What Does Everybody Think Of Theistic Evolution?

[goldenchild17]

[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]

I'm not a scientist I admit. I am actually very poor when it comes to science and do not hardly ever discuss it except to give my opinion. Do I need to understand it to make a judgment? I don't believe that is necessary. Do I understand the mysteries of the Church? No but I believe them. I understand the basics of evolution, I have read Darwin and some of his major proponents. I get the basic arguments and simply don't buy it. What's more, I don't believe the Church allows for a Catholic to believe it. That is enough for me right there.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1157643' date='Jan 6 2007, 05:29 PM']
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.

[/quote]
Fullness of Faith is only found in the Catholic Church, so any "universal catholic faith" can only be found inside the Church
There is no secret doctrine or rules, salvation is free to anyone who is baptised, believes and faithfully lives a life of grace in sacraments and prayer.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1157684' date='Jan 6 2007, 06:32 PM']
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.
[/quote]

java script:emoticon('', 'smid_17')


That's really interesting. So if all scripture can find its way back to something Pagan, that must mean what the Jews have done is Deify Paganism.

Well there are plenty of examples of how Jesus could be a myth too, a myth that the Jews must have perputrated against us to believe in something to control us.

Mithra was a saviour deity in the Pagan world, who lived and died and was resurrected.
So was Ishtar, and Baal for that matter. So do we believe in a myth too. . .

Is that what you are saying?

I happen to believe in the full truth and it was inspired by God. Satan hates God and will immediately try to create stories that will confuse the truth, because he is the father of every lie.

He will create something that will explain what God does in every way. He creates the lie of Evolution to confuse the saints into believing something a person who hated the word of God, making him against the Son and the Father in doing so. Jesus, after all, is the Bible, the word, manifested in the flesh.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1157872' date='Jan 6 2007, 11:36 PM']
I get the basic arguments and simply don't buy it. What's more, I don't believe the Church allows for a Catholic to believe it. That is enough for me right there.
[/quote]


Darwin isnt dogma, you dont need to buy it all, or even most of it. The question I posted before was

Does it matter if God said *poof* and man is there, or if he breathes his spirit into a monkey and makes him Man.

No..

where does the church ban that? If they do, then that is enough for me too..but I cant find it anywhere in the catechism.

OT...

WHy do fundi's, as a people group, always use mocking smiles and laughs as an attempt to be credible in an argument. It is weird.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1157896' date='Jan 7 2007, 01:16 AM']
Darwin isnt dogma, you dont need to buy it all, or even most of it. The question I posted before was

Does it matter if God said *poof* and man is there, or if he breathes his spirit into a monkey and makes him Man.

No..

where does the church ban that? If they do, then that is enough for me too..but I cant find it anywhere in the catechism.

OT...

WHy do fundi's, as a people group, always use mocking smiles and laughs as an attempt to be credible in an argument. It is weird.
[/quote]
On the funny, laughing.

I couldn't believe his post about 'Moralizing' Babylonian religions. The same could be said of 'Christanity', and I listed a few of them.

Such comments could be used by an Athiest to show that Christanity, or any belief in God - such as Islam or Judaism are 'control devices' that should not be studied or followed. It will only feed into the fires Satan has already created.

More importantly, I find the comment really suspicious. I will not go more into it. Just read and pray about the comment he made, and see what the spirit says, if his comment is of God or not.

The Bible actually commands it, so be a good catholic and pray and judge the comment he made.

Why do I think Creationism is very important? I don't actually, and when I didn't even believe in God, I use to believe in Evolution, but he changed how I see things. It matters to God, and God alone.

I only want to help feed the sheep of Jesus. That's it, that's all. I want to show the purity of belief, and to empower people to live in the purity of God's word. I want to help all those called out of this world of darkness to see the light of living pure.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1157896' date='Jan 7 2007, 01:16 AM']
Darwin isnt dogma, you dont need to buy it all, or even most of it. The question I posted before was

Does it matter if God said *poof* and man is there, or if he breathes his spirit into a monkey and makes him Man.

