from the ones who believe in Theistic, a God-Driven, evolution. Hmmmm. . . Christ did say he would divide the world by a sword.

It does matter, because God wants us to worship him in Spirit and in Truth. If you believe in one lie about him, we are no longer worshiping him in spirit and in truth, and therefore we displease God.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24.

So if you believe he created us by natural selection, you believe in a lie about God.

I could go much father into this, because science actually shows everything was spoken into existence. Einstien proved that with E=MC2. If you are brave, you can private message me why E=MC2 proves that all things were spoken into existence.

[morostheos]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1157643' date='Jan 6 2007, 11:29 PM']
I think the Vatican is cautious right now because they are fearful of being wrong and be seen as a fool.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 1st John 4:18.

Is it comely for those who experience perfect love to fear to be seen as geniuses. . .

[/quote]

I think that the Vatican hasn't spoken on the scientific theory of evolution because it is not the Church's role to make declarations of truth or falsity about scientific theories.

What the Church has spoken on, and spoken very strongly, is the ideology of evolutionism. It has been condemned. A specific example I can think of are the series of catecheses that Cardinal Schoenborn did last year. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend them.

Do you really think the Church is afraid to be seen as a fool???

[FullTruth]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1157710' date='Jan 6 2007, 07:28 PM']
I think that the Vatican hasn't spoken on the scientific theory of evolution because it is not the Church's role to make declarations of truth or falsity about scientific theories.

What the Church has spoken on, and spoken very strongly, is the ideology of evolutionism. It has been condemned. A specific example I can think of are the series of catecheses that Cardinal Schoenborn did last year. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend them.

[color="#FF0000"]Read Below[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]Quoting the Catholic Source below, who is defending the faith.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]Q: So where do we stand now with regard to evolution?

A: Basically where we did before the pope's speech. The Church has had a provisional finding since 1950 that the idea that God used intermediate living forms to produce the body of the first man can be reconciled with the deposit of faith, but that it must still be acknowledged that the soul is created immediately by God from nothing. The evolutionary hypothesis still must stand or fail on the scientific evidence for it, and nobody is a bad or a good Catholic based on whether they accept or reject it, for the Church does not teach matters of science as if they were matters of faith.

None of this is new. The fact that there has been so much hype over it is a testimony to the fact that many people have not studied what the Church has said concerning evolution.[/color]

Do you really think the Church is afraid to be seen as a fool???

[color="#FF0000"]NO! The church wouldn't be afraid to be seen as a fool.[/color]
[/quote]
Evolution: What the Pope Said

by James Akin

Q: I have heard that the pope recently made a statement on evolution. Is that true?

A: Yes, Pope John Paul II made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 23, 1996 in which he addressed the subject of evolution.

Q: What is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?

A: It is an honor society made up of scientists who are appointed to membership by the pope. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was organized (based on a previous group) in October 1936 by Pope Piux XI, and its purpose is to foster research in the sciences.

Q: Why did the pope choose to give a speech on this subject then?

A: Because the society was just meeting for its 60th anniversary (October 1936-October 1996) and the theme of this particular conference was evolution and the origin of life. Thus, the pope addressed them on the subject they were meeting to discuss.

Q: Is the text of the pope's address available on the Internet?

A: Yes, a translation of it is available here.

Q: What did the pope say about evolution?

A: Several things, however he was most widely reported by the English-language media as having said:

"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."

Q: Why do you stress the phrase "widely reported by the English-language media"?

A: Because there has been some confusion in the English-language media concerning the proper translation of what he said.

Q: What other translations are there?

A: Several, but the primary other translation that has been offered is this:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

Q: What is the difference between these two translations?

A: According to the first translation the pope would be saying that new knowledge has led to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis (in other words, that it is regarded at least provisionally as a true scientific theory).

According to the latter the pope would simply be saying (as is admitted by both evolutionists and special creationists) that new data has resulted in there being more than one hypothesis, more than one version of evolutionary theory.

This would not be an endorsement of evolutionary theory, but make a point that is stressed by special creationists (i.e., that there are several theories of evolution which contradict one another).

A little later in his address, the pope definitely addresses that theme, stating:

"[R]ather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations" (emphasis in original).

Q: What is the original sentence in French?

A: The original sentence is:

"Aujourd’hui, pr�s d’un demi-si�cle apr�s la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent � reconna�tre dans la th�orie de l’�volution plus qu’une hypoth�se."

Q: Why is there a difference in the translations?

A: One reason is that the pope gave the speech in French and the phrase for "more than a/one hypothesis" is "plus qu’une hypoth�se." The French word une can be translated either "a" or "one." The rest of the sentence and a knowledge of French idiom is needed to determine which reading is correct.

