I had said that I would find proof that Pope John Paul II (Karol Josef Wojtyla) accepted the Theory of Evolution, and here is why:

====================================================================== (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/10-96/es10-24-96.html) Verbatim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

REUTER INFORMATION SERVICE - Thursday 24 October 1996

Pope accepts theory of evolution

Copyright ) 1996 Nando.net Copyright ) 1996 Reuter Information Service

VATICAN CITY (Oct 24, 1996 09:31 a.m. EDT) - Pope John Paul has lent his support to the theory of evolution, proclaming it compatible with Christian faith in a step welcomed by scientists but likely to raise howls from the religious right.

The Pope's recognition that evolution is "more than just a theory" came in a written message he sent on Wednesday to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body of experts that advises the Roman Catholic Church on scientific issues.

It broke new ground by acknowledging that the theory of the physical evolution of man and other species through natural selection and hereditary adaptation appeared to be valid.

Though the Pope made clear he regarded the human soul as of immediate divine creation, and so not subject to the process, his remarks brought banner headlines in the Italian press.

"Pope says we may descend from monkeys," the conservative newspaper Il Giornale said on its front page. La Repubblica said the Pope had "made peace with Darwin".

The theory of evolution, most notably expounded by the 19th century English naturalist Charles Darwin, had until now been viewed by the Catholic Church as serious and worthy of discussion but still an open question.

"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken roots in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge," the Pope said.

"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

The theories of Darwin and other evolutionists about man's origins were for long anethema to theologians, who saw a conflict with the biblical account of creation in the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Most theologians no longer believe that the doctrine that God created the world and made man in his own image and the theory of evolution stand in each other's way.

Fundamentalist Christians who take a literal approach to Genesis, known as "creationists," have however recently reopened the controversy, especially in the southern United States.

In Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes was famously fined $100 by a court in 1925 for teaching evolution in his classroom in what became known as the Monkey Trial, a bill that would have banned teaching evolution as fact was narrowly voted down in the state of legislature earlier this year.

The Vatican's first substantive response to the theories of evolution was contained in the encyclical, Humani Generis, written in 1950 by the late Pope Pius XII.

It cited no objection to discussing evolution while cautioning that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to cut God out of the equation.

Pope John Paul has previously endorsed the 1950 document. He said on Wednesday that its essential point was that "if the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."

But he also said: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."

The Pope's acknowledgement was welcomed as a significant advance by scientists, even though some said it had come late.

"It will allow many Catholic scientists, who have been engaged for some time in research on human evolution, to continue their work without any censure or difficulty," said Francesco Barone, a leading Italian scientific philosopher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know the pope's fate has thus been sealed in his believing in a theory proven false years and years ago (see Dr Kent Hovind's VERY excellent Web Site: http://drdino.com/). If the pope is to be the "Vicar" of Christ, then he should be speaking exactly what Christ would be speaking, and NO! Christ would not be accepting evolution. I shake my head. Only prayers can do good. Please visit that Web Site, for everyone on this forum will find it very interesting, and I do indeed suggest that you download that 56 minute seminar for RealPlayer, for he gives key points on pointing evolution incorrect, and much more.

May God bless you all, and my prayers always to my fellow brethren.

Much love always in the name of God our Father, in the name of Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 28, 2000

Answers

Dear friends in Christ,
When a person has a bias against another person or institution (e.g., the Catholic Church), he may be willing to believe anything negative that he reads or hears about the subject of his prejudice. Or he may be willing to jump to unwarranted conclusions through the use of logical fallacies. I fear that such errors have happened yet again. An anonymous person offers us a media article as "proof that Pope John Paul II ... accepted the Theory of Evolution ..."

The first thing to be noted is that the article quoted is from Reuters via Nando. These are secular media centers, who cannot be expected to report facts about Catholicism with perfect accuracy and without a "spin" of some kind. In the case of a papal statement or document, it is better to go to the sources (www.vatican.va, l'Osservatore Romano, etc.) and to obtain further information (explanations, opinions, etc.) from people who are both knowledgeable and friendly toward the pope.

I imagine that the single statement that misled the most people (including a certain anonymous one) is the following (mis)translation, quoted in the post above: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis"

But what he actually said was correctly translated as follows: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution."

So what does the Church -- and the current pope -- have to say about evolution? In response to questions on this subject, an eminent and well-informed Catholic thinker made the following reply, subsequent to the pope's statement:

(from Dr. Richard Geraghty) "... Catholics must believe that the human race descended from an original pair called [in Genesis] Adam and Eve, who committed the original sin and passed it on to their descendents. The Church has no teaching on whether or not Adam and Eve descended by evolution from apes, etc. or whether they [i.e., their bodies] were created directly from the hand of God. These matters are scientific matters and, hence, must be settled by scientific evidence [if it can be found -- and it probably never will be (JFG)]. No matter what scientific theory one holds, however, a Catholic must believe that the entire universe was created from nothing. A Catholic must also hold that each individual human soul is created directly by God. So a Catholic may think as the scientific evidence dictates on these matters, as long as he does throw in doubt the basic Catholic beliefs."

Let us suppose that the current pope leans in a certain direction, based on scientific evidence. You can be sure that he would never attempt to require any other Catholic to lean in that direction.

Finally, I wish to recommend that all visit the following site, where we can read the correct translation of the actual papal statement:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
May the Lord give you His peace. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2000.

Please pardon the typographical error in the last sentence of the quotation from Dr. Geraghty. I feel sure that you supplied the missing word -- "not" -- without which the sentence is ridiculous. Here is the corrected sentence, with the inserted word in bold type:
"So a Catholic may think as the scientific evidence dictates on these matters, as long as he does notthrow in doubt the basic Catholic beliefs."
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2000.

This issue has been discussed in other threads.

My only concern would be that if the Pope genuinely said these things, then he is fundamentally changing his idea of God.

You cannot attribute the creation of the body to Evolution and attribute the creation of the soul to God unless you want to downgrade God from a creator to an interventionist. The Theory of Evolution is fundamentally reductionist; either body and soul were created by God, or they evolved. You cannot have it both ways.

Galileo was strong enough to stand up to the Church when it told him one thing, but his own observations told him another. In some respects, Galileo is the founder of modern science based on observation.

The Theory of Evolution is also based on observation. The possibility of minor changes via natural selection is an indisputable fact. What is disputable is whether enough of these minor changes can produce a major change over a long enough period of time. There is no evidence for *that*, but there is plenty of hard evidence for the process on which these speculations are made.

What most reputable scientists will tell you (Christian and non- Christian) is that the Theory of Evolution is science' best explanation for our origin. They will confess to the gaps in the Theory, but all of them will tell you that the account in Genesis is literally false. The argument about teaching Evolution in schools is about teaching something based on science which might be true versus teaching something which is not based on science and is literally false. Make people aware of the Creation myth by all means, but don't do it in a science class.

I read once that one of the geologists (a pastor) working on the Niagra falls in the 19th Century didn't know what to do when his observations conflicted with the Bible & Church told him. He calculated that the falls must have taken at least 12'000 years to move from their origin to their present position. His calculations were based on the composition and structure of the surrounding rocks at the origin, and the rate at which the present falls were eating away at the(similar) rocks in their current position. This man was a Christian, but his own eyes were telling him that the world was *not* created in 4004 BC. He kept his findings secret lest he upset the authorities.

Most of the biologists, geologists, and paleontologists who work with the Theory of Evolution are not evil Communist Un-American subversives. Quite a few of them are Christians, and they not out to disprove the existence of God. Galileo wasn't interested in disproving the existence of God, but he saw no reason why he should stick to scripture when common sense told him otherwise.

[ I know that there is some scripture that disproves the Copernican model ]

My experience of Creationists haven't been exactly positive - they seem hellbent on picking, choosing, and perverting whatever science they need to promote their ideas. I have never seen a Evolution refuting document from a respectable source. Reading a book from the Creation Resource Foundation is like reading a book on the Holocaust by a White Supremacist. I just don't trust them... sorry.

I think the Theory of Evolution is problematic for the Church (it is for me), but instead of dealing with problem many Christians just accuse Darwinists of having ulterior motives. Some of them do, but a lot of them don't. Maybe I shouldn't think about such things, but to my mind the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is a much more plausible explanation of my origin than the Book of Genesis. Of course this wreaks havoc with any amount of faith I might still have left (I wish it was all nonsense), but I am sick of people telling me I have to delude myself into believing the unbelievable. People don't believe in the possibility of Evolution because they are atheists; they believe it because it makes sense.

Deal with it.

-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), January 28, 2000.

Anonymous, you are the absolute limit.

You cite a Reuter's News Service story FROM Vatican City as "Proof From the Vatican." I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ahhhh, I'm feeling pretty jolly today...I think I'll laugh ;-D.

Click here for our prior discussion on this topic...

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 28, 2000.

Please note that in his address the Pope categorically condemned Darwinism, not by name by definition.

It's interesting, Matthew, that you find macro-evolution so compelling. Have you noticed the scramble in scientific circles to prop up Darwinism in the face of attacks on the theory from within the scientific community? I'm thinking specifically of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis." I think you give evolutionary theory way too much sway; the questions it cannot answer are far greater than the questions it can. And no, I'm not a "creationist" in the sense that I believe in six literal creation days and a 10,000 year old universe. Neither did such Catholic luminaries as St. Augustine, BTW. In fact, Augustine actually believed in a kind of "evolution," a sort of tendency toward spontaneous generation which God placed in all living beings (this would fit roughly with modern theories of "punctuated equilibrium".) I am not saying that the saint was necessarily correct; all I'm really pointing out is that there is a fairly ancient pedigree within Catholic belief for some different ways to look at the creation narrative and at God's act of creation (the same was true of the Aristotelian-Copernican controversy of Galileo's day too, BTW). What the pope said in his address was not particularly earth-shattering; it only seems that way to Christians who insist that the first chapters of Genesis can only be interpreted literally, a view which is undermined by details right within those chapters (hint: add up the activities that took place on the sixth "day" and see if you think that would fit into twenty-four hours.)

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 28, 2000.

I have little time as of present to respond, but first of all, I have no bias against the Catholic Church, for, in fact, this church has culminated in my family life ever since back to Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, who was crowned the Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day 800 by Pope Saint Leo III. From Charlemagne's line come two popes, both named Bruno: Pope Gregory V and Pope Saint Leo IX. To make it quick: you have to first understand (in response to the first reply) that a secular news article would indeed be the biased one, which would be obliged to find every little fault or pro to whatever they concur and agree on, and I think they would first find something as big and powerful as the Catholic church to spot something like this. What would you come to think? And there will certainly be opposition to this article, obviously, from those willing to back up the pope. Of course, he could have been forced to say this: a cardinal has written a book about other cardinals (of whom he gives pseudonyms) that are satinists, which was why Pope John Paul II has a firm belief that the next pope will have something to do with the antichrist, and I, of course, agree wholly with the pontiff on that matter (I need to find a source to that, for I have heard it from several sources, and need to ask my friend where he got that book). A conspiracy theory, in an odd sense. Also, if the Catholic church is to be the universal church, thus anti-narrow, I believe that Catholics the world over should come to realise the theory of evolution being incorrect (as it violates the first two laws of Thermodynamics, of one which states that all things go from order to disorder, not likewise, which the Big Bang Theory states. In fact, I believe in the "Big Bang" - God spoke it, and BANG!!! it came into existence). That article read that the theory of evolution is worthy of discussion, debates, etc, and that it is still in question. Still in question in the Catholic church? Hmm...where is the faith and trust in God? In the Holy Bible, His Living Word which He puts above Himself? Wow...I can make a good sermon out of this! I will come back later and see to more responses. God bless you all, and my prayers always! Never for a minute think I abhor or oppose the pope - just beliefs that one has, which one has already set within their hearts; I wonder if this also applies to a certain someone on this forum with whom I have had much discussion and debating with...

God bless you. 

Love always in Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 28, 2000.

Anonymous,

Do you know how to read, or just how to write?

I'm wondering because you do not seem to actually understand anything that is written in response to your postings.

<< Never for a minute think I abhor or oppose the pope - just beliefs that one has, which one has already set within their hearts; I wonder if this also applies to a certain someone on this forum with whom I have had much discussion and debating with... >>

Who, me? ;-D. It must be me, since I'm sure that description doesn't apply to you, Anonymous. So far all we've seen from you has been absolutely unbiased and objective. =:-O

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 28, 2000.

Dear David:

I read very carefully, as well as write, David, but is it you who pays attention to what has been written? Also, a question for you: do you believe in the miracles of Jesus? That is, for example, the loaves and the fishes? Giving sight to the blind? Raising the dead? If you believe these things, and you believe that, when Jesus said God made heaven and earth in six days and the seventh He rested, AND if you believe that Jesus is God incarnate, well? Then why can you not believe in the literal creation? Is it not possible for God to BANG! create something? Or does that only apply to: right here, on earth? Please, READ this! and please! think again what you are saying, David, for you, my brother, are not making very good sense. Oh, and, when are you to read my response? Hmm? I am waiting! I am dearly sorry for your lack of attentiveness.

God bless you.

Much love in Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 28, 2000.

Ladies and gentlemen:
Please permit me to suggest that we keep our answers brief, and that we stick to the objective matters being discussed (rather than engage in personal disputes.)

I think that something very basic about Catholicism is being misunderstood here. The Church has never definitively stated HOW creation occurred, in detail. Other than the brief sketch present at the beginning of Genesis, God did not choose to directly reveal anything -- probably because, to please Him, we need not know any more than that!

No Catholic is BOUND to believe for or against evolution. A Catholic is permitted to believe that creation took place in six 24-hour days, just as do certain non-Catholic Christians. The same Catholic is permitted to change his mind (having seen/heard something persuasive of a philosophical, biological, chemical, or archaeological nature), and he may start to believe that God could have used evolution as one of his "tools" in the process of creation, over six very long (figurative) "days."

The point is that no Catholic, regardless of his thoughts, for or against evolution, may call a differently-thinking Christian a heretic, since the Church has not made a binding pronouncement (and probably never will) about evolution.

As is so often the case, the dispute in this thread comes down to bibilical interpretation and authority. Simply put, the magisterium (teaching authority of pope and bishops) of the Catholic Church has the gift from the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture infallibly. This magisterium has so far judged that it is not necessary to declare a single interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Instead, she allows us to take the account literally or non-literally. People outside the Catholic Church, whether individual laymen, clergy, even bodies of Protestant "bishops," have no magisterium at all -- and thus, their interpretation of a scriptural passage may or may not be correct; it simply cannot be relied upon, because it is so terribly fallible (as most honest non-Catholic Christians even admit).

Consequently a non-Catholic person who comes to post here cannot have full confidence in any interpretation he makes from scripture -- whether that interpretation is theological, scientific, or otherwise. Thus, he should be ashamed to criticize, from a theological standpoint, any Catholic for taking a position for or against evolution. It would be perfectly fine for him to argue scientifically, but not theologically, against evolution. It would be absurd and grossly insulting for him to condemn a Catholic as a heretic for thinking that evolution may be factual.

Shalom. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 29, 2000.

<< Also, a question for you: do you believe in the miracles of Jesus? >>

Of course.

<< That is, for example, the loaves and the fishes? Giving sight to the blind? Raising the dead? >>

All of those, yes. And I also believe in the daily miracle in Catholic Churches around the world in which bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as He said and just as Christians have believed continuously throughout Church history.

<< If you believe these things, and you believe that, when Jesus said God made heaven and earth in six days and the seventh He rested, >>

Point of inquiry: Where did Jesus say this? It doesn't appear in my Bible anywhere.

<< AND if you believe that Jesus is God incarnate, >>

Yes, of course. This was first defined as dogma at Roman Catholic councils in the fourth and fifth centuries.

<< well? Then why can you not believe in the literal creation? Is it not possible for God to BANG! create something? Or does that only apply to: right here,on earth? >>

Anonymous, it is not a question of what God CAN do. He can do anything whatever He pleases and I have nothing to say about it. It is purely a question of what He HAS done. The witness of the first chapters of Genesis and the witness of God's creation do not support the idea of six literal days of creation, taking place some 10,000 years ago.

<< Please, READ this! and please! think again what you are saying, David, for you, my brother, are not making very good sense. >>

And you, my brother, need to stop patronizing me with all this "READ this! and please!" nonsense. Speak to me like a civilized human being, not a bug-eyed fundamentalist, and this conversation will be far more enjoyable for all of us.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 29, 2000.

By the way, Anonymous,

Since you were so gracious to acknowledge your plagiarism of James McCarthy in the other thread, will you be so gracious as to admit your ridiculous statement above that the Reuters News Service story constitutes "Proof from the Vatican" that the pope taught evolution? Wouldn't you say that your statement above is parallel to claiming that "the White House" admitted the president's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky simply because a news story to this effect from the Associated Press originated from "Washington D.C."?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 29, 2000.

David, Being a new revert i must say that I am finding in discussions with some Catholics that my conviction of no macro-evolution is looked upon as being childish and small minded. I do not believe and never will that man came from lower animals (apes). I do think that he created man and woman instantly and we have minor variations due to adaptation and DNA variations that God seeded in man. We have never found a missing link and wenever will unless planted by the deceit of Satan . I am glad that i am free to believe with faith and not my eyes and reason God's account of creation. I believe in all the miracles as historical events. what bothered me was that some of these people who claim evolution also claim that the miracles, like the loaves and the fishes anf Jonah actually did not occur as actual historical events, but simply stories that told of truths to primitive unsophisticated people. Many of them also tend to spiritualize other truths in the bible like the Virgin birth and of course the bodily resurrection. I guess this is why they view as nonscholarly the Catholics that believe the miracles as actual events. I view what they are doing as very dangerous to the faithful. I believe in the instant creation of body and soul. Human flesh is one kind, apes are another kind, birds are another kind. One kind did not turn into another kind. I do not want to be looked down upon by scholars of the church for what many believe to be true. One thing I keep coming back to was that before the fall creation was not cursed. I believe that to mean no death. i believe God would not lie to us either. The wages of sin is death.. Before the sin of Adam creation didn't suffer and die. to have many years of evolution you would have to say God lied about the cause of the curse of creation and death. I do think that a longer day could have been possible, but not death to anything until the fall.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), January 29, 2000.

The pope's statement doesn't seem to say that he beleives in evolution. It just seems to say that he believes that both ideas could coexist.

When God created man he gave us a choice to believe his word or not. God does not demand that we worship him or obey his voice, he requires it only if we want salvation. The choice is ours. Would it make sense for God to create the heavens and the earth in six literal days and not give us a choice to beleive it or not? Isn't it possible that God the creator made the earth appear to be older than it is, just so we can choose to believe or not? In the garden of Eden God also created the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". If that tree was not there man would not have had a chance to believe or not. Sarah laughed when God said she would bare a child at such an old age. By human standards that would be impossible, but through faith in God all things are possible! There is no middle ground here. You either have faith that God's words are true or you do not. Your father is God or satan. If your belief is luke warm God will spew you out. Evolution is Evilution! I believe in creation in six literal days , my faith is in the words of God. If you believe in any amount that evolution is true your faith is in??? Starts with an M and ends with an N.

Has Mr. Anonymous given us proof that the pope believes in evolution? I don't think so. He has only given us proof that the pope is fornicating with man's idea and creating a bastard child. You don't have to oppose God 100% to not have faith, Just not believe in him 100%.

Please continue with your disscussions Mr. Anonymous. The truth doesn't have a name, but the lies do and it is the name of man and his number is 666!

-- Michael (mdroe@erinet.com), January 29, 2000.

I have a short time to respond, but I think that you have indeed misinterpreted what I had to say, for I did indeed made sure that it was that the pope ACCEPTED, not BELIEVED, in evolution. Note the difference, for indeed, there is one. Will be back a little later with some responses.

Love in Christ Jesus,

Anonymous  <>< 

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 29, 2000.

Dear Anonymous, I think a lot of people who answered your statement missed the point. Yes, God created us in His image and likeness. But what part of us--our bodies or our soul? I have always believed that the soul of man is what sets him apart from the animal kingdom. Why then would it matter if we descended from the apes? At some point, God stepped in and gave us a soul and free will and forever gave us the chance to achieve eternal life. Why does it matter so much if the world was created in 6 days or 6 billion days? If you read the Genesis account you will find that on day one God created light and darkness. On day three there are all kinds of plants growing on the earth. But it isn't until the fourth day that God creates the moon and sun--so how do the plants grow without the sun? When Jesus spoke He used parables to get His point across to the people because " they look, but do not see, and they listen, but do not hear or understand." The people He was talking to lived in 30-33 AD. Is it not possible that the people God needed to talk to in all the years BC just maybe weren't able to comprehend what He said without the use of very simplistist stories and reasoning? I wonder how well those early peoples would have understood the idea of a millenium? It is, in all probability, a concept far beyond their comprehension. However, they would be able to understand the concept of a day. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), January 30, 2000.

Ellen, as always you have made a very good point. It is not a question of how God created Adam and Eve's body. What is important is that He gave them an immortal soul. Now, Is it more difficult for God to give an immortal soul to an already evolving living creature or to a piece of clay?

I will give some more reflections on the Creation story on a later day.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 30, 2000.

Quite a lot of posts to respond to - will try to later on this evening. First, another source that says that the pope SUPPORTS evolution:

====================================================================== (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/4evol.html/)

EVOLUTION

THE POPE AND DARWIN. Did God create mankind in his image, as the Bible says, or did humans evolve from animals, as Darwin theorized nearly 150 years ago? According to Pope John Paul II, evolution may be the better explanation. Weighing in on a debate that had divided Christians for decades, the pope declared that evolution is "more than just a theory" and is fully compatible with the Christian faith. But in a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he also reaffirmed church teachings that while the human body may have evolved gradually, the soul "is immediately created by God" in each person [as Miss Hornby seems to have been talking about].

The pope's statement may rank biblical fundamentalists, who take the Genesis creation story literally, but it is likely to have little impact on the Roman Catholic Church, which has long looked favorably on evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII [NOTE: known as Hitler's Pope; one of the most evil men who have climbed into the papacy, according to a well done book; need to find the book, title, and purchase it, for that matter] called evolution a "serious hypothesis" worthy of study. And as early fifth century, St. Augustine warned against a literal reading of the Genesis creation account. [NOTE: Interesting...Augustine is thus unworthy of the title of saint, for it seems he doubts the Lord's Word, and that saddens me.] But John Paul II went further than previous popes in declaring that a "convergence" of scientific evidence gathered in the past 50 years makes "a significant argument in favor of this theory."

This isn't the pope's first attempt to reconcile religion and science. In 1988, he called for ongoing dialogue between theologians and scientists. In 1992, he declared that the church had erred in condemning Galileo Galilei in 1633 for asserting that the Earth revolves around the sun.

BY JEFFREY L. SHELER ======================================================================

Boy, what doubtfulness that I see. I would love to find proof that the pope said otherwise. Any links? Will come back later tonight to respond to other postings, comments, and also to respond to David Palm's recent "attack" to my reply. God bless you, and take care for now!

Much love in Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 30, 2000.

<< Pope Pius XII [NOTE: known as Hitler's Pope; one of the most evil men who have climbed into the papacy, according to a well done book; need to find the book, title, and purchase it, for that matter] >>

As always, any charge against the Catholic Church will suit Anonymous, not matter how flimsy. This charge against Pius XII is a pure fabrication; but it fits well into our society's anti-Catholic bias so it is believed in spite of the evidence, not because of it:

Click here for a book that destroys the Pius XII myth...

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 30, 2000.

And, as always, any false accusations and assumptions quick to be jumped on will suit the presumptuous David Palm. Will be back tomorrow to respond; have to rest to get up very early. God bless you. There is evidence all the same, is there not? Do you dismiss it?

Love in Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

PS (There is another book to be purchased; I have no idea what it is about, but I know it has several quotes from several popes in the Catholic history. I think it has something to do with the end times, all the same, however, I need to check it out.)

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 31, 2000.

Dear Pamela,

<< Being a new revert i must say that I am finding in discussions with some Catholics that my conviction of no macro-evolution is looked upon as being childish and small minded. >>

Yes, I encounter the same thing. It seems that one must be either a "creationist", believing in a literal six day creation and 10,000 year old universe, or a full-blown Darwinist believing in macro- evolution of the whole shebang. I am neither. What is strange is that the scientific is slowly beginning to admit that Darwinian macro- evolution is untenable in light of the (lack of) evidence in the fossil record. You and I are in some ways ahead of the pack and they have some catching up to do.

<< I do not believe and never will that man came from lower animals (apes). I do think that he created man and woman instantly and we have minor variations due to adaptation and DNA variations that God seeded in man. >>

I agree with you on this. The fragments of sub-human hominid skeletons that are trotted out as "missing links" are just that, sub- human, IMO.

<< We have never found a missing link and wenever will unless planted by the deceit of Satan . I am glad that i am free to believe with faith and not my eyes and reason God's account of creation. >>

But be careful not to get yourself into a position that your reason and your faith are opposed to each other. God is revealed in His creation just as He is revealed in sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. His revelation never contradicts itself; reason and faith never will either. The Church got a black eye over the Galileo incident because there were certain Catholic scholars who insisted that certain passages of the Bible could only be understood literally, whereas scientific evidence eventually showed this to be untenable. The same thing has happened, IMO, with respect to the first chapters of Genesis. Many Christians insist that they must be read literally (although there are many indications in those first chapters that indicate otherwise), but many scientific discoveries indicate that this is incorrect. As Catholics we are given great freedom in our interpretation of Genesis; the Church has not defined anything. We should be careful not to get ourselves into a situation where reason and observation of God's creation tells us one thing and our preconceptions of what Scripture "must mean" tells us something contradictory. All truth is God's truth and the truth will never hurt us.

<< I believe in all the miracles as historical events. what bothered me was that some of these people who claim evolution also claim that the miracles, like the loaves and the fishes anf Jonah actually did not occur as actual historical events, but simply stories that told of truths to primitive unsophisticated people. Many of them also tend to spiritualize other truths in the bible like the Virgin birth and of course the bodily resurrection. I guess this is why they view as nonscholarly the Catholics that believe the miracles as actual events. >>

Yes, you are right. I too believe in all the miracles recorded in the Bible and see no reason not to. My faith and reason are in harmony, whereas the people you describe have to keep their faith and reason in separate categories. But it is not their belief in evolution per se that has caused folks to abandon these beliefs. Modernism, which is the great heresy of our day because it really is a combination of all heresies, has at its heart a loss of the gift of supernatural faith. Talk to any Catholic who "dissents" from the Church's teaching on some issues or denies the various miracles that you describe and you will find that, either in part or in whole, they have experienced a loss of faith.

Actually, the scientific community is putting a full-court press on Darwinism as we speak; it just never filters down to your average Joe, who has been taught in public school that Darwin is Dogma.

<< I view what they are doing as very dangerous to the faithful. >>

It is. Very dangerous.