No.. [/quote]
It might not matter to some people, or most people, but I tend to hold a much more literal view of the nature aspects of Scripture. Maybe I'm wrong in doing so, but it doesn't really concern me too much. I would much rather put TOO MUCH faith in Scripture than believe what non-Catholic "scientists" tell me about how the earth began (and many other topics of interest). Do I look ignorant because of this? Maybe so, but I'm not going to be saved by my faith in science. So whether I'm right or wrong, it makes me feel much better to put my faith in a book that I know is from God than in men who I know are mostly against God.

[quote]where does the church ban that? If they do, then that is enough for me too..but I cant find it anywhere in the catechism.

OT...[/quote]

My more detailed response was erased when my browser closed before submission so here’s a lighter version.

I don’t think your church does have any such condemnation of evolution, especially not since JP2 confirmed that it was more than a theory. My church, on the other hand, I believe has spoken out against it and that it is not something that can be believed by a Catholic.

One primary source is Leo XIII’s encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae. Here it is stated as fact that Adam came from the slime of the earth and Eve came directly from his side. This is confirmed as truth and even goes so far as to say that this is the “the history of all nations and all ages”

This was confirmed earlier in 1860 when the Church gave her support to the Provincial Council of Cologne which stated:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.

If this account of Genesis was to be taken metaphorically then it would certainly be an appropriate time for His Holiness Pope Leo to make such a correction, seeing as this council of Cologne indicated quite the opposite. Instead he confirms this statement and proclaims that this view is the historical belief of the Church by saying that these are “facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one.” Him noting that all of this took place on the “sixth day” (not necessitating a sixth 24-hour period) lends credence to his affirmation of the historical accuracy of this account, as well as pointing out that a natural “transformism” would be impossible with the direct intervention of God. Because if God directly formed man from the slime of the earth, and if this happened through natural means, then God would have formed man (though not in his full being, but only in a mutative phase) on the 3rd day, when the plants were introduced into the story. But it says that God formed man on the sixth day. If natural “transformism” (as I understand it) says that God “starts” the evolutionary process of creation, but nature finishes it and brings it to its final form, then it would not work for God to form Adam on the 6th day if in fact plant life began on the 3rd day. That’s not to say that some transformism of some sort couldn’t have occurred, because as I understand it I believe Pius XII allowed for some discussion in this. But neither Pius XII nor Leo XIII nor any other pontiff in history allow for their to be any other first parents than Adam and Eve.

As for the formation of Eve, it should be even simpler. Once it is realized that Genesis is not just a myth, but instead a creative account of the beginning of our history, then it is easy to see that Eve could not have come about by mutations or transmorphisms or any other evolution words… Eve came from the side of Adam, from his rib. Pontifical Biblical Commission of 30 June 1909 declared it fact that the first woman was formed from the first man.

The fact that she was formed from the adult Adam nixes any theory of her coming from any evolutionary process.

Of course the next question, understandably, is how much weight does the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII hold. It is definitely not an ex cathedra statement but it still holds the charism of infallibility given to those teachings which are upholded as being confirmed throughout history, as he states it is. This puts to use the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium and the teaching that an encyclical is infallible when it declares a teaching that has always been held by the Church. An encyclical cannot define a new teaching as infallible without an ex cathedra statement, but it is infallible when confirming what has always been held as true.

There are way more statements on the formation of Adam and Eve from our deposit of faith, but Pope Leo XIII is the one who confirmed as truth this teaching.


[quote]WHy do fundi's, as a people group, always use mocking smiles and laughs as an attempt to be credible in an argument. It is weird.[/quote]


Yeah I think a lot of people do that. I try not to as I find it pointless. If I do it let me know so I can stop. I don't find that it actually does anything but antagonize people. But everyone has their own tactics I suppose.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1157909' date='Jan 7 2007, 01:32 AM']


The Bible actually commands it, so be a good catholic and pray and judge the comment he made.

I only want to help feed the sheep of Jesus. That's it, that's all. I want to show the purity of belief, and to empower people to live in the purity of God's word. I want to help all those called out of this world of darkness to see the light of living pure.
[/quote]

Bible is a written part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church, so we are faithful to the Church.

