Evolution? How?

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".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Quote:

"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".

I'll try to be careful in using sarcasm around you, Ros.

So I'll speak plainly. You may consider cichlids "evolving" into cichlids as smoking gun type evidence of evolution. I do not.

Was it an intelligent design,which would have no difficulty with your thesis,repetitive though it is,or are you and me and everybody else,including your nearest and dearest,the result of a random accident without meaning or purpose?

Now there's a wagon of false dichotomy drawn by a team of straw men - great job. Meaningless, but a great job of getting to meaningless none the less.

real life wrote:

I'll try to be careful in using sarcasm around you, Ros.

So I'll speak plainly. You may consider cichlids "evolving" into cichlids as smoking gun type evidence of evolution. I do not.

Then you are simply wrong.

I'll try to be careful in using sarcasm around you, Ros.

Well, I guess you've settled it, haven't you? Impressive, indeed.

You're up against the power of the Vatican, real. Watch out! Torquemada will get ya!

neologist wrote:

You're up against the power of the Vatican, real. Watch out! Torquemada will get ya!

Torquemada operated in Spain. The rules of canon legal procedure required that the officers of a canon court be resident in the dioceses in which a religious crime--be it impious or heretical--was alleged to have taken place. Therefore, Torquemada had no authority in Rome.

Not only do the anti-evolutionists claim to know more about science than the finest minds on earth, they can now also claim to be better informed on theological matters than the centre of theological study.

...how does this kind of conflict translate into a social war, like that being waged over the role of science? Part of the answer lies in fundamentalists' needs to bolster group identity by reframing their beliefs in the terms of the dominant culture [secular, scientific culture]. Savage points out, a certain level of evidence is generally required in order for knowledge to count and for individuals to act on it. Fundamentalists respond by attempting to "prove" their core beliefs: they "science-up" their faith, framing it in a way that they think ought to make sense to a scientific culture. Their claims then become, in their eyes at least, as valid as science's claims...

However, this tactic has backfired, with damaging consequences. According to James Barr, professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and author of a number of books critical of Christian fundamentalism, these ... have produced a "deep intellectual self-distrust" that shows iutself in an insatiable craving for intellectual credibility. That is why creationists strive to have a debate with scientists, and why they trumpet any academic qualifications they might possess. It may also explain why, for instance, George Gilder, a senior fellow of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute in Seattle, invokes the uncertainty principle of quantum theory to shore up a faith-based philosophy.

But to no avail. according to Barr, fundamentalists have failed to gain intellectual acceptance even within mainstream Christian scholarship. Because the fundamentalists come to the Bible with a partisan agenda, they are unable to offer any striking insights. As a result, fundamentalist biblical scholarship is "sterile", he says. Fundamentalist Christianity is widely considered as irrelevant to modern theology as it is to modern science.

And that, for the fundamentalists, is a terrible blow. Irrelevance is not something that people with this group psychology can tolerate. A movement that considers itself a key player in the greatest story ever told can't afford to be perceived as peripheral.

At this point, the desperation sets in.

Source: "Meeting of minds" written by Michael Brooks for New Scientist. 8 October 2005, p.44

You're up against the power of the Vatican, real. Watch out! Torquemada will get ya!

"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, and don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin, and I'm not saying they will. But if they do, just remember you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, then don't ask for his help, because he might not be there."

real life wrote:

I'll try to be careful in using sarcasm around you, Ros.

Quote:

Well, I guess you've settled it, haven't you? Impressive, indeed.

Well THAT lasted awhile.

neologist wrote:

You're up against the power of the Vatican, real. Watch out! Torquemada will get ya!

Would you rather hear from fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson?

Quote:

"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, and don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin, and I'm not saying they will. But if they do, just remember you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, then don't ask for his help, because he might not be there."

Back to this stuff again? C'mon everyone! Show the love today!