(A parallel example in English would be the sentence "I took the kitty to the veterinarian." The word "kitty" can be used in English to mean either a small cat or the pool of money used in a card game, and you need more than the word itself--you need its context--to determine in which sense it is being used in this case).

Q: Which translation of the key phrase is correct?

A: I have run the French sentence past multiple French-speakers. Those who are native English-speakers and learned French in school have been uncertain what the correct translation is, but all of the people who have French as their native tongue have said that the most widely reported translation of the key phrase -- "more than a hypothesis" -- is undoubtedly correct and that if he had intended to say "more than one hypothesis" French idiom would have required it to be phrased a different way.

There is also a November 19, 1996 news story from the Catholic News Service (CNS) in which the matter of the correct translation was dealt with an in which the translation "more than a hypothesis" was confirmed.

Q: What did the CNS news story say?

A: It said:

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.

"In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.' His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research.

"In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;

"U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.'

"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.

"This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."

Q: So, bottom line, the best rendering of the statement should be what?

A: According to the native French-speakers I have consulted, the best translation is:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?

A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research."

The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.

According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.

Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize" (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition" (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).

In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is constructed in French suggests that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he believes in evolution or not and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the scientific community.

Q: If the pope did not endorse the theory of evolution in the above quote, did he attack it in his speech?

A: No, that would have been a reversal of what has already been said. In 1950, Pope Pius XII indicated in his encyclical Humani generis that the idea that God used evolution to create the body of the first man did not contradict the deposit of faith provided certain provisos were maintained. In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul emphasized these provisos, saying:

"In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)."

And in fact, one also gets the impression when reading the pope's address that his main concern was to warn away the scientists from theologically unacceptable versions of the theory. He was, one gets the impression, raining on the scientists' parade to warn them not to make unacceptable claims for the theory of evolution during the conference.

Q: What were the "indisputable points" Pope John Paul cited?

A: The pope emphasized that in writing Humani generis,

"Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return."

Q: What condition did Pius XII set on the ability to reconcile evolution with Christian doctrine?

A: There were several which Pius XII stressed in the text of Humani generis. However, the one which Pope John Paul II specially emphasized was this:

"The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. ... It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

The pope thus stressed the immediate creation of the human soul by God (for each individual human), even if God used secondary forces when he created the human body.

Q: Did the pope offer an appraisal of the evidence concerning evolution?

A: He did not offer an overall appraisal or offer a specific conclusion, but he did say:

"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

Q: Does this comment mean the pope is endorsing evolution?

A: Again, no. He says it the trend toward accepting it in the scientific community, following the evidence gained in the last fifty years, is "remarkable," but saying something is "remarkable" is one of those ways to say something nice and polite without committing oneself to an endorsement, though as with all consensuses that develop after scientific research, the consensus itself constitutes an argument (from the non-specialist's viewpoint) in favor of the theory.

Q: Does this statement mean the pope thinks that no scientists have tried to force the evidence in favor of evolution?

A: Certainly not. The pope is well aware of the role of bias and even dishonesty in the field of science, as in every other field of human endeavor. Human sin affects everything.

Q: Did the pope indicate that evolution could be false hypothesis?

A: Yes, the pope explicitly noted that evolution is not different from other scientific theories, which all must be continually tested and re-evaluated if they stop working as an explanation of the observed ..

"What is the significance of such a theory [as evolution]? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; whenever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought."

Q: So the pope then did not say that Catholics are required to believe in evolution?

A: Of course not. The Church is not in the business of teaching scientific theories. The primary focus of its teaching is the deposit of faith passed on to us from the apostles (e.g., that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God). The secondary focus is dogmatic facts necessary to protect things in the deposit of faith (e.g., that the Council of Nicaea, which infallibly defined the divinity of Christ, was a true ecumenical council and so had the ability to make this definition). The Church does not deal with issues outside these areas.

In particular, the Church does not teach theories of science as matters of faith. The most it does it say that a given scientific theory does not contradict or is not irreconcilable with the deposit of faith.

Q: Can you give an example of how this works?

A: Yes. For instance, the Church does not require Catholics to believe as a matter of faith that the sun is at the center of the solar system. It has taught that the sun-centered theory of the solar system does not contradict anything in the Bible or anything else in the deposit of faith, but the claim that the sun is at the center of the solar system (and it certainly is) must be stand or fall on the scientific evidence.

The idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system is not part of the deposit of faith, neither is it necessary to protect anything in the deposit of faith, so it is not within the Church's purview once it has been shown to not contradict anything in the deposit.

