From the Roman Catholic perspective, no problem. Why is that? Here's why.

Bot

Pope for our times: why Darwin is back on the agenda at the Vatican---William Rees-Mogg

IN THE mid-1980s I was a member of a Vatican body with the impressive title International Committee of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Each year we had a meeting with Pope John-Paul II; on one occasion he gave us lunch and served a light white wine from, I think, a papal vineyard.

The other members of the committee included a splendid Ibo lady, the head of the Catholic Women’s Movement in Nigeria, an Indian nun, a Japanese Jesuit and a Francophone president of an African nation who believed that French culture and a sound classical education would be the best answer to Africa’s educational problems. I enjoyed our discussions, which were almost always held in French.

The idea, which came from the Pope himself, was far-sighted. We foresaw what has subsequently been called the “clash of civilisations”; we tried to relate that conflict to the widely differing cultures of the billion members of the Roman Catholic Church. We discussed the impact of particular developments in modern science but so far as I can remember we did not try to deal with the central problem of the relationship between science and religion; that seems to have come now.

Our chairman was Cardinal Paul Poupard, an admirable example of the cultivated French intellectual in the Roman Curia; he is still the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Whether the council still has an international committee I do not know, since I left it nearly 20 years ago. Last week the cardinal was giving a press conference before a meeting in Rome of scientists, philosophers and theologians; this week they will be discussing the difficult subject of infinity. Cardinal Poupard had a beautifully trained French mind and inner loyalty to the Catholic faith. Nothing he says is said without careful thought. At the press conference he was discussing the issue of evolution, which is the critical dividing line between science and religion. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species shook religious belief when it was first published in 1859 in a way that Isaac Newton’s equally important Principia had not shaken the faith of 1687.

In The Times Martin Penner reported the cardinal’s argument. He had said that the description in Genesis of the Creation was “perfectly compatible” with Darwin’s theory of evolution, if the Bible were read properly. “Fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim.”

He argued that the real message of Genesis was that the Universe did not make itself, and had a creator. “Science and theology act in different fields, each in its own.” In Rome, the immediate reaction was that this was a Vatican rejection of the fundamentalist American doctrine of “intelligent design”. No doubt the Vatican does want to separate itself from American creationists, but the significance surely goes further than that. This is not another Galileo case; the teachings of the Church have never imposed a literal interpretation of the language of the Bible; that was a Protestant mistake. Nor did the Church condemn the theory of evolution, though it did and does reject neo-Darwinism when that is made specifically atheist.

Indeed, one can go back nearly 1,500 years before Darwin and find St Augustine of Hippo, the most commanding intellect of all the early doctors of the Church, teaching a doctrine of evolution in the early 5th century. In one of his greatest works, De Genesi ad Litteram, he stated that God did not create an organised Universe as we see it now, but in the beginning created all the elements of the world in a confused and “nebulous” mass. In this mass were the mysterious seeds of the creatures who were to come into existence.

Augustine’s thought does therefore contain the elements of a theory of evolution, and even a genetic theory, but does not have natural selection. St Augustine has always been orthodox. He did not foresee modern science in AD410, but he did have an extraordinary grasp of the potential evolution of scientific thought. Cardinal Poupard’s address to the journalists should not be seen as a matter of the Roman Church changing its mind and accepting Darwin after 145 years.

It is a precautionary statement, distancing the Church from the American attack on Darwinism that Rome considers to be neither good science, nor good theology. It will also be taken as an indication of the priorities of the present Pope Benedict XVI.

His critics had expected him to be more conservative than his predecessor. I tended to share this expectation myself, but refrained from expressing it because new leaders always surprise one; they move in directions no one had previously foreseen. We should have been more conscious of differences between the national traditions of the Catholic Church in Poland and in Germany. The Polish Church, which trained John-Paul II, had always combined conservative theology with support for the national claims to liberty. The German Church has always been challenged by the modernism of German theology.

In the 16th century Germany was the region where the Reformation happened. German theologians on the Roman Catholic side had to understand the arguments of the Reformers if they were to reply to them. In the 18th century Germans were fully exposed to the French Enlightenment. In the 19th century they were exposed to German philosophers such as Hegel, and to the challenge of German biblical scholarship. Modernism itself in the late 19th century had a great influence on German Catholic opinion.

All these arguments are well understood by Benedict XVI, because so many of them are German arguments.

Cardinal Poupard’s statement clarified the acceptance of Darwinism and rightly asserted that religious belief is compatible with the theory of evolution. He also gave a further indication that the mindset of Benedict XVI may be a good deal more modern than had been expected. One should have foreseen that with a German pope. The German Church has a strong tradition of theological inquiry in which Benedict XVI has been educated.