<< One thing I keep coming back to was that before the fall creation was not cursed. I believe that to mean no death. i believe God would not lie to us either. The wages of sin is death.. Before the sin of Adam creation didn't suffer and die. to have many years of evolution you would have to say God lied about the cause of the curse of creation and death. I do think that a longer day could have been possible, but not death to anything until the fall. >>

Yes, this is the best argument in favor of a "recent creation." Taken in context, the Bible passages that speak of death coming through sin only necessarily speak of human death coming at the Fall of Adam; I don't think those passage necessarily apply to animal and plant death.

Here's my own view in a nutshell (currently, since I am quite willing to change my views on this as I learn more). You can read more about this in John Sailhammer's commentary on Genesis in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 2:

Genesis 1:1 -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." This is a summary of the creation of the universe and the earth and the flora and fauna of the earth, at some unspecified time in the distant past and with no scientific details at all. So a Christian would have complete freedom to explore the creation without any fear of

Between 1:1 and 1:2 there is a "gap" of unspecified and unknown duration. Possibly (I emphasize, possibly), the fall of Satan occurs during this time frame, wreaking havoc in the created order and introducing the principle of death and decay; but not to humans who do not yet exist.

Genesis 1:2 -- "And the Land was formless and void..."

Here there is a different word used in Hebrew -- it is not the "earth", as in 1:1, but the "Land", the ha eretz that is in view. The Land is what God makes for man. The subsequent verses of chapter 1 and following are not about the creation of the universe and then all of life on earth, but of God making the Land fit for the Man (the "Adam") whom He is about to create. All the scientific questions are completely beside the point, since all the verses after Genesis 1:1 do not say anything about the creation of the universe, but only of the preparation of the Land for Adam. This is a very Jewish way of looking at the text, since it is totally Land-centered and Man-centered. Dr. Sailhammer (one of my Old Testament professors at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) cites ancient Jewish commentators who saw the text this way. If this interpretation is correct then it completely sidesteps all of the scientific questions about how to harmonize scientific observations with the first chapters of Genesis.

So Genesis 1:2 and following are about God's "recreation" of the Land, to make it a fit place for the Man to live. Then Satan comes to wreck even this new creation and the Man's fall brings death to all humanity.

That's it in a nutshell. I don't really have time right now to get into a big debate about creation and evolution. And actually, if all Anonymous is saying is that the Pope accepts the possibility of non- Darwinian evolution then I agree. My biggest gripe with the news articles you cited is that they equate "evolution" with Darwinism. But the pope categorically denounced Darwinism as incompatible with Catholicism in the very speech in which it is alleged by these news writers that he embraced Darwinism!

But then this leaves a question for you, Anonymous: is your literal interpretation of Genesis infallible? Is it the only possible way of interpreting the text and all other non-literal interpretations are definitely wrong? This seems to be what you are saying, since above you analyzed the news article this way: << And as early fifth century, St. Augustine warned against a literal reading of the Genesis creation account. [NOTE: Interesting...Augustine is thus unworthy of the title of saint, for it seems he doubts the Lord's Word, and that saddens me.] >>

A literal interpretation of Genesis is, according to you, the only way the text can be interpeted and anybody who interprets it differently "doubts the Lord's Word" and "is unworthy of the title of saint." Your interpretation is infallible, according to you.

So tell me this, Anonymous: are you not claiming the very infallibility for your own personal interpretation that you deny to the Pope?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), January 31, 2000.

David, Thank you for your answer. I asked my Priest about this evolution stuff. This is what he said, Church teaching has not changed and the Church teaches that man did NOT come from monkeys. How is evolution different from Darwinism that thew church condems? I need to understand this.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), January 31, 2000.

I am just copying an answer I found in an Expert Catholic forum:

Re Adam and Eve Question from sheryl on 01-24-2000: Who came first, caveman (i.e., Neanderthal, etc.) or Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve were first, it would seem that they would have been extremely primitive since caveman didn't even have a fully developed language yet. How does early man (caveman) fit into the picture of evolution? Answer by Fr. John Echert on 01-30-2000: The story of creation as recorded in Genesis may not be intended to be understood as a literal, historical account of the precise manner in which God created the first man and woman. As to specifics related to such matters as cavemen, that is, possible steps in a chain of evolution, the Church leaves many such details for science to consider and is open to various theories, so long as they do not contradict revealed truth and are consistent with divine revelation. So I am not in position to comment upon a Neanderthal dude, as such, but am happy to post an earlier response I gave on the historicity of Adam and Eve.