Certainly everyone in the Church's hierarchy believes that the sun is at the center of the solar system, and would give a funny look to anyone who asserted that it isn't, but it does not teach as a matter of faith that the sun is in that position. Once it has been shown to not to contradict the faith it is a matter for scientists to prove or disprove, not a matter of theology.

The Church thus does not teach scientific theories as a matter of faith, both because they are outside its purview and also because they could always shown to be false or partially false by later evidence.

For example, Galileo actually taught that the sun was at the center of the universe, not just the solar system; later evidence showed that the sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy; it thus would have been bad if the Church had given an unqualified endorsement to Galileo's theory, for his specific form of the theory turned out to be false.

The Church thus has no desire to rush into an unqualified endorsement of evolution. All Humani generis gave was a tentative finding that it did not contradict the deposit of faith, but it said the question must still be investigated and that the Church could reverse its tentative finding.

Although Pope John Paul has noted that there is now more evidence available (which has caused several different versions of the theory to arise), he has not altered this stance, nor is he about to. The Church isn't about to rush into a hasty endorsement of evolution, much less one particular version out of several competing ones.

Q: Doesn't the Bible declare that God took man's body directly from the dust of the ground?

A: No, it says that God took man's body from the dust of the ground (an affirmation of the fact that the human body is part of God's material creation), but it does not say he took it directly from the ground. One may get that impression from the fact that intermediate steps are not mentioned, but one must be very careful in drawing that inference, as the experience of the Galileo incident shows.

There were many passages in the Bible which could very plausibly be read as teaching that the earth stands still and the sun moves. For example:

* "Yes, the world stands firm, never to be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30b)
* "So perish all thine enemies, O LORD! But [may] thy friends be like the sun as he rises in his might." (Judges 5:31)
* "[T]he sun ... comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat." (Psalm 19:4b-6)
* "The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
* "For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass" (James 1:11a)

Only by using a rigorous hermeneutic to read these passages in terms of what they do and do not say, and coordinating that with the scientific evidence, did Christian theologians come to perceive that they actually use a particular literary form (known as "phenomenological language") and describe the motion of the earth and sun relative to the human perspective and are not intended to be technical accounts of their motions.

After having many in the Christian community (both Catholic and Protestant--including Martin Luther) shown wrong in their reading of what appeared to be the plain sense of these passages, the pope does not want to risk the same thing happening with the origin of the human body. Thus in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, cited the Galileo incident as evidence of the need for a rigorous hermeneutic in reading the texts in terms of what they were and were not intended to teach us, of the need to be sensitive to the possible presence of literary forms which we may be alterted to (as in the Galileo case) by the findings of natural science. He stated to the Academy:

"For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences."

Q: So where do we stand now with regard to evolution?

A: Basically where we did before the pope's speech. The Church has had a provisional finding since 1950 that the idea that God used intermediate living forms to produce the body of the first man can be reconciled with the deposit of faith, but that it must still be acknowledged that the soul is created immediately by God from nothing. The evolutionary hypothesis still must stand or fail on the scientific evidence for it, and nobody is a bad or a good Catholic based on whether they accept or reject it, for the Church does not teach matters of science as if they were matters of faith.

None of this is new. The fact that there has been so much hype over it is a testimony to the fact that many people have not studied what the Church has said concerning evolution.

Q: Where should I go for more information?

A: See the following link:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/topical.htm#creation"]http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/topical.htm#creation[/url]

Heres some more links

[url="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php"]http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php[/url]
[url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/"]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/[/url]
[url="http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/vatican-on-evolution-again.html"]http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/...tion-again.html[/url]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm"]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4757698"]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4757698[/url]
[url="http://www.cathnews.com/news/406/121.php"]http://www.cathnews.com/news/406/121.php[/url]

Edited January 7, 2007 by FullTruth

[morostheos]

rather than posting entire articles on the subject, it's much easier to have a discussion if you address my points directly. I've read several of those articles before, but I'm not going to spend my time now reading them all over again just because you posted them. What exactly is your point? I can't even tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me

oh, and first you say:
[quote]
I think the Vatican is cautious right now because they are fearful of being wrong and be seen as a fool.[/quote]

then you say:
[quote]NO! The church wouldn't be afraid to be seen as a fool.[/quote]

so which is it??

Edited January 7, 2007 by morostheos

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='curtins' post='1157683' date='Jan 6 2007, 05:30 PM']
I saw this brought up once by a protestant:

Evolution requires death. Yet sin is what brought death into the world. So there can't be evolution before sin was brought into the world.
[/quote]

-The common questions here would be how to you reconcile the fall of the angels, a sin, which happened before the fall of man

-Unless you want to say humanity roamed before the dinosaurs you have alot of bones and years of creation that lived and died to account for.


