Jump to content

Vatican accepts evolution theory


BlueLancer

Recommended Posts

I know 25% of americans are catholics so this should be quite some news.

 

 

 

http://www.stnews.org/commentary-2087.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since July, when Cardinal Christoph SchÃÆÃâÃâönborn of Vienna wrote an essay in The New York Times that seemed to support intelligent design, weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve reported on how the Catholic Church has struggled to clarify its views on evolution vis-ÃÆÃâÃâà-vis intelligent design. Last month we reported SchÃÆÃâÃâönbornÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s climb-down, and now comes news from the Vatican itself that evolution, when defined in anti-materialistic terms, has its full support. Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press reports:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Vatican cardinal said yesterday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, and warned that religion risks turning into ''fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Paul Poupard, a Frenchman who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a project to help end the ''mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has been an issue for the Roman Catholic Church, and that is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Poupard reminded the faithful to learn the lessons of Galileo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines," Poupard said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But he said that science, too, should listen to religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason, and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer," he added, ''just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reference:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VATICAN CITY -- A Vatican cardinal said yesterday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, and warned that religion risks turning into ''fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Paul Poupard, a Frenchman who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a project to help end the ''mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has been an issue for the Roman Catholic Church, and that is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from ''tragic mutual incomprehension."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus's discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed the Earth at the center of the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines," Poupard said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But he said that science, too, should listen to religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason, and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer," he added, ''just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poupard and others were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and ''intelligent design."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rev. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti of the Vatican project Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, affirmed Pope John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was ''more than just a hypothesis."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''Evolution is more than a hypothesis," Basti said, ''because there is proof."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well put. Now, I'm not a believer in the Christian God himself, or the Catholic belief, but I can clearly see how science explains how (through evolution) while there is plenty of allowance for people wanting to believe why or whom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure who you mean by 'they', but it seems the Vatican is hardly saying Intelligent Design is not a good idea? It's just telling people to keep an open mind, also towards science. Which is always a good idea, I think :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Edit: apparently they realized exactly what you just said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1719.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure who you mean by 'they', but it seems the Vatican is hardly saying Intelligent Design is not a good idea? It's just telling people to keep an open mind, also towards science. Which is always a good idea, I think :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Edit: apparently they realized exactly what you just said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1719.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bleh, that's the second time a topic title (remember rick's last topic on this) has been exaggerated and led me astray... guess I should read the whole article next time :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(topic title says that the Vatican rejected I.D)

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont mean to offend anyone here, (sorry if i do, cuz i dont mean it at all)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but could it be that the vatican is just accepting the idea of evolution really just because it has no other evidence to prove against it? i mean isn't this how all historical conflicts went?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a long time ago, life was based almost completely around religion. scientists who introduced ideas that went against the church, they were condemned for it. but as people began realizing the truth in these, they slowly began accepting them and realizing that it the world is actually not what their religion said it was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so imo, this is just another one of those things when the church realizes that science is right again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but could it be that the vatican is just accepting the idea of evolution really just because it has no other evidence to prove against it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's saying people need to take science seriously. It's not stating there is no proof against it (because there is, though not as much as there is proof for it), it just says that they recognise it as a good scientific theory. Which is hardly 'accepting the idea of evolution because everything else is crappier' (free after what you just said).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueLancer, could you please edit your topic title? I'm aware that it ain't your fault that people can't be ...ed to read the articles you link and quote, but your topic title seems a bit exaggerated, and tuning it down a bit may get us replies that actually understand what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design belongs in a Theology class so if a school decided to include that in their curriculum then that's where they should teach it, there's nothing scientific about it and doesn't belong in a science class.

image1ne5.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's sad how they still haven't realized that Intelligent Design and Evolution go perfectly hand-in-hand. Intelligent Design merely says who, while evolution says how. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design belongs in a Theology class so if a school decided to include that in their curriculum then that's where they should teach it, there's nothing scientific about it and doesn't belong in a science class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree 100%

The ID movement is orchestrated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a subdivision of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID states that if something is complicated then a higher power made it (i wish algerbra was that easy x=x and y=y lol)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution states that if life changes ethor by a mutation of sexualreproduction and can live easer its gona pass that stuff to its kids (so if you can breath water and then your kids may be able to also and if the air goes away then more power to you)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Catholics do things like this all the time, such as with Lilith Adams first wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who was sent out of the garden of edan because she wanted to be on top during sex. Then Eve was created out of one of Adams Ribs. This goes against divorce and having sex for pleasure so catholics cut this out of the modern day Bible. So if you read an old Bible (as in a thousand years old) or the Torah it is infact in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then Lilith and all her children were to be forever cursed on earth (yay). She then snuck back in the Garden and SHE TEMTED EVE into taking the apple from the tree of knowlage. This is infact why when you look at old pictures of the Garden of Eden, the snake (cursed Lilith) has a womens head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God (being angry) Kicked adams and Eves arse and banished them from the Garden of Eden. Lilith was scared and fled. When God found her God turned her into the angel of death. Who is the one that kills the first born of every child in Eygpt during the seven plauges of Moses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So infact the Vatican has being covering alot up for a long wile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry if i have up set any ones faith in posting this article, but i am only sharing my views and telling what i know and i am infact a christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peace out :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the idea Hannibal, I changed the subject to a more appropriate one. 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About that issue in Texas: I don't think it's even worth debating. This stuff is so stupid there are no limits, who to blame then when americans don't know anything about science? I seriously doubt any american teacher's association has a higher word on this, and cardinals and archbishops have already said the creation story or the Bible should not be taken literally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅWe should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Catholics do things like this all the time, such as with Lilith Adams first wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who was sent out of the garden of edan because she wanted to be on top during sex. Then Eve was created out of one of Adams Ribs. This goes against divorce and having sex for pleasure so catholics cut this out of the modern day Bible. So if you read an old Bible (as in a thousand years old) or the Torah it is infact in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then Lilith and all her children were to be forever cursed on earth (yay). She then snuck back in the Garden and SHE TEMTED EVE into taking the apple from the tree of knowlage. This is infact why when you look at old pictures of the Garden of Eden, the snake (cursed Lilith) has a womens head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, this is the first time I have ever heard of a story like this. Second, some basic research online proves that this in fact not included in the Torah, the holy scriptures of both the Jewish and Christian belief, but a popular rabbi myth (so a story that became a tradition referenced by rabbi, teachers of the Jewish faith). Had it truly been part of the bible, than I would have read it when I read the 'Vulgata' bible, which is the Latin translation of the bible done just after the rise of Christianity in 382 AD (fyi, that's more than a thousand years old, so I think your previous post was off by, say, about a thousand years. For an original hebrew bible, you'd want something dating back to before the birth of Jesus, and maybe even earlier to find such a myth if it was maliciously removed, as you propose). I actually understand Latin, and in class we translated the passages in Genesis in which this woman would have been mentioned. There was no such mention, and I find it hard to believe several sources are lying about this matter, AND I find it hard to believe that the church was against sex-for-pleasure at such an early stage, because it was a common thing in the Roman empire of that time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, this 'Lilith' would have been a far better way of depicting the 'evilness' of women, should you so consider, than the eating of the apple by Eve (who arguably was misled, instead of willingly wanting to do something evil). The jewish myth continues to make Lilith some kind of evil demon - this would be far better propagenda than the church could have wished itself for the rather anti-feminine attitude it had in those days. So I find it hard to believe the church would want to hide such a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also can't find any sources where she presented the apple to Eve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, the reason the snake has a (wo)man's head is because at that time, it could talk (it spoke to Eve). After God found out what happened, he cursed the snake to bite the woman's heels, and the woman to trample the snake's head. He/She/It also cursed the snake not to speak anymore (which it did previously), so it could no longer try to mislead mankind into evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't find any reputable sources that confirm this to be a part of the bible. Where did you get this from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Rabbinic Talmud, Adam had a wife before Eve, whose name was Lilith. Her story seems to have been invented to reconcile the different creation myths of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. In chapter 1, man and woman are created out of the earth; but in chapter 2, Adam is alone, and so God makes Eve from his rib. The rabbis began with the Biblical reference to man's first creation as a bisexual being: male and female He [God] created them [the first human]. Some of the rabbis found in this image something similar to what Aristophanes proposed in the Symposium: a dual bodied being later divided into two who must thereafter seek each other out. But others tried to take into account the later creation of Eve detailed further on in the text. If woman was created from Adam, after his initial creation, than what happened to the female created at first? The answer, according to the Midrash, was that she was Lilith; created with Adam, she refused to comply with Adam's demand that she submit herself to him, and in the end fled from him by using the Ineffable Name. Adam then complained to God about his loneliness, and the creation of Eve followed, together with the Fall and the Expulsion from Eden. Adam, blaming this on Eve, separated from her, and for a time reunited with Lilith, before finally returning to Eve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.wintersteel.com/files/Images/Adam_and_Eve.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/AdamNeve/paradise.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Jewish and Islamic tradition, Lilith was the original wife of Adam; she was turned out of Eden and replaced by Eve because she refused to submit to his authority. Lilith slept with Adam after his expulsion from the garden and gave birth to the evil spirits; in Islamic tradition, she slept with the devil and gave birth to the jinn (Jinni).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also get your Bible out and read Isaiah 34:14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wild animals will roam there and demons will call to each other. The night monsters will come looking for a place to rest. (These night monsters are desribed as a feamole demon living in desolate places

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But read the whole of Isaiah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because Liliths children (being the mother of demons) is cursed to forever eat there own kind (vampires) and the Europeans about 1000 years ago saw owls as evil, because when a owl flys over you you can t hear it.

 

 

 

So owls were the (original) symbol of vampires and in Isiah 34:15 it mentions Owls will build their nests, lay eggs, hatch their young and care for them there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SO it mentions Liliths children breeding and then later the Lord will give them land witch will belong to them for ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jinn is also the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddad of JUDUS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.gelernter.com/images/Lilith%202.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.weirdload.com/art/lilith2.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.fib.se/lilith.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. The rabbinic Talmud is not part of the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You still didn't tell us where you get that wonderfully copy-pasted text from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And whatever Islamic or Jewish religion says about Lilith is beside the point. It was never and probably will never be in the Christian bible, not because the church wanted it kept out but because it was never in there in the first place. Whatever the islamic religion (founded roughly 800 years after christianity) or the jewish tradition (founded roughly 4000 years before christianity) say of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You give a lot of very circumstancial evidence revolving around the single interpretation of one bible verse. Witches and vampires were associated with owls in the ancient Roman and Romanian cultures about 2000 years ago, not 1000... this is because the literal words for them were similar. (note also that Romanian, unlike most languages in use in Eastern europe, is not a slavic language but a language descending from latin, ie, it is similar to French and Spanish rather than Polish, Czech or Slovakian, hence the word similarity).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One last final point, which is not pretty. You are claiming this whole story about Lilith as if it is absolute thruth, and the Vatican is pure evil for excluding it. You are basing yourself on Jewish and Islamic sources. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's immediately 100% true. There are people around who claim that the gas chambers in world war 2 concentration camps were actually improving the jews' health, increasing their chances to make it out of the camps alive (I kid you not). While I'm certainly not going to compare your opinion to this one, it does show that mindlessly accepting an opinion as truth is dangerous. I still haven't seen conclusive evidence, rather, I have seen a lot of speculating and more and more evidence (you even literally said it yourself!) that this text was never in the bible nor in the Torah (of which the Talmud is not a part). Hence, it is completely stupid to say that the Vatican is to blame for this myth to appear in the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, the last three images in your post come from dubious 'artistic' websites and culture movies. They are hardly 1000 years old, or guaranteed to be an accurate depiction of Lilith, if she ever existed. The first two pictures are indeed old (though one is, once again, from a dubious site about ghost-hunting and paranormal activities) but on both of those paintings the creature still shows definite snake-like characteristics. Like I said, according to the bible, the snake could talk, and talked Eve into taking the forbidden fruit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I'm definitely not a die-hard Christian or anything - I think the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Maria of Magdalen might have been better off being included in the bible, for example. I don't agree with the Vatican on their general opinion on AIDS and preconception, nor on some of their views about abortion and/or euthanasia. This topic was not discussing that, however. The point of the topic was that the Vatican took a very brave step in recognizing the importance of modern science. Which is really really good news, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright the new york times eh? dont believe the new york times you have learned nothing in this world. you may read but that dont mean its true now if i really wanted too see if the vatican accepted it i would watch ewtn the catholic program that would tell me if they did accept. now this challen can be found on 87 or 111 depends on cable anyways if they did accept it they would have a program on concerning this issue.... i bid you all a farewell and may you condemn no one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Catholics do things like this all the time, such as with Lilith Adams first wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who was sent out of the garden of edan because she wanted to be on top during sex. Then Eve was created out of one of Adams Ribs. This goes against divorce and having sex for pleasure so catholics cut this out of the modern day Bible. So if you read an old Bible (as in a thousand years old) or the Torah it is infact in there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then Lilith and all her children were to be forever cursed on earth (yay). She then snuck back in the Garden and SHE TEMTED EVE into taking the apple from the tree of knowlage. This is infact why when you look at old pictures of the Garden of Eden, the snake (cursed Lilith) has a womens head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God (being angry) Kicked adams and Eves arse and banished them from the Garden of Eden. Lilith was scared and fled. When God found her God turned her into the angel of death. Who is the one that kills the first born of every child in Eygpt during the seven plauges of Moses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So infact the Vatican has being covering alot up for a long wile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry if i have up set any ones faith in posting this article, but i am only sharing my views and telling what i know and i am infact a christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peace out :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it isn't. http://www.wikipedia.org

