The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution

I'm going to assume that this topic has been surplanted by the "Pope John Paul II address to the Papal Academy of Sciences" topic.Ned might wish to post the previous message, also at the above cited.Closing this one down.If someone still sees the need for this topic to be open, you can post at the "closed too soon" topic, link below.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Re-opened by request.AM------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Ned,
I made quite clear (I thought I did at least) that the word not mentioned once was macroevolution. If I remember correctly a previous responder stated that the Pope lent his support to macroevolution. I stated that he did not, nor did he even mention the word.
I appreciate you conceding that it is not quite as clear as the press made it out to be. The reason I wrote this piece was to bring this fact to light, and I hope others are as open and honest as you.
I would not disagree with you when you state that the Pope is likely not a Young Earth Creationist. Probably you are right. On the otherhand I do not know for certain. Likely you are right though. I would disagree with you are to him believing we evolved from less formed species. This does contradict the account given in Genesis, and though the Roman Church is somewhat lax in their condemnation of evolution, they are criticized greatly by Protestants for taking the BIble to literally. The Church also takes the Genesis account literally.
With regards to your last question, I believe Pope Pius XII has given the clearest assessment of Church involvement in the Theory of Evolution. Surprisingly, though most evolutionists have not read his encyclical Humani Generis, they cite it as evidence of support for evolution. In fact it is not. You may find my analysis of Humani Generis also under this forum.
Thank you for your feedback.
Apostle

Who cares what the pope says except catholics, Pro. Churches for the most part believe the bible as the inspired Word of God. The Pope (if attempting to defend Chirstianity) is miserably failing. But then again he thinks he is God haveing changed Gods laws and times and that is blasphemy...or otherwise called maybe AntiChrist...theres a thought.

This entire post smacks of Anti-Catholicism. The same kind of intolerance that breeds hatred and contempt. The same kind of Antisemitism or Anti-anything that allows a platform for hate in the guise of religion. I find it offensive, and apologize to any Catholics that may have read this ignorant biggotted statement against the Pope and Catholicism.

RineholdrCatholics also believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word. The Pope is not contradicting scripture by his adress. While I criticized his weakness on this position, I did not question his position or person. Certainly the Pope does not think he is God, and I know of no laws of God's that the Pope has changed, and last time I checked, when the Pope speaks, the world listens, not just Catholics. I am sorry to say, but you have made a fool of yourself, and while we likely share the same faith, you have a long way to go in moderating your prejeduces.Apostle

But you DO question the Pope's position. In fact you refuse to accept that he meant what he plainly said. The only issue the Pope has with evolution is the origin of the human soul. That's it. Nothing else.

Might that not be because "macroevolution" is not a term employed by many biologists, but rather, almost exclusivly by creationists attempting to draw erroneous distinctions between different amounts of evolutionary change?

The Catholic Church most certainly did change the word of God...In Daniel it says he (AntiChirst) will seek to change times and Laws and thats exactly what the church of Rome did. They changed the 10 commandments to remove the 4th. by changeing the day That God set aside to honor Him for creation sake as well as much needed rest for man. Now the self proclaimed (Cathlic Church) day of rest is sunday, the first day of the week as opposed to the God sanctified seventh. Then to keep the number 10 valid they split I believe the ninth or tenth to regain one. In summary Times (Sabbath) and Laws (Changing what God wrote on stone with His own finger). Dont get me wrong...ask any priest, bishop, cardnal etc. they admit the church did this because the pope has the God given power to do so...hence diety. No man has or will be given such power.
And Just for the record, I do not condem the people of the catholic church just the system, All Chirstians MUST read thier Bibles to Know What the will of God is and understand His Character, It cannot be left up to those who stand at the pulpit to dictate what the Word of God says...Every Chirstian should use the Word of God to verify the accuracy of the speaker from the pulpit...dont be puppets...I speak from experiance because that is the same process I went through making the decision to Protest=Become Protestant. Thank you and God Bless All.[This message has been edited by rineholdr, 04-15-2004]

Not exactly as I read it Ned. I will try to dig up my more primary source than my memory but in all the philosophy I thought I noticed his questioning the ACTUAL scientific positions of biology vs chemsitry and physics relative to origins. On the very narrow reading I made then I did not find he said anything against scientific creationism provided the disciplines of science be kept seperate but it would be a goal in any science whether creationist or not to unify any pre-existing"" seperation and to accomplish it materially if possible.

