RC Church accepts evolution? again?

Creationism and evolution can co-exist, says cardinal The Registerone for In the news maybe?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Just more evidence of the complete confusion in the RC church. Evolution contradicts Genesis, major tenets of Christian faith, the idea of the Fall which is the reason for death, which in turn is the reason God sent a Messiah to save us. It also contradicts the clear inference that Adam and Eve had no ancestors.

Sounds to me as if someone's been told to tow the party line, and true to the laws that govern all politicians, he produces a prime piece of spin to justify himself. Notice how the 'clarification' of the cardinal's position is not at all incompatable with the original statement. It just gives the impression that he was misquoted. For example:

quote:

---

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, considered a contender in the recent papal race, has apparently distanced himself from remarks he made in the New York Times in July when he said that an "unguided, unplanned process of natural selection" was not "true".

---

Pretty contraversial position there cardinal! Good job you totally reversed that by saying that: But it can be a great intellectual work, and still be wrong...right? Notice the hidden emphasis on the word 'history'. "...it's just that my limits are set a lot stricter than other people's"Micro vs Macro anybody?I may be an old cynic, but this doesn't sound like the ringing endorsement of modern evolutionary theory it pretends to be.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 06-10-2005 12:21 AM

Who knows what it is. It could go any direction they decide it needs to go at any particular time. The RC Church is expert at doublespeak Jesuitical style.

This pretty much sums up my opinion about anyone who relies heavily upon scripture. But that is, of course, dangerously OT .

I don't think it even pretends to be a ringing endorsement. I wouldn't expect the RC church to give a ringing endorsement.It reads to me as a peace treaty, not an endorsement. In essence it says "if you don't attack our belief in God, we won't attack your science".Why would we ever expect more than this?

You have twisted what his quotes into something that he isn't saying at all. He is only saying in this statement that evolution is not by random chance but is by design by a designer. These two statements are totally compatible. He is a Theistic evolutionist as are many of us. He accepts Darwinism, he just doesn't accept Dawkins view of it. As has been said countless times. evolution is agnostic. To try and make it either Theistic or Atheistic is outside the realm of science.This message has been edited by GDR, 10-05-2005 05:57 PM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, but the RC church DOESN'T rely heavily on scripture. If they did they couldn't even Jesuitically leave room for evolution in their confused statements. One thing you ought to be able to tell about us scripture believers is that we have very definite opinions about what it says.

GDR, That wasn't what I was trying to do. I was using the quotes provided to emphasise what he wasn't saying. By 'redefining' his beliefs in such a way that can be taken literally any way you want them to be he is playing a politicians game and avoiding the tough questions. Theistic evolutionists like yourselves are placated and at the same time people who worship the holy bacterial flagellum sit back happy with a job well done. The second set of quotes are strongly slanted towards the ID camp and his comments about Darwin's theory are luke warm at best.He makes the 'don't tread on our patch' warning to science and at the same time says that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a Designer was involved (notice the choice of words).He says that science should never claim that a creator was impossible, but to many people (and no doubt many within the catholic church) this boundary is not a clear cut issue. The article says that abiogenesis is not out of bounds - but is this a view shared by the good cardinal?He acknowledges Darwin's contribution to our 'intellectual history' but makes no attempt to endorse it as the only valid theory.Maybe I am reading too much into it, and maybe the whole lecture would have given a clearer picture - if anyone has any more details I'd be keen read them - but I thought the quoted statements were prime examples of verbal gymnastics and was trying to demonstrate this. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent anyone.

I love it when all of the various Christian sects bicker and fight and cut each other down!"My interpretation of this religious text that has no original copies and has been translated and transcribed and edited and changed by politically-motivated men many times with no way at all to verify it with outside evidence is correct and yours is clearly completely wrong!""No, OUR interpretation is 100% correct, and you are wrong!""Are not!""Are too!"

I think the good Cardinal realizes he stepped in some droppings of the ID movement and is backing off, to a degree.Hey, to me it's evidence that the RCC at least is trying to acknowledge reality and come to terms with the overwhelming evidence that evolution did indeed happen. I see this as a virtue, not as a deficit.If your assertion that evolution completely vitiates Christianty is correct, to me at least, the clear implication would be that Christianity is an irrational and false belief system that must be abandoned in favor of something else that corresponds more to the known facts about reality.How about that. The more effective you are as an apologist for your views, the more you make the case for agnosticism !Not the effect you intended, no doubt...

Hi OoookYou are reading more into those quotes than I do, but I think there is another thing to keep in mind. You said: When I say that I am a Theistic evolutionist I am only saying that I am a Theist, (of the Christian variety), that accepts evolution as the best theory available. I accept it because the bulk of the experts endorse it. I am not a biologist, or a scientist of any kind, and neither is the Cardinal. We are not qualified to endorse any scientific theory, including evolution. The best that we can do is to accept that the majority of the experts in that field of science endorse it and that we are prepared to accept the research behind the theory.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well that's a totally status-quo post, Paisano. Why did you bother?

But for many if not MOST Christians there is NO conflict. What we learn about evolution or even about Abiogenesis is simply the HOW of what GOD did.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion