NationStates Jolt Archive

It would appear that, as to the theory of evolution, the position of the Vatican has itself evolved:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-09-16-vatican-evolution_N.htm

VATICAN CITY — A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.

. . . .

Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: "One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith."

"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless," Ravasi said.

Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis."

. . . .


It seems, at least in the view of some Christian denominations (Catholicism, also recently the Anglican Church), that science and religion are not so incompatible.

Thoughts?

Good for the Vatican.
Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis."
Woo!

Works for me. Don't know why there has to be so much fighting over evolution...

Works for me. Don't know why there has to be so much fighting over evolution...
Obviously the John Paul II was new to NSG at one stage, so he had all of these debates about abortion, evolution, how kickin' Islam is, Israel, gays etc. and changed his mind on some of them.

Seriously.

Obviously the John Paul II was new to NSG at one stage, so he had all of these debates about abortion, evolution, how kickin' Islam is, Israel, gays etc. and changed his mind on some of them.

Seriously.

I TOLD you, I am NOT John Paul II!:p

I TOLD you, I am NOT John Paul II!:p
Of course not; Clones have no souls. :p

Could've sworn the Vatican itself came out with the whole "we're not against evolution' thing in the 80's or something.
Eh.

I've personally never had any problems reconciling evolution with my religion. When you're omnipotent you can probably arrange for things like evolution and spines and digestive tracts and all that.

Could've sworn the Vatican itself came out with the whole "we're not against evolution' thing in the 80's or something.
Eh.

I've personally never had any problems reconciling evolution with my religion. When you're omnipotent you can probably arrange for things like evolution and spines and digestive tracts and all that.

Or cake. that isn't a lie.

Have I told you I love your name?:wink:

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity: it is incompatible with the Bible. The Christian God could have brought about the current state of affairs by any number of means, including evolution. To accept that He did is to necessarily deny Genesis, which states that He brought this state of affairs about by other means.
Even if evolution weren't a flawed worldview based entirely on circular reasoning, even if it were the scientific doctrine it claims to be, Christians who believe that all Scriptures are God-breathed should still deny it, due to its inherent conflict with a portion of Scripture.

Could've sworn the Vatican itself came out with the whole "we're not against evolution' thing in the 80's or something.
Eh.

I've personally never had any problems reconciling evolution with my religion. When you're omnipotent you can probably arrange for things like evolution and spines and digestive tracts and all that.

Yeah, but people will keep with the old mindsets and think the Catholic church will always be against it.

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity: it is incompatible with the Bible. The Christian God could have brought about the current state of affairs by any number of means, including evolution. To accept that He did is to necessarily deny Genesis, which states that He brought this state of affairs about by other means.
Even if evolution weren't a flawed worldview based entirely on circular reasoning, even if it were the scientific doctrine it claims to be, Christians who believe that all Scriptures are God-breathed should still deny it, due to its inherent conflict with a portion of Scripture.

*sigh*

Setting aside your hysteria, belief in evolution is compatible with both Christianity and the Bible. It is only incompatible with one particularly cramped and myopic literal interpretation of the Bible that is actually rejected by the vast majority of Christians.

You might try reading some of the work of Langdon Gilkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Brown_Gilkey), such as Creationism On Trial (http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/gilkey.html). Gilkey is just one of many Christian theologians who can explain away your apparent confusion on the subject.

*sigh*

Setting aside your hysteria, belief in evolution is compatible with both Christianity and the Bible. It is only incompatible with one particularly cramped and myopic literal interpretation of the Bible that is actually rejected by the vast majority of Christians.

You might try reading some of the work of Langdon Gilkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Brown_Gilkey), such as Creationism On Trial (http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/gilkey.html). Gilkey is just one of many Christian theologians who can explain away your apparent confusion on the subject.

In order to accept evolution, one must discredit Genesis. Ergo, in order for a Christian to accept evolution, he must toss aside the belief that all Scriptures are God-breathed. The Christian who accepts evolution has watered down his faith to accommodate the majority view.

In order to accept evolution, one must discredit Genesis. Ergo, in order for a Christian to accept evolution, he must toss aside the belief that all Scriptures are God-breathed. The Christian who accepts evolution has watered down his faith to accommodate the majority view.