FullTruth'

[quote]Are you saying that those who believe in Creationism are divided from the ones who believe in Theistic, a God-Driven, evolution. Hmmmm. . . Christ did say he would divide the world by a sword.[/quote]

-no, and I would appreciate if you read my post without the prideful chip on your shoulder that you are right and everyone else is wrong. To be technical there are multiple creation theories, theistic evolution is one of them. It is not less christian than your idea that poof here is a man. Theistic evolutionists are creationists, these just use a different path. I am glad you have passion in your belief, but do you have the knowledge to fight this fight? Im not calling you stupid, Im calling you prejudice.

Where in your catholic experience did it encourage you to divide the faithful in an issue that does not matter.

[quote]It does matter, because God wants us to worship him in Spirit and in Truth. If you believe in one lie about him, we are no longer worshiping him in spirit and in truth, and therefore we displease God.[/quote]

Ok, lets debate how tall Jesus was and make fun of someone who disagrees with us. Can you prove, without a doubt, that God did not use evolution. Funny you bring up the idea of worshiping God in truth, for someone to "dumb down" their faith in order to make someone happy is wrong I feel. For someone to claim this debate has any type of impact on salvation is prideful. This is why I wont debate this issue. It only causes division and pain.

[quote]But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24.[/quote]

Sweet...everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Even if that is not the nature of what the church teaches in this debate. Awesome you put yourself as an authority over the papal office.

[quote]So if you believe he created us by natural selection, you believe in a lie about God.[/quote]

Care to prove this? Care to prove how it is a lie about God? Why are you bounding what God can and cannot do in His creation? BTW, who talked about natural selection? Darwinian evolution has mutliple variances, I have not once spoke about natural selection. I said I would not be against the idea that God took a monkey, breathed the spirit into Him and made Him man. WHy would I judge what God does with His creation?

[quote]I could go much father into this, because science actually shows everything was spoken into existence. Einstien proved that with E=MC2. If you are brave, you can private message me why E=MC2 proves that all things were spoken into existence.[/quote]

If I am brave? Sir, your whole angle here is anything but in the spirit of charity. I dont care about this issue. If we are *poof* man, or modification of a monkey it does not change anything in my theology. Revisionist, gap theory, day-age, literal day...these issues can not be proven and do not do anything productive but make us argue and divide.

Im not denying that things are spoken into existence. Theistic evolution has God as the source. But get off your angle that you are right. It isnt fruitful

[FullTruth]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1157762' date='Jan 6 2007, 09:53 PM']
rather than posting entire articles on the subject, it's much easier to have a discussion if you address my points directly. I've read several of those articles before, but I'm not going to spend my time now reading them all over again just because you posted them. What exactly is your point? I can't even tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me

oh, and first you say:
then you say:
so which is it??
[/quote]
One the whole articles on the subject.

You said the Vatican has never said anything about these things, so why not put out the entire article on the subject to clarify things. It may be over the top, but it was effective, right. . .

On what I said about the Church not caring about if people consider them foolish for believing in creationism. It is how you define the church. I believe the church are the triumphant ones, who have faith to believe in God's word. Remember, this is what Jesus said.

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8.

Shall he? Shall he find people who will not care if people call them foolish for believing in the 6-day creation because they have faith that God's word is true. Or will he find people who lack the faith, and that's 91 per cent of the people, who will accept Evolution, either Theistic, God-Driven evolution, or Natural Evolution.

Remember,

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14.

9 per cent would start to make a mighty narrow way, and a mighty straight gate.

So the church will not be afraid of being called a fool for believing in the creationism doctrine. The tares within the church can spew out all their lies about Theistic Evolution because they are afraid, but the Church of the called out ones will not listen to them, because they are not ashamed of standing on the full truth of God's word.

Edited January 7, 2007 by FullTruth

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1157782' date='Jan 6 2007, 10:33 PM']
-The common questions here would be how to you reconcile the fall of the angels, a sin, which happened before the fall of man

-Unless you want to say humanity roamed before the dinosaurs you have alot of bones and years of creation that lived and died to account for.
FullTruth'
-no, and I would appreciate if you read my post without the prideful chip on your shoulder that you are right and everyone else is wrong. To be technical there are multiple creation theories, theistic evolution is one of them. It is not less christian than your idea that poof here is a man. Theistic evolutionists are creationists, these just use a different path. I am glad you have passion in your belief, but do you have the knowledge to fight this fight? Im not calling you stupid, Im calling you prejudice.