tomato1ry.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol ive just read what ive pasted, still it was a nice idea though :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like the Lilith story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i admit i was wrong thanks for proving me wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you have made me look like an idiot which i only have my self to blame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alot of the things a put in there i had not checked to be 100 percent correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing i was a bit pissed off with was you mentioned about the consentration camps, i understand you were using it as an example that i shouldnt believe every thing i read but i dont think it was very nessesery to do so as it hurt me inside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

see ya all soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all hyped up media bull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever since Pope Pius XII letter "Encyclican Humanis: Generis" in 1950, the Catholic Church had already basically accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. His letter stated that evolution is a more likely creation process than the world being made in 7 days, but insisted on the instant creation of the human soul (the intangible, conscious dimenson of a person existing beyond time and space) by God. But he also said that Darwin's theory was plausible and had too many holes in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you dare call me a liar :evil: I've been studying Darwinism and Catholicism for the whole year and I know all about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to know more, read Pierre Teilhard De Chardin's book called "Synthesis of Christianity and Evolution", where Chardin makes clear connections and links between the Catholic Church's metaphoric telling of the creation process in the bible, and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright the new york times eh? dont believe the new york times you have learned nothing in this world. you may read but that dont mean its true now if i really wanted too see if the vatican accepted it i would watch ewtn the catholic program that would tell me if they did accept. now this challen can be found on 87 or 111 depends on cable anyways if they did accept it they would have a program on concerning this issue.... i bid you all a farewell and may you condemn no one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, the "media lies". Congrats for just learning something related to this subject in school today, I can clearly see you're applying your knowledge the wrong way though. New York times isn't just read in the States, it is internationally recognised (besides, I don't think I even linked to one single site that points to the NY Times... Did I?) and has readership in Europe and Asia too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, media criticism is needed but you need to know how to analyze stories. Even if I quoted the NY times, it is nearly impossible that they would state inaccurate info. It would be all over the news in the rest of the world and ruin the publishing company. Besides, I found this story in a British newspaper, not an american one. I can also give you a bunch of other reliable newspaper sites that have written about this subject.

 

 

 

This is all hyped up media bull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is recent news (correct me if I'm wrong but some of the news quoted here are just over a week old), and I don't think it's 'bull' at all. As said above it's a rather brave step towards a more realistic perception of religion than a 'negative' thing. There's only so much time in the world you can try to live under a rock, and it's spectacular that an institution so conservative as the catholic church (!) would finally take a giant step towards finding a real truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.