So the millions upon millions of life-long Christians who don't buy into creation-science are all non-Christians?

Since your authority to make this declaration is clearly not Papal, I'm curious from when it comes?

So the millions upon millions of life-long Christians who don't buy into creation-science are all non-Christians?

Since your authority to make this declaration is clearly not Papal, I'm curious from when it comes?

You have once again ignored my prior posts: I said initially that Christianity and evolution were compatible. It is the Bible which is incompatible with evolution. The Christian who fully accepts evolution is still a Christian: he is simply a Christian who has chosen to ignore part of the Scriptures upon which the Faith was founded. Further, the Christian who rejects evolution need not accept creation-science. Christianity does not demand that the Christian have a scientific defense for or basis of his views on the origin of the universe. It is sufficient for the Christian to deny evolution and accept creationism without scientific basis, although nothing prevents him from seeking such scientific basis if he so chooses.

The authority for the creationist view is rooted in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's declaration on Genesis throughout history. It is only recently that the Roman Catholic Church has changed its stance on the meaning and interpretation of Genesis, and the Roman Church is no longer the whole of the Catholic Church. Further, since the meaning of Genesis and how it should be understood is not a matter of set doctrine, nor is it essential to the faith, Christians may disagree about its meaning and interpretation without schism. Thus, the Faith and evolution are compatible. But to accept evolution necessarily requires discrediting at least part of the Scriptures, so the Bible, as a full authoritative document of belief, are incompatible.

....
The authority for the creationist view is rooted in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's declaration on Genesis throughout history. It is only recently that the Roman Catholic Church has changed its stance on the meaning and interpretation of Genesis, and the Roman Church is no longer the whole of the Catholic Church. Further, since the meaning of Genesis and how it should be understood is not a matter of set doctrine, nor is it essential to the faith, Christians may disagree about its meaning and interpretation without schism. Thus, the Faith and evolution are compatible. But to accept evolution necessarily requires discrediting at least part of the Scriptures, so the Bible, as a full authoritative document of belief, are incompatible.

That is pretty good stuff, tip my hat to ya. (but I don't think it requires discrediting the scriptures at all if discretion in interpretation is involved).

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity: it is incompatible with the Bible. The Christian God could have brought about the current state of affairs by any number of means, including evolution. To accept that He did is to necessarily deny Genesis, which states that He brought this state of affairs about by other means.

Yes, you are correct. To accept evolution as true is to reject that Genesis is literally true. As it should be.

In order to accept evolution, one must discredit Genesis. Ergo, in order for a Christian to accept evolution, he must toss aside the belief that all Scriptures are God-breathed. The Christian who accepts evolution has watered down his faith to accommodate the correct view.

Fixed.

Which is what all intelligent Christians should do.

No arguments, no logic, no reasoning.

Now I remember why I stopped debating you.

Fixed.

"This message is hidden because Neo Art is on your ignore list."

Lovely feature, that.

Now I remember why I stopped debating you.

You started? I'm surprised you were able to wipe the foam off your mouth long enough.

You started? I'm surprised you were able to wipe the foam off your mouth long enough.

Ouch, careful Neo, you may just get a yellow for that, of course I think since Nicea is already on the mods radar, telling you that he has ignored you is against the rules IIRC.

I liked your fixed, quote very good point and proof that not all Christians are not intelligent unlike what some people on here like to think.

Good for the Vatican.

Woo!

I miss the old Pope. :(

I liked your fixed, quote very good point and proof that not all Christians are not intelligent unlike what some people on here like to think.

The fact is, he's right. Evolution is fundamentally opposed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. The question you have to ask yourself is, which are you more willing to believe is true:

a scientific theory that has endured for a century despite numerous tests, experiments, attacks and attempts at discrediting;

or a book.

That's your call. For me, it's the easy choice.

Ouch, careful Neo, you may just get a yellow for that, of course I think since Nicea is already on the mods radar, telling you that he has ignored you is against the rules IIRC.

I liked your fixed, quote very good point and proof that not all Christians are not intelligent unlike what some people on here like to think.

You recall incorrectly.

"Politely informing another nation that you are henceforth using the Jolt "ignore" feature is acceptable, but repeating it in different threads or over long periods is considered gloating."

Now that I have informed him, I have no need to repeat it.

The fact is, he's right. Evolution is fundamentally opposed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. The question you have to ask yourself is, which are you more willing to believe is true:

a scientific theory that has endured for a century despite numerous tests, experiments, attacks and attempts at discrediting;

or a book.

That's your call. For me, it's the easy choice.

Oh I know he is right, that it is fundamentally opposed to the literal interpretation of the creation stories of Genesis.

But which book a you talking about Neo? The origin of species by means of natural selection or The preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, or the book Genesis :p

It is an easy choice for me also (the first one you mentioned) though I am sure that we do differ.

Oh I know he is right, that it is fundamentally opposed to the literal interpretation of the creation stories of Genesis.

But which book a you talking about Neo? The origin of species by means of natural selection or The preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, or the book Genesis :p

It is an easy choice for me also (the first one you mentioned) though I am sure that we do differ.

I imagine it is an easy choice for those who are of a more scientific mindset. I do not argue here that Christians should reject evolution on scientific grounds (although I have argued that elsewhere). Rather, I argue that Christians should reject evolution on religious grounds, on the basis that the Christian faith entails the belief in God-breathed Scripture and in the desire to not discredit any part of that Scripture. Even were it to be granted that evolution be a sound scientific doctrine, Christians should still deny evolution, as it is incompatible with the Bible. If that makes us unscientific, so be it.

I imagine it is an easy choice for those who are of a more scientific mindset. I do not argue here that Christians should reject evolution on scientific grounds (although I have argued that elsewhere). Rather, I argue that Christians should reject evolution on religious grounds, on the basis that the Christian faith entails the belief in God-breathed Scripture and in the desire to not discredit any part of that Scripture. Even were it to be granted that evolution be a sound scientific doctrine, Christians should still deny evolution, as it is incompatible with the Bible. If that makes us unscientific, so be it.

So is former Dominican priest Francisco J. Ayala (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala), link (http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134&name=Francisco%20J.%20Ayala), link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html)) a bad Christian, a bad scientist, or both?

And on what basis do you reach this conclusion?

So is former Dominican priest Francisco J. Ayala (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala), link (http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134&name=Francisco%20J.%20Ayala), link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html)) a bad Christian, a bad scientist, or both?

And on what basis do you reach this conclusion?

I'm not familiar with the gentleman, but as I stated before, Christianity and evolution are compatible, as the proper interpretation of Genesis, while settled by the historic understanding of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are nevertheless not doctrines of the Faith, and there is room for disagreement without schism. Thus, I would say he is not a bad Christian; he has simply reconciled his beliefs with evolution. Further, since as I see from the links you provided he is a scientist, and a noted one at that, I would not say he is a bad scientist, although I have no authority to make a proclamation either way, as I am not a scientist. Evolution is a common enough belief among those of a scientific bent, so I hardly see a conflict between belief in evolution and being a scientist.
All I would be able to say about him is that, since he does believe in evolution, he has stepped away from the historical understanding of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church's agreement on the proper meaning and understanding of Genesis. Since this is not schismatic, as clearly the recent Pontiffs, Patriarchs and Archbishops in the three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church have done similarly, his Christianity is not in doubt. Only his full adherence to the Bible as entirely God-breathed, and to the historic understanding of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are in doubt.

I had a catholic education and, not only was evolution taught, but we were always told that the old testament was allegorical and should not be read literally.

I had a catholic education and, not only was evolution taught, but we were always told that the old testament was allegorical and should not be read literally.

...as the proper interpretation of Genesis...

Evidently, there is only one true, correct interpretation of a parable... or a series of parables... :rolleyes:

Not to mention the numerous translations and revisions over the last dozen or so centuries...

Evidently, there is only one true, correct interpretation of a parable... or a series of parables... :rolleyes:

Not to mention the numerous translations and revisions over the last dozen or so centuries...

I'm beginning to think that Nicea Sancta is taking the piss.

I'm beginning to think that Nicea Sancta is taking the piss.

Well, yeah... obv. troll.

It's fun to play with them as long as you don't let your feelings get hurt and/or miss a day of work from a lack of sleep due to epic argumentation.

That's ancient news. Catholics have believed in evolution for at least a few decades now. Or maybe since Vatican 2?

Evidently, there is only one true, correct interpretation of a parable...
And the people who wrote it got it wrong.

Could've sworn the Vatican itself came out with the whole "we're not against evolution' thing in the 80's or something.
Eh.

I've personally never had any problems reconciling evolution with my religion. When you're omnipotent you can probably arrange for things like evolution and spines and digestive tracts and all that.

Actually, it was in the '70s. I can remember being in Catholic school and being told by a priest circa 1976 that it was ok to believe in evolution.

That's ancient news. Catholics have believed in evolution for at least a few decades now. Or maybe since Vatican 2?
I don't think they ever officially disbelieved it. There may have been some pope in the 1880s who said he thought it was wrong, but no official Church teaching ever mentioned it. After Galileo, the Catholic Church just stopped trying to regulate science.

Another evolution thread.... tear it up NSG

The Thread Will basically follow this format:

:soap:>:upyours:>:gundge:

Another evolution thread.... tear it up NSG

The Thread Will basically follow this format:

:soap:>:upyours:>:gundge:

It will indeed.

I note that many of the posters that I've seen in the past patiently explaining the vast reams of evidence for evolution via natural selection are just not bothering any more. I can't say I blame them, particularly... it does get a little frustrating.

Still, the thread has been worth it if only for the guilty pleasure that I get when I see someone telling the rest of a board that they've started ignoring someone. It always conjures up an image of the old "fingers in ears "la la la I can't hear you"" caricature that I love so much ;)

Do we have to use so many smilies?

It will indeed.

I note that many of the posters that I've seen in the past patiently explaining the vast reams of evidence for evolution via natural selection are just not bothering any more. I can't say I blame them, particularly... it does get a little frustrating.

My participation is pretty much just making fun of the creationists for messing up their own arguments now. I mean really, there's this standard argument that they try to make, and somehow they manage to screw it up even more than it's already screwed up.

I don't think they ever officially disbelieved it. There may have been some pope in the 1880s who said he thought it was wrong, but no official Church teaching ever mentioned it. After Galileo, the Catholic Church just stopped trying to regulate science.

The article in the OP even quotes Pope John Paul saying that people are tards for not believing in evolution.

Evidently, there is only one true, correct interpretation of a parable... or a series of parables... :rolleyes:

Not to mention the numerous translations and revisions over the last dozen or so centuries...

Your contention that Genesis is a parable is itself an interpretation.
As far as the interpretation is concerned, yes, there is only one true, correct interpretation of Genesis; namely, that interpretation which was intended by God when he revealed it to Moses. Moses, an early prophet of the Jewish Church, was succeeded by the next generations of the Jewish Church, all the way up through the ages until Christ established the Christian Church to replace the Jewish Church. This Church, the unification of all Christianity in one body, was the beginning of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As the only divinely appointed body, only it has the authority to speak definitively on Scripture. It has done so, throughout history, on the meaning of Genesis, and it has agreed that meaning infers direct creationism. This was, as pointed out earlier, never a necessary doctrine of the Faith, and so people can disagree without schism; indeed, many in the three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church today do so. This in no way negates the fact that that Church has spoken, authoritatively, on the meaning of Genesis.

It will indeed.

I note that many of the posters that I've seen in the past patiently explaining the vast reams of evidence for evolution via natural selection are just not bothering any more. I can't say I blame them, particularly... it does get a little frustrating.

Still, the thread has been worth it if only for the guilty pleasure that I get when I see someone telling the rest of a board that they've started ignoring someone. It always conjures up an image of the old "fingers in ears "la la la I can't hear you"" caricature that I love so much ;)

I think perhaps you misunderstand my argument: I'm not here claiming that there is not ample evidence for evolution. I do not believe there is, and have argued to that effect elsewhere, but that has no bearing on what I now claim. I'm not claiming that evolution isn't scientifically-backed; I'm claiming it's incompatible with the belief that all Scripture is fully God-breathed, and that Christians who accept this should deny evolution, against any evidence which might be presented. If they choose not to do so, if they choose to accept evolution, this does not invalidate their faith, since the proper understanding of Genesis is not a fundamental doctrine of the faith, and people may disagree without schism, but it does cause them to water down their faith in a certain respect, a watering-down which Christians should avoid.

I think perhaps you misunderstand my argument: I'm not here claiming that there is not ample evidence for evolution. I do not believe there is, and have argued to that effect elsewhere, but that has no bearing on what I now claim. I'm not claiming that evolution isn't scientifically-backed; I'm claiming it's incompatible with the belief that all Scripture is fully God-breathed, and that Christians who accept this should deny evolution, against any evidence which might be presented. If they choose not to do so, if they choose to accept evolution, this does not invalidate their faith, since the proper understanding of Genesis is not a fundamental doctrine of the faith, and people may disagree without schism, but it does cause them to water down their faith in a certain respect, a watering-down which Christians should avoid.

What scares me is you can vote.

What scares me is you can vote.

I can and do, KoL, on every occasion presented to me.

I have quite a few Catholic friends who are quite left-wing and who were influenced ny the liberation theology that came around the 60's with Vatican 2. The Catholic Church at its best could be seen in East Timor where it was the focal point for independence struggles.
Now the Catholic Church has a long history where it played many roles - some reactionary and oppressive like the Inquisition and recently, admirable on many.
I believe that women should make their own reproductive choices and not any patriarchal institution that wants to quote sacred scripture. However, I respect those whose "Right to Life " views are consistent - not the Gov Palin types who appear to be declared enemies to logic.
Now Buddhism - that's more of a consistent pro-life belief system.....

Don't be scared Knights, be amused -- if you can't have a sense of humor about people claiming to be Christians but voting for a party that abandons the poor ("the least among us..."), makes war on those who attack us ("...turn the other cheek.."), etc...that @#$% is funny. Nothing like poor people voting for the rich because said rich people promise to let them have some scraps from the table (trickle down economics). If your can't laugh you would have to cry...

Umm, just to be clear Nicea...there was never and still is not a "Jewish Church". Synagogue, Temple, yeah but not a "Church". Also, some will take issue that the Christian Church replaced anything Jewish.

On the issue of the OP, since the story of Genesis does not state that god didn't create evolution we can't say it contradicts the story itself. Also, evolution is a theory, not a doctrine and as such is flexible and subject to change. This current theory doesn't contradict your faith because it doesn't claim to be truth but rather what we understand the mechanic of biology and species development right now. As more research is done the theories revise and change and are sometimes discarded. This process has nothing to do with your faith -- it is like saying that a mechanic's diagnosis of why your car is not functioning goes against the bible. It's apples and oranges.

Oh, and personally, I would check that book you're quoting and read the part about judging -- you're doing a bit of that. I hear it's frowned on and sometimes causes problems with your eventual membership in a certain country club in the sky (hey, it's not a dig -- the place is members only and has a gate. I just assume since Republicans are the only ones allowed in they play golf in there).

:)

I have quite a few Catholic friends who are quite left-wing and who were influenced ny the liberation theology that came around the 60's with Vatican 2. The Catholic Church at its best could be seen in East Timor where it was the focal point for independence struggles.
Now the Catholic Church has a long history where it played many roles - some reactionary and oppressive like the Inquisition and recently, admirable on many.
I believe that women should make their own reproductive choices and not any patriarchal institution that wants to quote sacred scripture. However, I respect those whose "Right to Life " views are consistent - not the Gov Palin types who appear to be declared enemies to logic.
Now Buddhism - that's more of a consistent pro-life belief system.....

One must make a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; they are not one and the same. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was originally the unification of all Christianity under one hope and doctrine. Following the Eastern separation and the Protestant revolution, there are now three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which hold internal unity but do not always speak consistently on doctrine. Thus, to grasp the Truth of the Faith, we must look at history, before the sundering of the Faith.
The Roman Church has, in many, many times upheld the true Catholic Faith; but has, in some unfortunate circumstances, departed from that Faith. As has the Eastern Orthodox Church, and as has my own Anglican Church, as the recent news articles have made so glaringly apparent.
As far as reproductive choices, as an Anglican Catholic, I deny that contraception is morally unacceptable. We view the Roman Church's prohibition of contraception as focusing too heavily on the Natural Law theory of morality. Promoted as it was by the estimable Aristotle and the blessed St. Augustine, Natural Law theory is not the fundamental nature of morality. Thus, in the case of contraception, the Roman Church has it wrong, in my opinion and in the opinion of many in the Anglican branch of Catholicism.
However, when it comes to abortion, the issue is clear: the murder of an innocent child is morally reprehensible, and this is non-negotiable. This stems from the unification of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and is unassailable.
As an aside, your attack on Gov. Palin is unfounded and out of place. There are many other threads dedicated to such attacks: you should post such barbs there, rather than here.

Umm, just to be clear Nicea...there was never and still is not a "Jewish Church". Synagogue, Temple, yeah but not a "Church". Also, some will take issue that the Christian Church replaced anything Jewish.

On the issue of the OP, since the story of Genesis does not state that god didn't create evolution we can't say it contradicts the story itself. Also, evolution is a theory, not a doctrine and as such is flexible and subject to change. This current theory doesn't contradict your faith because it doesn't claim to be truth but rather what we understand the mechanic of biology and species development right now. As more research is done the theories revise and change and are sometimes discarded. This process has nothing to do with your faith -- it is like saying that a mechanic's diagnosis of why your car is not functioning goes against the bible. It's apples and oranges.

Oh, and personally, I would check that book you're quoting and read the part about judging -- you're doing a bit of that. I hear it's frowned on and sometimes causes problems with your eventual membership in a certain country club in the sky (hey, it's not a dig -- the place is members only and has a gate. I just assume since Republicans are the only ones allowed in they play golf in there).

:)

I believe I see the nature of the misconception: I refer to the Jewish Church not as a building wherein religious services occur, but to the organization of the religion iteself. In this respect, there was indeed a Jewish Church; namely, that body of belief, unified throughout many centuries, upon which the Jewish faith was based. It was this Church that Jesus Christ Himself contested in His earthly lifetime.
Of course some will take issue that the Christian Church replaced the Jewish Church. This does not in any way detract from the fact that the Christian Church did, in fact, replace the Jewish Church in the plan of salvation. The fact that Judaism still exists as a religion is natural, as any major change in an organization will generate adherents to the old way. However, due to the unique nature and actions of Christ, only the Christian Church is now legitimate, and membership is necessary for salvation.

We can, insofar as we accept that "evolution" here refers to Darwinian evolution, wherein certain lifeforms change, through a means of continual small adaptations to environment over many centuries of time, into other lifeforms, which result finally in man. When we use "evolution" in this sense, which I believe is the most common sense of the term, then evolution is, in fact, incompatible with Genesis in a variety of ways. Not the least of these being that, according to evolution, mankind was formed as the result of a progression of lesser animals, up through the chain of complexity, deriving in the apelike ancestors which eventually increased in intelligence through the generations to spawn the first men. In contrast, Genesis claims that, on the sixth day of creation, God formed a man from the dust of the ground, and breathed life into that formation, thus creating humanity; the first woman was made from the rib of that man. These two views are inherently incompatible.
If the current theory didn't claim to be truth, it wouldn't be science. Granted, it is claimed to be the truth as we know it but it does claim to be the truth. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this, as the purpose of science is to arrive at the truth. However, given this, evolution as currently stated does, necessarily, conflict with the Bible, but not my faith. As I stated previously, there is no incompatibility between evolution and the Christian faith.
In sum, it is not apples and oranges, as both the Bible and evolution offer different explanations as to how mankind came about. These explanations cannot both be true; logically, at most, one can be true. Thus, one must accept one and deny the other, or deny both. The choice is forced, not only upon the Christian, but upon every person presented with the conflict, and he cannot help but chose one of those three options: Deny evolution, deny Genesis, or deny both.

Amazingly - no one has mentioned the two, conflicting(!!) creation stories in Genesis!

Amazingly - no one has mentioned the two, conflicting(!!) creation stories in Genesis!

This is because the "two" stories in Genesis are not conflicting, (!!) or otherwise.

"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense"

Theology itself denudes everything of sense. It is antithetical to sense. Though it is fun to see "theologians" doing their cumless wanking. They chafe so.

"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense"

Theology itself denudes everything of sense. It is antithetical to sense. Though it is fun to see "theologians" doing their cumless wanking. They chafe so.

That post had no content whatsoever, apart from ignorant attack.

Your contention that Genesis is a parable is itself an interpretation.
As far as the interpretation is concerned, yes, there is only one true, correct interpretation of Genesis; namely, that interpretation which was intended by God when he revealed it to Moses. Moses, an early prophet of the Jewish Church, was succeeded by the next generations of the Jewish Church, all the way up through the ages until Christ established the Christian Church to replace the Jewish Church. This Church, the unification of all Christianity in one body, was the beginning of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As the only divinely appointed body, only it has the authority to speak definitively on Scripture. It has done so, throughout history, on the meaning of Genesis, and it has agreed that meaning infers direct creationism. This was, as pointed out earlier, never a necessary doctrine of the Faith, and so people can disagree without schism; indeed, many in the three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church today do so. This in no way negates the fact that that Church has spoken, authoritatively, on the meaning of Genesis.

I'm guessing that the term "day" was most clearly defined and could have been only interpretated one way in the language of those that wrote these stories, hmmm?

That post had no content whatsoever, apart from ignorant attack.

What I quote had no content whatsoever, apart from impotently failed and reprobate apologism. Goes for both you and the monsignor. No wonder celibacy attracts you lot so...

This post is hereby intended to politely inform Fassitude that he has been placed on the ignore list of Nicea Sancta.

Neither this post, nor this communication of ignore status, shall be repeated by Nicea Sacta.

I'm guessing that the term "day" was most clearly defined and could have been only interpretated one way in the language of those that wrote these stories, hmmm?

It could have been interpreted any number of ways, including to mean a period of exactly 3.4 seconds when travelling at .75 the speed of light.
What it was interpreted as, by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only body with the authority to interpret the Bbile, was that it meant a period of 24 hours.

What is it with the people that feel some kind of urge to pronounce it to the realm of NSG that so-and-so said something they don't agree with and are hereby on their Ignore List for, most probably, an unforseeable amount of time?

I thought the benefit of the Ignore button is that you don't need to call attention/flaming to yourself to use it...

What is it with the people that feel some kind of urge to pronounce it to the realm of NSG that so-and-so said something they don't agree with and are hereby on their Ignore List for, most probably, an unforseeable amount of time?

I thought the benefit of the Ignore button is that you don't need to call attention/flaming to yourself to use it...

As for the rest of people, I cannot speak. For myself, I do it as a courtesy to an opponent, so that he or she will not waste his or her time replying to my posts when I cannot see them. Were I not to post the notification, the other party could conceivably continue to post responses to my own, not realizing that I have him or her on ignore and cannot see them. Thus, out of respect, I post the notification.

It could have been interpreted any number of ways, including to mean a period of exactly 3.4 seconds when travelling at .75 the speed of light.
What it was interpreted as, by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only body with the authority to interpret the Bbile, was that it meant a period of 24 hours.

And yet, the Vatican, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-fearing God-head of the Catholic faith admits, quite a period of time later, that it may or may not have fucked up when it denounced religion.

I am not comparing these two organizations; however, it seems silly to say that a counsel of men, Biblically inferior and imperfect creatures, unwise of God's intricate designs, can interpret precisely what a group of men bound together as authors of the Bible when the book itself is supposed to be based off of the word of God. You are claiming that the imperfect are the only with authority to make declarations about the book of the perfect, are you not?

What is it with the people that feel some kind of urge to pronounce it to the realm of NSG that so-and-so said something they don't agree with and are hereby on their Ignore List for, most probably, an unforseeable amount of time?

If we disregard the schizophrenic use of the third person, the point of such posts is to make the other person feel somehow worse off for having been added to an ignore list, as if to somehow lull the poster into thinking he/she can hurt the precious feelings of the other. That is what truly makes it so pathetic - it's not just because it is the refuge of the intellectual (used loosely) coward.

And yet, the Vatican, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-fearing God-head of the Catholic faith admits, quite a period of time later, that it may or may not have fucked up when it denounced religion.

