Vatican supports Darwinism

[MKSheppard]

This is just one more example of the Whore Of Rome plying his wicked trade here on God's earth!

/evil protestant fundamentalist mode off

Linka

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
By Martin Penner

November 07, 2005

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

Advertisement:
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

[Comando293]

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Does the cardinal in question care to explain how to correctly read the bible correctly?

[Captain Cyran]

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Does the cardinal in question care to explain how to correctly read the bible correctly?

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

There.

Anyway, it's nice to see this happening, even if it's among the Catholic church and will have little bearing upon the rather Protestant backed I.D. It's a step in the right direction as long as some moron that's higher up decides to counter him.

[Rogue 9]

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Does the cardinal in question care to explain how to correctly read the bible correctly?

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

There.

Anyway, it's nice to see this happening, even if it's among the Catholic church and will have little bearing upon the rather Protestant backed I.D. It's a step in the right direction as long as some moron that's higher up decides to counter him.

I'm pretty sure a decision like this wouldn't be made by someone on the heirarchy who's likely to be contradicted.

[EmperorSolo51]

2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

[EmperorSolo51]

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Does the cardinal in question care to explain how to correctly read the bible correctly?

The Interpretation of the Scared Scripture is up to the Church Magisterum. For those who Don't know, that would be the Bishops, the Cardinals, Biblical Acholars who work for the Papacy, and the Pope himself.

[EmperorSolo51]

GHETTO EDIT: Should say "Scholars".

[wautd]

I really hate the term "Darwinism". Its evolution just like it's heliocentrism instead of Galileoism

[Surlethe]

I really hate the term "Darwinism". Its evolution just like it's heliocentrism instead of Galileoism

Darwinism has the wider connotation of "believing the tenet of 'struggle for survival' is just and ethical", as in social Darwinism; I'm inclined to think the utilization of the term Darwinism as a widespread near-epithet for those who support evolution is a subtle strategy in the ploy to portray evolution as one of the base causes of social and moral decay in Western civilization.

[Comando293]

Comando293 wrote:

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Does the cardinal in question care to explain how to correctly read the bible correctly?


The Interpretation of the Scared Scripture is up to the Church Magisterum. For those who Don't know, that would be the Bishops, the Cardinals, Biblical Acholars who work for the Papacy, and the Pope himself.

Thanks for the explination.

[Darth Wong]

I really hate the term "Darwinism". Its evolution just like it's heliocentrism instead of Galileoism

It's their attempt to make it look like a cult rather than a scientific theory.

[Captain Cyran]

I must add on though. It was very nice to hear a Cardinal call them Fundamentalists.

[Plekhanov]

I must add on though. It was very nice to hear a Cardinal call them Fundamentalists.

Now if the Cardinals can just see the folly of there "sex is evil as are gays" type position we'll really be getting somewhere.

[wautd]

I really hate the term "Darwinism". Its evolution just like it's heliocentrism instead of Galileoism

It's their attempt to make it look like a cult rather than a scientific theory.

That's what I assumed.

But is "Darwinism" an official term hijacked by creationists or is it a made-up term (like micro- and macro evolution)

[mr friendly guy]

I really hate the term "Darwinism". Its evolution just like it's heliocentrism instead of Galileoism

I could make a case that there are other theories of evolution besides "Darwinism" hence the need to distinguish Darwin's theory from those others. For example Larmarkianism and the "racial life cycle" theory (which in effect ends up advocating survival of the unfittest and in Darwin's time was a rival theory). However in this day and age, only Darwinism as an evolution theory has not bee consigned to the scrap heap of history by the scientific method.

[mr friendly guy]

Ghetto edit - I meant to say that only Darwinism has not been consigned to the scrap heap of history when compared to those alternate theories in his day.

There are other newer interpretations of evolution which are slightly different from how he originally proposed evolution (although not necessarily contradictory to Darwin's theory, rather more detailed in some areas), such as the "punctuated gradualists".

[Xon]

But is "Darwinism" an official term hijacked by creationists or is it a made-up term (like micro- and macro evolution)

As the fundies use it, it has been hijacked.

When someone says "survival of the fittest" w.r.t. to evolution they really should be saying the "most adaptable to change". Physical strength or some perfected ideal has utterly nothing todo with it, and due to the subtle change of the meaning of the words the phrase "survival of the fittest" has almost completly changed it's common meaning.

That is how the term "Darwinism" has been hijacked.

[Ariphaos]

When someone says "survival of the fittest" w.r.t. to evolution they really should be saying the "most adaptable to change". Physical strength or some perfected ideal has utterly nothing todo with it, and due to the subtle change of the meaning of the words the phrase "survival of the fittest" has almost completly changed it's common meaning.

No

Survival of the fittest for a given enviroment. Otherwise, according to your statement, bacteria would have wiped us out before the Cambrian.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's what I assumed.

But is "Darwinism" an official term hijacked by creationists or is it a made-up term (like micro- and macro evolution)

Micro- and macroevolution are not made up terms. They are used by biologists to distinguish the various scales of evolutionary action from variation in gene frequency and surface proteins to speciation and other morpho-genetic differences in non-microbes.