Where in your catholic experience did it encourage you to divide the faithful in an issue that does not matter.
Ok, lets debate how tall Jesus was and make fun of someone who disagrees with us. Can you prove, without a doubt, that God did not use evolution. Funny you bring up the idea of worshiping God in truth, for someone to "dumb down" their faith in order to make someone happy is wrong I feel. For someone to claim this debate has any type of impact on salvation is prideful. This is why I wont debate this issue. It only causes division and pain.
Sweet...everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Even if that is not the nature of what the church teaches in this debate. Awesome you put yourself as an authority over the papal office.
Care to prove this? Care to prove how it is a lie about God? Why are you bounding what God can and cannot do in His creation? BTW, who talked about natural selection? Darwinian evolution has mutliple variances, I have not once spoke about natural selection. I said I would not be against the idea that God took a monkey, breathed the spirit into Him and made Him man. WHy would I judge what God does with His creation?
If I am brave? Sir, your whole angle here is anything but in the spirit of charity. I dont care about this issue. If we are *poof* man, or modification of a monkey it does not change anything in my theology. Revisionist, gap theory, day-age, literal day...these issues can not be proven and do not do anything productive but make us argue and divide.

Im not denying that things are spoken into existence. Theistic evolution has God as the source. But get off your angle that you are right. It isnt fruitful
[/quote]
First of all I did answer your arguements.

You asked me what difference it would make, and I showed you. It doesn't matter to me really, it matters to God.

What we believe God did has an impact on our worship of him.

To show this case pure and simple read this out the bible.

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.
And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2.

So if we bring anything into our worship that is not of God, God takes notice and will recompense us for the error.

If you want to consider me prejudiced, that's okay too.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10.

I will remain righteous before the Lord, because he desires it of me. He wants me to worship him in spirit and in truth. He doesn't want me to bring a lie into worship of him, so I will not bring one.

Let me say this. I am doing this because I believe in the Universal Catholic Faith. I believe in it, and I will stand for it, and give strength to the called out ones who believe God's word and will be willing to fight for it.

[morostheos]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1157784' date='Jan 7 2007, 04:40 AM']
One the whole articles on the subject.

You said the Vatican has never said anything about these things, so why not put out the entire article on the subject to clarify things. It may be over the top, but it was effective, right. . ..[/quote]

yeah, the whole article was on exactly what i said the Church has strongly spoken about - the ideology of evolutionism.

here are a few choice quotes from your behemoth post:
[quote]Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?

A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research." [/quote]

[quote]Q: So the pope then did not say that Catholics are required to believe in evolution?

A: Of course not. The Church is not in the business of teaching scientific theories. The primary focus of its teaching is the deposit of faith passed on to us from the apostles (e.g., that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God). The secondary focus is dogmatic facts necessary to protect things in the deposit of faith (e.g., that the Council of Nicaea, which infallibly defined the divinity of Christ, was a true ecumenical council and so had the ability to make this definition). The Church does not deal with issues outside these areas.

In particular, the Church does not teach theories of science as matters of faith. The most it does it say that a given scientific theory does not contradict or is not irreconcilable with the deposit of faith.[/quote]

your arguements are not as rock solid as you seem to think. it helps to actually read things before you post them in support of your arguement.


in terms of your "what is Church?" stream of thought, I think it's best that you make another thread for that, it doesn't deal specifically with this topic. for the sake of simplicity i think it's best if we refer to "Church" as the visible Church created by Christ and handed down through the apostles, the Catholic Church. Is that ok?

[N/A Gone]

Fulltruth..

I am sorry, I thought I was discussing this concept with another catholic, But I read some of your old posts and did not know you were a fundi. That completely explains your angle and way of thought on this and other subjects. Sorry if most of my post probably doesnt matter in your epistemology

Apparently I am missunderstood this as a discussion, not as a soap box...so dont bother talking to this kid unless you are submissive to his personal papal authority...

(pm from Fulltruth)

[quote]Hello sir,

I will not respond to any more of your posts over Theistic Evolution.
I am not here for you, I am here to bolster those who will be willing to stand up for the truths of the Bible.
I believe in the universal catholic faith, in all of its purity. Whenever anything gets added, it creates impurity, and weakens the body of Christ.
Martin Luther started to realize this. He was a Roman Catholic Monk, just to remind you. What was his first thing he tried. He didn't create a new religion, he tried to change the Roman Catholic Religion. Why, because he believed in the Universal Catholic Religion, and wanted to bring purity back to it. His attempts were unsuccessful, and hence he did what he thought was best, probably through days of prayer and fasting.
The Reformation was not about anti-catholicism, it was about returning catholicism back to its purity. [/quote]

Edited January 7, 2007 by Revprodeji