I am not comparing these two organizations; however, it seems silly to say that a counsel of men, Biblically inferior and imperfect creatures, unwise of God's intricate designs, can interpret precisely what a group of men bound together as authors of the Bible when the book itself is supposed to be based off of the word of God. You are claiming that the imperfect are the only with authority to make declarations about the book of the perfect, are you not?

The entire New Testament is a written record of an already-extant Faith and body of Tradition. The Faith and Tradition were prior to the New Testament; the New Testament was a codification and exposition of that Faith and Tradition. Thus, the writers of the New Testament were not creating a body of Faith ex nihilo but rather explaining an already-extant Faith, that given by Jesus Christ Himself.
Christ Himself established the Church, which held together prior to the New Testament due to continuance in the Faith and Tradition as taught. This Faith and Tradition, which gave rise to the New Testament, was inherent in Christianity, prior even to the writing of the New Testament itself. Thus, the practitioners of the Faith, guided by the inspiration of God, codified that Faith in the New Testament, giving a written record for easy transmittal.
The New Testament thus points as a referand to a Faith and a Tradition as its referent. When doubt arises as to the nature of that reference, the meaning of the referand with relation to the referent, the only ones capable of authoritatively speaking on that reference are those who practice the very Faith and Tradition which is being referred to. The only ones capable of explaining the Bible are those who practice the Faith and Tradition the Bible refers to: the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Jesus Christ Himself founded, which the Apostles themselves continued, and which has continued throughout history, through the Apostolic Succession, to this day, arriving at the Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Cardinals and Pope today.
Yes, a group of fallible human beings are the only ones with authority to make declarations about the book of the perfect, for this reason: this group of imperfect people, the members and especially leaders of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout history, have, as a body, been guided by the Holy Spirit, such that the Church shall not be lead astray. Thus, with the guidance and inspiration of the Perfect, the imperfect may, with the authority invested in them by Jesus Christ Himself, make definitive declarations about the Bible.

What I quote had no content whatsoever, apart from impotently failed and reprobate apologism. Goes for both you and the monsignor. No wonder celibacy attracts you lot so...

What? Or are you saying that they shouldn't realise that they may be wrong and change their point of view?

This is good. Though I am no longer Catholic, I'm glad that the Church allows for the reconciliation of faith and science. My father was a Catholic and an Evolutionist, and I was raised not taking Genesis literally.

I myself believe in Theistic Evolution.

One must make a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; they are not one and the same. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was originally the unification of all Christianity under one hope and doctrine. Following the Eastern separation and the Protestant revolution, there are now three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which hold internal unity but do not always speak consistently on doctrine. Thus, to grasp the Truth of the Faith, we must look at history, before the sundering of the Faith.
The Roman Church has, in many, many times upheld the true Catholic Faith; but has, in some unfortunate circumstances, departed from that Faith. As has the Eastern Orthodox Church, and as has my own Anglican Church, as the recent news articles have made so glaringly apparent.
As far as reproductive choices, as an Anglican Catholic, I deny that contraception is morally unacceptable. We view the Roman Church's prohibition of contraception as focusing too heavily on the Natural Law theory of morality. Promoted as it was by the estimable Aristotle and the blessed St. Augustine, Natural Law theory is not the fundamental nature of morality. Thus, in the case of contraception, the Roman Church has it wrong, in my opinion and in the opinion of many in the Anglican branch of Catholicism.
However, when it comes to abortion, the issue is clear: the murder of an innocent child is morally reprehensible, and this is non-negotiable. This stems from the unification of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and is unassailable.
As an aside, your attack on Gov. Palin is unfounded and out of place. There are many other threads dedicated to such attacks: you should post such barbs there, rather than here.

I love how you get into censorship when you don't like a comment that someone makes. So I'll just stick to ones that you do:
Ah! Anglo-Catholicism is such a comforting doctrine -I do so love the Niacene Creed and the bells and incense. And TS Eliot is such a wonderful poet who has captured and mirrored my own struggle for salvation. And I revel in the miracle of it all - tea and crumpets at the vicarage - a blazing fire while I read my copy of the Times (in Latin of course).
1938 is such a wonderful year..... I wish it could last forever.