On the other hand we have this malodorous piece of offal spouting his hatred and intolerance.


Search: Advanced
AP
Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster

38 minutes ago

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" — the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power — as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued.

Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences."

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Choose your hypocrisies well my friends and remember,opinions are like a**holes,everybody has one.

__________________

I'd like to use Word to substitute your description of him with his name in all newspaper articles.

B

What shall we call this hubris-bloated sky pilot,this denial of death huckster,this smirking second story pick-pocket of elderly fool's pensions.

Now THERE is a poster boy for eugenics,nay,far too easy for his ilk...hold,hold,I have it! put him in charge of "medical waste disposal" at family planning clinics,Ha,Haaahhh! there's a task he'll relish with glee.

__________________

This selfsame man of God was the graduation speaker at my alma mater (Bible College) this year. From his speech:

"in 50 countries there have been at least 200 people in just the last year who have been raised from the dead. I interviewed two of them on my program this past week."

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Art thou certain he meant raised from the dead or razed from the dead?

Both my father and his father have not,despite my formerly youthfully ignorant solicitations,returned to me so I must presume it was the latter.............

__________________

I'm inclined to think that part of the reason the Catholic church is so comfortable with evolution is that they have a long tradition of using Aristotle in their theology. Aristotle's God is a final cause and not a beginning cause. For Aristotle, God's causal activity never precludes other causes.
The lack of sophisticated causal thinking in most fundamentalist circles results in their thinking that if God causes something, all other causes must be precluded.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

My second favorite paragraph.

My first favorite part.

I'm glad he wrote this. I've never seen a conflict betwixt evolution and religion. Some of my favorite arguments with my non-denomonational friends have been about evolution and biblical literalness.

Now, Pat Robertson is messed up. He'd be entertaining to watch if I didn't know that he's taken such a huge amount of money from people who couldn't afford it. It was thier choice to give, however.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Well, the fundamentalists bear much of a face to the Quietists prevalent in France and Germany in the 17th century whose main doctrine{or rather ignorance}consisted of the maxim"presume not God to scan"these ignorant deists beleived it sufficient to accept the wording of the Bible directly without the intercession of priests to experience Divine ecxtasy and had succeeded to such an extent through Louis XIV's 2nd wife,Madame De Maintenon that the jesuits and their arch-enemies the jansenists conspired to "manufacture" evidence to enlighten that most bigoted of monarchs who had,in evil hour,revoked the Edict of Nantes{granted to protestants in the 1590's by a former protestant,king Henry IV,who,upon changing his faith remarked in easy going fashion"Paris is worth a mass"} in 1685,which deprived Protestants freedom of worship and imposed very heavy fines upon them with the result that the "brain trust"of France emigated in droves to Holland,England and America.

The history of organised religion as a faith and a state tool of spiritual and political dominion makes a fascinating study,I can recommend many well written,enlightening tomes on the subject.

__________________

[QUOTE=
The history of organised religion as a faith and a state tool of spiritual and political dominion makes a fascinating study,I can recommend many well written,enlightening tomes on the subject.[/QUOTE]

In all your reading, have you ever found an occasion where the church sought political power, and then exercised with reatraint, and for the benefit of people?
I believe the desire for power is so corrupting that even wise people misuse it when they have unlimited power. I think of Jean Calvin's experiment in Geneva. That he was a wise, godly man and prolific author is beyond doubt. But even he gave in to the seduction of political power. Political power must be restrained.

Grave robber.....................

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

yeah,there are so many people dying to get in they had to lock the gates......

__________________

That pretty well sums-up human frailty. It is exactly that seduction that Tolkein described in the Ring books. But Tolkein also described enobling choices made by Man. These are just as real and powerful as those that man willfully choses that debase him. It is in the free choice of how to live one's life that we learn the best and worst that we hold in potential in an unchallenged life.

The problem with the view that the cause of the corruption of religion is political power, is that it doesn't acknowledge that religion itself is a form of power. Since it is, it is subject to the same problems as political power. Robertson is a good example. Seeking religious power is as equally problematical as seeking political power. It may even be worse because politicians can resort to a realpolitik justification for their quest for power, whereas the pious justifications of power in religion haves a strong tendency to delude religious power seekers into thinking they are pious.
A strong case can be made that the history of Christianity, is to a large extent, the history of the worship of power. One of the most prominent aspects of God in Christianity is omnipotence. God is so powerful, that whatever God says goes. He can even tell people to kill their children (Abraham) and still be considered good because he is powerful enough to define good.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I see corruption as being far worse amoung the atheists....


greed for power is a human condition....not a religious issue.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche