Impressive stuff from the pope, which is nothing that I contradicted nor disagree with.
In fact, contrary to the point you are trying to make, in attempting to contradict me, is that the Pope doesn't believe there is a creator. No where does the Pope say there is no creator. In fact, he argues that humans are a special creation of God and concludes this point: "Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. " I didn't say evolution wasn't true. What I said is that teaching evolution apart from the areas were it fails to deliver answers, such as first cause, and the improbability of spontaneous existance, is a disservice to students. Evolution, like any theory (otherwise it would be a law), has holes. It is an incomplete explanation of our existance. H. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:21:34 -0500 >Theory and unproven? What the f**k do you want for supporting evidence. >There are literally mountains of supporting evidence. No other field of >scientific study has been so minutely investigated and whose results >uniformly support the theory. > >There is no reliable data that does not support evolution. None. There have >been forgery attempts - the vast majority by well meaning fanatics - but >there is no real evidence that contradicts Evolution. > >Where is the fossil evidence for creationism (or in my mind creatinism)? How >about for any real contradictory evidence for evolution (see above). > >A wave of the hands and poof does not make a scientific explanation. That is >the basis of creationism. It has the same validity as saying that there are >pink unicorns around that are responsible. You just cannot see them or >measure them. You just have to take it on faith that they are there. > >Also evolution has nothing to do with religion. Creationism is the product >of an extremist branch of one religion. Hell even popes as far back as Pope >Pius IX support evolution in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching >Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present >state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on >the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the >doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human >body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." > >More recently Pope John Paul released quite a few statements supporting >evolution. For a good discussion of this see: >http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html. For >the actual text of his statements, http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm >- > >to quote: " new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution >more than a hypothesis." > >To quote a relevant part of the article on www.catholic.net: >-- >In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly >stated that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." At first, some critics of >evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated into English here. What he >really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the recognition >of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English >language edition of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to >concur, until a corrected translation was published. John Paul II did say >evolution was "more than a hypothesis," according to the paper. > >In any event, it seems clear that the pope thinks evolution is supported, at >least to some extent, by the evidence. Noting various discoveries and >evolution's progressive acceptance by "researchers," he concluded, "The >convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was >conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this >theory." > >Perhaps John Paul II was making a subtle distinction, sometimes made by >philosophers of science, between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis, on >this view, is simply a possible explanation of a phenomenon; a theory is an >explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and >research. The pope appears to think there's evidence to support evolution, >hence it is "more than a hypothesis." >.. > >When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed, >it should be challenged on those grounds. But when a view of evolution >doesn't contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with >what John Paul II calls "the truth about man"-then its validity depends on >the scientific evidence. Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or >undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so >on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds. > > >That distinction will, no doubt, displease those who think the theory of >evolution not only scientifically false but theologically erroneous. Little >can be said to persuade Fundamentalist Protestants otherwise. But Catholics >who criticize Pope John Paul II for not condemning evolution should recall >Pope Pius XII's now half-century old teaching, and avoid trying, in their >anti-evolutionary fervor, to be more Catholic than the pope. >-- > >A suggestion, read the definitions of what makes a scientific theory, >perhaps you'll understand the absurdity of your final argument. I'll give >you a hint, everything is a theory, even gravity. > >But here's a very good site that explains evolution and creationism. > >http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/resevol.html > >larry > >-- >Larry C. Lyons >ColdFusion/Web Developer >Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer >EBStor.com >8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 >Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 >tel: (703) 393-7930 >fax: (703) 393-2659 >Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. >-- > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:37 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Religious argument in the US... Why? >> >> >> In response to Larry and Jon: >> >> The reason it is the Law of Gravity is that gravity is real >> and proven. The >> reason that is the Law of Thermodynamics is that it is real and it is >> proven. The reason it is the Theory of Evolution is that it >> is a theory and >> unproven. >> >> And it's unproven for a reason. You can't prove the improvable. You >> certainly can't prove a theory that has ample holes in it. >> And the biggest >> hole is, what is the first cause? Scientists can't answer >> that question. >> >> And I believe and am convinced beyond doubt through all >> possible reasoning >> and human understanding, there is only but one answer as to >> the first cause, >> and that is God. It was not until I came to understand, not >> just believe, >> that there was only one logical answer, that I was able to become a >> Christian. My faith is not based on some pie in the sky, >> emotional response >> to some event. My faith is logical, well reasoned and backed >> by scientific >> and historical evidence. Creation is not a myth. It is an answer. >> >> So, are you going to call me ignorant and narrow minded? >> >> When you go around spouting those kinds of insults, you are >> going to get >> people riled. The smartest, best educated people I am >> personally friends >> with are all Christians. That's not to say there are not >> terribly bright >> people who are atheists and Jews and Muslims and what not. >> I'm saying being >> smart and well educated and being a Christian are not >> mutually exclusive >> states of being. >> >> Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not exactly far representatives of >> Christianity or even fundamentalism (I'm not a >> fundamentalist, btw, I'm >> evangelical -- a Nazarene, as for sect). They are money >> grubbers and media >> mongers. They do not represent nor speak for the majority of >> Christians nor >> even a majority of fundamentalists. They just have the >> loudest voices. The >> loudest voices always get the majority of the press coverage. >> You never hear >> from the majority of Christians in this country because they >> are largely >> quiet people. >> >> As for what should be taught, creationism, as broadly >> defined, need not be >> taught as a Christian theory or a Hindu theory, but just >> honestly. We do not >> know how the universe began. Some people believe it started >> spontaneously. >> Some people believe that a creator, a being greater than ourselves is >> responsible. Some people believe this creator is God. >> Mathematically, the >> odds of spontaneity are almost to mind boggling to even >> contemplate, which >> is why even some of our brightest scientists believe in a creator. >> >> Evolution is a theory folks. Only a theory. And it should be >> taught as a >> theory. To teach it otherwise is intellectually dishonest and >> to teach our >> children to embrace ignorance about their universe. >> >> H. >> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