The matter of the historicity of the some parts of the Bible, especially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, is complicated. Even accepting the basic premise that the Bible is free from error, since ultimately God is the author and cannot deceive, is not to insist that all parts of the Bible are intended to be read without a consideration of the genre or type of writing. Some parts of the Bible, especially some descriptions in Genesis, may not have been intended by God as strictly historical works, as we judge historical truth. For instance, a Catholic can in good conscience believe that the creation of the world may not have happened literally in the six days, precisely as described. Then again, I would not want to preclude the historical truth, as described. I leave that to the beatific vision to know more certainly.

In the past hundred years or so, the various papal writings and Councils have commented upon the matter of the historicity of certain parts of the Scriptures. Let me offer a quote from an encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII titled, "Humani Generis" (1950):

"..the first eleven chapter of Genesis...nevertheless come under the heading of history; in what exact sense, it is for the further study of the exegete to determine. These chapters have a naove, symbolic way of speaking, well suited to the understanding of primitive people. But they do disclose to us certain important truths, upon which the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and they do also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people. It may be true that the ancient authors of sacred history drew some of their material from current popular stories. So much may be granted. But it must be remembered that they did so under the impulse of divine inspiration which preserved them from all error in selecting and assessing the material they used. "these excerpts from current stories, which are found in the sacred books, must not be put on a level with mere myths, or with legend in generalIn the OT a love of truth and a cult of simplicity shine out in such a way as to put these writers on a distinctly different level from their profane contemporaries."

With regards to Adam and Eve and their circumstances, it is important to make distinctions with regard to the revealed truth within the various details. Regardless of how God created them, there was a first set of parents who were individually endowed with a soul which exceeded anything physical evolution could produce. The Garden of Eden, if not literal, would certainly represent a world which had a beauty and harmony to it which was lost to man and woman by sin. And the tree, if not literal, can represent a command of God to man which was ignored and was the original sin. Whether it was a matter of eating a forbidden fruit or symbolically represents some other act by which our first parents rejected God can be debated, but the basic reality is the same.

Fr. Echert

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Back to topics list.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.

As with Aquinas, we must always distinguish. I would not argue that evolution somehow discredits creation. Frankly, evolution had little or nothing to say about God's act of creation or how He created. Evolution concerns itself withthe rise and development of species. Yet even in this sphere it still presents scientific problems not necessarily theological ones. I doubt that this is the time to enthusiastically embrace a theory which rests on conjectures formulated from limited evidence. the fossil record is far from complete and does not provide hard evidence of evolution rather evolution attempts to explain what the fragmentary fosil evidence might mean. while evolution as a term is probably accurate, the theories of adaptation, natural selection, mutative change are not observeably proven theories. I would say that while evolution is probably a part of how we have become what we are it is not by any means a full answer. I believe that there are more forces at work than our simplistic theories of evolution allow for at the present time. Evolution has not adequately explained the rise of different species, the formation of certain features such as the eye and the basic cells and their internal mechanisms. Also many of the reconstructions that we observe in museums and which are accepted as factual are thoughtfulbut but still fanciful constructions from a scanty fossil record linking together forms for which we have no formal proof that they where linked in reality. In conslusion, for myself, evolution remains a useful scientific method for examining the past record of earth's history but it is by no means proven and will in all likelihood be substantially revised if we are ever able to understand more of the formal mechanics of evolution or development of life and species.

-- Tom Zelaney (tzelaney@aol.com), December 15, 2000.

Just as an aside...while we all come with insightful and hopeful regard to this "Evolutionary" response, our self-proclamations of what thoughts, and just how the Pope reached these concessions (as most have argued) do not come with any such perceived finality. I have indeed reviewed the very same article, and futher respect the Pope's attraction to Evolution as being envoked by the contrastual and intuitive views of the Globe. Yes, the Pope has responded, and quite reasonably. Still, the many responses, though seemingly objective, come with trates of our eagerness to once again partake in those earthly sumits of philosophical rituals. Like the past, Intelectuals have always considered their priveledge of extended knowlege has truth and adheared policy - thankfully, this has not been the case in the Evolutionary response. Now these past views of such knowledge seem elementary to our present. Your asking "And your point is...?" My vision is that one does not delay in defaulting to the Pope's acceptance of these priciples in Evolution. Furthermore, relax on the short-cited stakes in basing your faith of these circumstantial outcomes - this has been largely what this is all about...is it not? After all, the bestowed dictates that the faith and resiliance shall overcome the fragmented and distorted theories of any modern day distraction that surfaces in our dat-to-day focus. We are stronger than this, and as believers, call for a more percissioned argument in challenging any closely held gifts of Christianity. In a whole, try not calculate or shape the intent or purpose of the Pope, rather, appreciate and savor the delivery.

-- humbled (word007@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.