Gods Word is found in the Catholic Church, because Jesus didn't write a book, he founded a Church which is the pillar and foundation.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1158055' date='Jan 7 2007, 10:42 AM']
Bible is a written part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church, so we are faithful to the Church.

Gods Word is found in the Catholic Church, because Jesus didn't write a book, he founded a Church which is the pillar and foundation.
[/quote]

So be true to your traditions then.

Seek the spirit about the person who says that the 6-day account of creation through Genesis being a re-written story of the Babylonian Creation myth.

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:29-33.

Let me state this. Whenever some says, this is what the Sacred Scriptures and God meant, they prophesy. So are we not suppose to listen to this prophesy and then test the spirits of that prophesy against the scripture.

Looking at what the Scripture says, can we not say he said this to create disruption and conflict, where I put up my post to feed Jesus Sheep, giving them the strength to believe in the 6-day creation TRUTH. I am glad that I helped some, who were able to say, I believe in the 6-day creation TRUTH as well. Did he not try to confuse the saints, deceive the very elect.

Not everybody who claims to the Catholic or Christian is what he appears. . .

Edited January 7, 2007 by FullTruth

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1158096' date='Jan 7 2007, 12:41 PM']
So be true to your traditions then.

Not everybody who claims to the Catholic or Christian is what he appears. . .
[/quote]

I am true to the Truth which is found in the Church founded by Jesus Christ, aka the Catholic Church under direction of the Pope who governs in the line of Peter who was ordained by God himself.

You got the last part right.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1157667' date='Jan 6 2007, 05:15 PM']
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.
[/quote]

Ak, your last sentence and your first sentence mix science with you Catholicism.

(break in thought)

I have no trouble believing in authentic truths (i.e. faith and morals) persented in Genesis (such as there is one God, who created everying, so that the sun and moon and earth and animals are not God) and certain forms of evolution (although I would be willing to believe either way on some forms of evolution I do not claim to be educated about them at level higher then intro to biology), because the Book of Genesis does not intend to be a science text book, but instead a theological (true) myth.

[Veridicus]

As a devout and practicing Catholic, I'm often frustrated by the depth of exegetical and scientific misunderstandings of my fellows. The divinely-inspired words of scripture were composed by authors still limited by the writing styles and scientific understandings of their time. Psalms speaks of the sun and moon revolving around the Earth because that is how the auther understood the nature of the world. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit [i]lacked [/i] understanding of the Universe? OF COURSE NOT!!!! This phenomenon simply shows that the expression of divinely-inspired truth must be studied by reading scripture with an understanding of the times of the author and audience (anyone who has spent a semester in a college literature course understands this important caveat in appreciating great literature). Mass-going Catholics have heard the biblical readings discussing the value of salt. In contemporary society, salt is simply another food component to fret over and avoid in order to keep our blood pressure low. However, careful exegesis and historical inquiry elucidates the value of salt in ancient times as a cherished preservative where surplus was far less commen than today. In this regard, our understanding of scriptural truth doesn't revolve around a strict adherence to Jesus describing the intrinsic value of salt for all time. Our understanding revolves around grasping the divinely-inspired truth represented which garnered EXPRESSION in a time where salt was so important.

The CCC says that "in Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. 'For the fact of truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.'"

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1157656' date='Jan 6 2007, 05:57 PM']
I don't believe in macro-evolution of any kind nor do I believe any Catholic can in good faith believe in it.
[/quote]

Replace "macro-evolution" with "heliocentricity" and you'll have a typical 17th century response to Galileo's expounding of Copernicus' theories on the revolutions of celestial orbs. Of course today EVERYONE recognizes heliocentricity as a fact of existence. Of course heliocentricity does play at odds with countless lines of scripture which describe the heavens being set in motion around the earth, and hence the Church's reticence to accept Galileo's theory.

This same reticence is revealed in goldenchild's abandonment of hundred's of years of scientific inquiry and refining on the theory of evolution (and non-scientists MUST understand that the word 'theory' carries a significantly different definition in science than it does in casual conversation). I feel that Catholics (and indeed all Christians) should very clearly reflect on the writings of St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church:

[i]Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)
Translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

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] [/i]

"I'm not a scientist I admit. I am actually very poor when it comes to science and do not hardly ever discuss it except to give my opinion. Do I need to understand it to make a judgment? I don't believe that is necessary." goldenchild17, St. Augustine clearly disagreed with you on this point and I feel his position as a Bishop and Doctor of the Church grant him considerable authority.