Paul,I realize that you almost definately have not read the entire Papal Address. That's okay, you'll find others you haven't also. However, I have read it, and that seperates me from you, in that I am able to comment on it, while you are simply going by what you heard.How can you accuse me of refusing to accept what he plainly said, when you have not read what he plainly said?Wait, I could be way off, and you may have actually read it. In that case there is a problem, a much larger one, How can you honestly believe that he lent his support to evolution?Apostle

CrashfrogMany prominent evolutionists refer to 'macroevolution.' It is certainly not just creationists. Microevolutionary change describes small changes within species. A species simply adapting to its enviroment. There are countless examples. Macroevolutionary change, refers to huge change, say from fish to amphibian, or ape to man. Lets not confuse the issue. This debate is on the Roman church's position on evolution. THat includes macroevolution.Apostle

It's not a term I've encountered in any college-level biology class or any biology textbook. These are the same processes over different amounts of time. Two different words that mean the same thing would be, by definition, the essence of "confusing the issue."If you really want a meaningful distinction, then the terms you were looking for were "adaptation" and "speciation." Those are different processes, and have nothing to do with quantities of time.

I have read the entire address as it appears on the websites linked in this discussion. The Pope makes a general endorsement of evolutionary theory as good science reserving one single issue - the origin of the human soulLet us note the following quotes:"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"The Pope states that the natural sciences can inform the interpretation of scripture and (especially given the preceding reference to Galileo) indicates that interpretations that contradict well-established scientific results may well be "unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to 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. "The Pope grants that there is significant evidence for evolution."The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man..."The origins of animal and plant species are not at issue."Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God"The evolution of the physical human body is not at issue."Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."The origin of the human spirit or soul IS at issue.That is the ONLY issue that the Pope considers significant.So there you have it. The Pope clearly accepts evolution as legitimate science with significant evidential support - and he states that there is only one aspect of evolution that should be rejected on scriptural grounds.So please don't try to pretend that I haven't read the document. I have read it and you are misrepresenting it.

Something I've observed in life is that nature has this way of balancing things out- which automatically suggests an underlying intelligence driving evolution. It seems to me that evolution is probably God's way of fixing mistakes as they occur, to allow the overall continuence of life on this planet.For example, the human race is currently causing a mass extinction on this planet. I myself appear to be some sort of new species, since my nutritional needs, skelaton, social and sexual behavior, are all basically different than that of the human race. Because I use electrical activity ( components of the person's personality) as a basis to interpret body language and verbal signals, detecting the electrical activity that all living things produce is necessary for my emotional survival. Because of this in order to emotionally survive I need living things just for the sake of themselves.It stands to reason that my decendants will result in a whole culture that will work to preserve the world, rather than destroy it. Something I've noticed is that the human race is so destructive because what drives it is a need to produce status symbols to get to the top of the food chain, and because the human race seems to feel that the true value of anything is only what the human race assigns to it, not what it assigns to itself. As things stand now, I can only forsee the conclusion of what the human race is doing to the world, will be a dark and squalid one and result in a dead world.I've been persecuted my whole life because I'm different. I was just going to breed and not tell anyone about it, and let the human race figure it out on its own, after there is a whole army of me - in defense of those who cannot speak for themselves. I've thought of going to scientists but my experience has been scientists tend to only want to hear what fits into their little world views so will probably only lead to me being persecuted all over again. Religion, on the other hand, is more flexible regarding these things, so may give me the community I need to carry on.I can't disregard that I was born in the middle of a mass extinction, and I require the survival of other species in order for me to emotionally survive. This seems to provide an evidence for an underlying intelligence driving evolution. I was wondering what all of you think the Church's stance will be on this?