The point I am trying to make is that Catholicism fully accepts evolution.
something that you do not understand, and I am beginning to wonder if you will understand. At no point does evolution address such things as first cause, and the improbability of spontaneous existence, life, the universe and everything, etc etc,. The reason for this is that NOW READ VERY CAREFULLY HERE these things are beyond science and scientific research. Accordingly they are not addressed. These are matters that are dealt with in a separate realm, that of religion. Science is something else entirely. Evolution simply says that things change over time. These changes are predictable based on certain mechanisms. Where does evolutionary theory talk about the first cause etc? In a nutshell evolution doesn't explain these, it cannot. These things are irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Is that clear or do I have to simplify things further? 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: Howard Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:06 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Religious argument in the US... Why? > > > 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/Artic > le3.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. > >> > >> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
