Vatican comes out in support of Darwin?

[Entsuropi]

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

I didn't see this coming...

[The Jade Knight]

First the Catholic Church in England rejects the Bible as accurate, now the Vatican says Evolution is right.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well, Catholic bishops and arch-bishops have been saying that for quite a while.

[Mister M]

Hallelujah!  


(No, not sarcasm. I'm actually very, very happy that a religious organization with a lot of clout finally came out in support of evolution.)

[The Lost One]

Hopefully this move by the Catholic church will help difuse the notion that science and religion are opposed to each other.

[Harbinger]

Or it will give more ammo to those who believe that the Catholic Church is of the devil.

[cyan10101]

boo on the vatican

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I guess there are positive things to come of this, but I view it as a secularization of the religious body seeking to become more normative with the society. At least it's not a corruption of their standards.
Having said that, I know several devoted Catholics, and I'm sure they will disagree with me vehemently. It's just my opinion, and an fairly uninformed one at that. I hope no one takes is personally.

It's not that I necessarily disbelieve in evolution as an origin of life, it's just that I'm far, far, far from convinced, even after listening and reading several works by pro-evolutionists trying to explain it or convince me. I also don't see how one can reconcile belief in this theory and belief that Adam was the literal first man and an actual person (as is stated fairly explicitly in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price). I've heard several attempts and made a few myself at this reconcilliation, but all of them miss important details or are extremely unconvincing.

[The Jade Knight]

I'm with you, E.  I feel that Evolution is Scientifically untenable, as well.

See www.trueorigins.org for more on the scientific side of things.

[scAri]

Jade, I thought we just agreed the other day that there is nothing in scriptures preventing evolution...

[The Jade Knight]

I just said that I disagree with evolution on Scientific grounds.

You can argue that the Bible doesn't expressly counteract evolution if you take the Creation of Adam and Eve rather metaphorically.  And seeing as the Bible is full of both literal truths and metaphors, I'm not going to begin to enter into that discussion.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

The world hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen, and there was no birth or death before the fall of Adam. Other than that, evolution is a very logical theory, and it seems to me it would work given time. But I don't see any point in trying to disprove it, because religious things and scientific things rely on entirely different methods of proof.

But I heard on the radio someone saying that evolution as a theory is being unfairly targeted by the Intelligent Design people, and that "No one would sit down in class and say 'let's discuss the strengths and weaknesses of atomic theory!'" Uh...why not? Isn't the way the advancement of science happens, when people work to fill in the gaps in the current models? And if you never discuss the gaps, you'll never fill them in...

Nevertheless it doesn't seem like the Intelligent Design people are interested in filling in the gaps; they just want to point at the gaps and say "God is here." Which is fine, but why do it in the science classrooms?

[The Jade Knight]

Because, unlike Finland, religion is not standard curriculum in America.  In fact, I think a great many Americans would have a holy fit if it were.

[Entsuropi]

The world hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen

Various forms of dating proves both the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old, and the very first life coming into being at 3.75 billion years ago (surprisingly fast - the earths crust only solidified 3.9 billion years ago). And we have the (very sparse, admittedly) fossil record that shows apes evolving along distinct paths. I hear the biggest problem is that only one in every thousand species ever leave a fossil. It's unlikely there would be a single fossil of us Homo Sapiens left if we were to just all die tomorrow.

Also, adam and eve do not fit with the world as we know it; the Flying Noodle Monster first created a mountain, a tree, and a dwarf.

[The Jade Knight]

Okay, let me just say a few things here:

First, let us please make sure we prevent this from turning into a flame war.  This is a topic likely to get people riled up (usually when people bring up Pastafarianism, it has been my experience that they're already somewhat upset, or at least severely irritated), and so I'd like to remind us to remain civil and understanding of people's POV's that do not coincide with our own.


That said, I would like to state that I disagree with Macroevolution on a Scientific basis.  I don't feel that the theory holds up well under scrutiny, and I've studied it extensively.  While I do believe that the Scriptures imply that God made man in a different fashion, I do not believe that the Bible absolutely eliminates the possibility of it.  However, I do not feel that Macroevolution is a sound theory.

[It may also be noted that no one here is disagreeing with Microevolution (a.k.a. genetic variation).  It's Macroevolution we disagree with.  Microevolution is observed every day in one sense, and is a normal part of life]


Entropy, you will find that every single one of your arguments is addressed at www.trueorigins.org (the best resource I have found to date on the subject), on scientific grounds (no appeals to the Bible.  Just cold, hard, science.  In some cases, the authors even go out of their way to exclusively use works published by well-known evolutionists at accredited universities to make their cases).

I will not simply go pasting what is there here to address your arguments because:
a) you bring up several different issues which would each need to be addressed.
b) I would simply be pasting much of what is there rather than adding "new" information, and you would simply be pasting what you have read here, or would be regurgitating what you've been taught and have kept in memory.
c) the discussion would get extremely technical and convoluted, and, judging from arguments elsewhere, would really not get anyone anywhere.


Just know that you'll find all of your issues addressed at that site.  And if you feel that any issue isn't addressed, I will be glad to look and see if I can find an answer.  If not, we can always email Timothy Wallace - he's always ready to answer questions (though it sometimes takes him weeks to respond; I can only imagine how much email he gets), and if there's a big hole that's unaddressed at TrueOrigins, he may just write an article about it.