As a Biology major seeking a medical degree, I cherish the Dantean view of our most Blessed Trinity as the 'Divine Intellect.' The Omniscient Creator who brought the universe into existence with but a thought and set into place all of the laws which govern it. The great philosophies and sciences which humans have so long struggled to comprehend are ultimately the culminations of our divine-gift of reason. The exercise of this intellect, and I believe Dante and Augustine would agree, is a gift back to God. As a scientist and Catholic, I must reveal the irony of one of the early pioneers of genetics and variation in progeny, Gregor Mendel, was an ardent Augustinian monk. Evolution, despite its vastly ignorant malformation by the uneducated ("You mean' t' say we 'volved from monkeys?"), is a theory which seeks to describe the order and nature of the universe. Despite its negative press, evolution theory is no more atheistic than physics or mathematics. Each examines a body of evidence and uses reason to explain the natural phenomenon in question. To a scientist, religious or otherwise, inquiry must lead to testable theories which use nature to explain nature (that is, we say the law of thermodynamics explains why this boiling hot glass of water heats the air inside the box; we don't simply say 'Jesus did it' and stop thinking about it). Like all sciences since the dawn of the scientific method, the evidence for the theory of evolutions is under constant scrutiny. Between this and new discoveries (like the ever-increasing understanding of genetics), the theory of evolution has undergone considerable transformation since Darwin (to the point where speaking of Darwin in reference to contemporary evolution theory is antiquated at best). Just as Catholic Theology is so firmly rooted in the concept of the Trinity and the Dual Nature of Christ, so too is the concept of Evolution intrinsic to the study of Biology.

Evolution is no more counter to development of Catholic Theology than is heliocentricity. In his catechesis on creation in 1986, John Paul II stated about the first book of Genesis that, "This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of natural science . . . Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis . . . The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God . . . [b]it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings[/b]." And in 1950, Pope Pius XII stated almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the [b]origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter[/b]."

Between Augustine and two Popes (and I'm sure there are numerous other credible sources to be found), I think it is clear that Catholics are free to believe in macro-evolution (read above: "... the Church does not forbid that...the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.") from flagellated bacteria to amphioxus to monkeys to humans...so long as the individual coalesces this belief with certain infallible understandings of the nature of the human soul and man's place in creation.

The pure and simple truth is that evolution theory will never acknowledge God or souls or mankind's place in the universe...and physics theory and organic chemistry will never acknowledge the transubstantion of bread and wine into the Most Blessed Sacrament. However, we do not as a Church deny the truth of physics or chemistry because these sciences will not prove a miracle for us or because their laws do not refer to God.

I believe today, the Epiphany of our Lord, is a particularly fitting day for this post because our Gospel describes the three astronomers being guided by their science directly to the birthplace of the Lord. For the magi, the science of astronomy quite literally provided the roadmap to Christ. While science may lead us to question our faith or evaluate an accepted view of the world (i.e. geocentricity), I believe that the expression of our gift of reason from the Divine Intellect will enable us to see the truth of Christ more clearly in our world.



Anima Christi, sanctifica me.
Corpus Christi, salve me.
Sanguis Christi, inebria me.
Aqua lateris Christi, lava me.
Passio Christi, conforta me.
O bone Iesu, exaudi me.
Intra tua vulnera absconde me.
Ne permittas me separari a te.
Ab hoste maligno defende me.
In hora mortis meae voca me.
Et iube me venire ad te,
ut cum Sanctis tuis
Et angelus tuis laudem te
in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Veridicus

[goldenchild17]

When I get some time I'll respond to the rest, but I'll just point out that one of your points, heliocentricity, doesn't sway me at all. Because I don't accept heliocentricity either. I already told you guys that my apparently "extreme" view of Scripture takes me to some "extreme" scientific conclusions. I choose to believe in geocentrism. Can it be specifically proven? I'm not so sure, but I do believe it can be proven to at least the same degree that heliocentrism can be "proven". No matter where you are standing, everything else around you is going to appear to be moving. If we are standing on earth it appears that the sun and the moon and stars and planets are moving and we are standing still. If we went to the sun or the moon or any of the planets or anywhere outside of earth it would be the same, wherever we would happen to stand would seem to stand still. I'll see about the rest of your points later.

Although I will say I don't adhere to this quite as strongly as I do to my stance against evolution. I don't know yet if the Church has declared this a truth. So I admit this might be open to discussion. Not so with evolution. I'm not a scientist. I'm against evolution because the Church says it's wrong. I have issues with the basic concepts of it but it would be dishonest of me to take considerable issue with it on a scientific basis as I am not a biologist or anything close to understanding the intricacies of it all.

Edited January 7, 2007 by goldenchild17

[N/A Gone]

heliocentricity?

I dont even know how to comment. But I would love to hear how accepting geocentrism rather than Heliocentricity changes someone salvation.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1158325' date='Jan 7 2007, 06:31 PM']
When I get some time I'll respond to the rest, but I'll just point out that one of your points, heliocentricity, doesn't sway me at all. [i]Because I don't accept heliocentricity either[/i]. I already told you guys that my apparently "extreme" view of Scripture takes me to some "extreme" scientific conclusions. [i]I choose to believe in geocentrism[/i]. Can it be specifically proven? I'm not so sure, but I do believe it can be proven to at least the same degree that heliocentrism can be "proven". No matter where you are standing, everything else around you is going to [b]appear [/b] to be moving. If we are standing on earth it [b]appears [/b] that the sun and the moon and stars and planets are moving and we are standing still. If we went to the sun or the moon or any of the planets or anywhere outside of earth it would be the same, wherever we would happen to stand would [b]seem [/b] to stand still. I'll see about the rest of your points later.

Although I will say I don't adhere to this quite as strongly as I do to my stance against evolution. I don't know yet if the Church has declared this a truth. So I admit this might be open to discussion. Not so with evolution. I'm not a scientist. I'm against evolution because the Church says it's wrong. I have issues with the basic concepts of it but it would be dishonest of me to take considerable issue with it on a scientific basis as I am not a biologist or anything close to understanding the intricacies of it all.
[/quote]

Heliocentricity IS proven. The reason for its discovery was that erudite individuals (Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) noticed that celestial bodies (other planets) WERE NOT [b]appearing [/b] to be moving around the earth. Your diction belies the true strength of your conviction regarding geocentrism (see bolded words above). Cite a single scientific journal cataloguing evidence which discredits heliocentrism and I will accede to your dissention on the topic.

To be honest, I've never met a single individual in my life who has debated heliocentricity...

In respect to your stance on evolution: The Catholic Church does NOT says it's wrong. Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have twice in the last 57 years granted that evolution theory IS NOT contrary to Catholic Theology so long as the laity maintain the Church's perspective on the ultimate dignity of man and the creation of the human soul. Why would Pope John Paul II acknowledge that "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was[b] no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith[/b] about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." (Excerpted from Pope John Paul II's Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; October 22, 1996). Cite me a single encyclical or pontifical document since Pope John Paul II's address which contradicts the bolded phrase and I'll accede to your dissention on the topic.

The Divine Intellect graced all men with reason (some more than others, apparently) and our capacity to reason (and the subsequent increase in behavioral flexibility) is one of our most distinguishing features which separates us from the beasts over which we have dominion.

Truth cannot contradict truth.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm[/url]

Edited January 8, 2007 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1158368' date='Jan 7 2007, 07:10 PM']
heliocentricity?

I dont even know how to comment. But I would love to hear how accepting geocentrism rather than Heliocentricity changes someone salvation.
[/quote]

Several bishops during Galileo's time (and apparently a few people yet today) were convinced that acceptance of geocentrism was necessary for salvation and therefore persecuted the scientist. This persecution was later addressed in an apology issued by Pope John Paull II in 1992. My point was that views regarding the nature of supposed [i]conflicts [/i] between science and religion sometimes take centuries to resolve (or at least for one side to accept that the scientific proposal DOESN'T conflict...)