Vatican Sides With Darwin

Wow! I think that’s the first time I’ve heard anything intelligent come from the Vatican. Maybe there is hope after all.

Marius said: “Wow! I think that’s the first time I’ve heard anything intelligent come from the Vatican. Maybe there is hope after all.”

I agree!! And I believe in exclusive creation with NO form of Evolution involved. : )

Additionally, I don’t believe they have any hope. I know. I’m a little snip.

I’d be willing to bet five bucks that NEITHER of you have actually read anything out of Rome. It’ s always quite lucid but sometimes dry.

But on a side note Mr. Bellows, when someone speaks from the Vatican they don’t necessarily speak for the whole church. The working of these matters are a little more subtle than you’re letting on. Catholics are only bound to believe from three locations.

1. The Bible
2. The Writings of the Councils of the Church (Summarized in the Catechism to a large part)
3. Papal Encyclicals

So when the good Cardinal Paul Poupard speaks, he is not speaking with the authority of the church, but rather from their own opinion.

Hey, they’ve got some sense! I also heard that they were very supportive of Einstein’s and Hawking’s theories, so they aren’t so unscientific after all.

The Vatican has been around for centuries and has been known to use very advanced technology for various reasons.

The right-wing fundamental loonies are unscientific.

Creationism and evolution are two sides of the same coin. Creationism is a theological look at “cause” and evolution is the scientific look at the “effect”.

Here’s an example. Creationism is like saying “I pushed the ball across the table.” Evolution is like saying “an external force was applied to a ball that allowed it to overcome the counter-force of the table’s friction and, therefore, the ball rolled across the table until it’s kinetic energy was depleted.” Creationism is a look at the root cause and evolution is a look at the physical effect and both come together to bring us a more complete picture.

“Scientific explanations do not rule out God’s role, but rather reveal to us His handiwork and design.” –Deborah Haarsma, physicist, 1999

His words echo neither wisdom nor intelligence. He is merely buying time for perpetuating a myth (god). He is fully aware that it will probably not be in his life time nor most others until the time scientists can prove that some invisible man in the sky did not create the universe (exposing the charade) – but that man did.

The ‘pope’ worships the devil.

Shandooga said: “The ‘pope’ worships the devil.”

Aaaaand we’ve reached the end of intelligent discussion…

There were positive signs that the Vatican supported evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn9877-papal-summit-to-debate-darwinian-evolution.html), but…

“Pope to rule on ID
In what would be a break with his predecessor’s views, it looks as though Pope Benedict is about to deny evolution and embrace intelligent design (ID). In his inaugural sermon last year, the pope rejected the idea that humans are a product of evolution, and he has since been following the ID debate. The pope will host a meeting this week on evolution and creation.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125674.300-60-seconds.html

Invisible man in the sky!!!!

That isn’t a higher power.

God exists in a realm we will never fully understand, even if it only be in the minds of mankind.

As has been said before ” Believe hard enough and it will be true”.

“Believe hard enough and it will be true”

No, “believe hard enough and you will ignore anything that casts doubt on what you percieve as truth” is more accurate… if not quite as catchy.

I’ve begun to associate the username ‘Shandooga’ with ignorance.

But this Cardinal has made one good point here – Religion and Science are NOT the same thing. Religion is beliefs, Science is facts. Religion can’t really be proved or disproved, because it isn’t something that is actually there.

Truth is self-evident, so that none is left with excuse for his ignorance.

I do agree that the aim of the first chapters of Genesis is not entirely to provide a “how” understanding. Furthermore, I would assert that the Bible makes it very clear that we will not and cannot understand certain things, let alone everything. I maintain that most secular scientists would or should agree. We have limited capacity to understand the infinitely complex, microscopically and macroscopically. The pragmatist recognizes that the benefits of such pursuits reaches a finite end, and we are that end. Of what value is knowledge if it has no use or application? The arrogant will press on into fruitless “scientific” pursuits, blind to their own closed-loop logic, which on a larger scale amounts to a crazy man’s dellusion. I have experienced this first hand. It is the fallacy of the human mind. We construct definitions upon definitions.

I do not underestimate God’s power in large and small things. Nature does not contradict a nearly literal interpretation of Genesis if the nature of God is not overlooked. He is neither a legalist nor an admin.

The aim of the “Christian Science Fundamentalists” has been largely misunderstood by the secular scientific community and Christian community alike. It has been primarily a defensive movement in response to offensive attacks from much of the scientific community. Here I speak of those who have attempted to explicitely disprove God’s existance and to then impose the scientific method as infallible, removing aspects of uncertainty and the human element. I do agree that many Christian Scientists have missed the mark, having forfeited the relational aim of the Bible to logical arguments. Buy they were pulled into this arena.

You can rely on a probablistic model of the world; as we know, quantum physics violates conventional assumption about physics. We have a physical understanding of pressure as force applied to a surface divided by the area of that surface. A closer look reveals that pressure is truly an average of molecular impulses applied across that area. When you look at a fractal up close and from afar, varying patterns will emerge, none of which can be defined as the defining pattern. We rely on patterns to form understanding of the world. Jesus knew this, which is why he spoke in parables. Many scientists refuse to aknowledge their own bias.

The degree to which you aknowledge a truth is measured by how much you are willing to sacrifice for your belief. Our greatest sacrifice is our lives. What do you live for? What would you die for?

Truth-Engineer said: “Truth is self-evident, so that none is left with excuse for his ignorance.

I do agree that the aim of the first chapters of Genesis is not entirely to provide a “how” understanding. Furthermore, I would assert that the Bible makes it very clear that we will not and cannot understand certain things, let alone everything. I maintain that most secular scientists would or should agree. We have limited capacity to understand the infinitely complex, microscopically and macroscopically. The pragmatist recognizes that the benefits of such pursuits reaches a finite end, and we are that end. Of what value is knowledge if it has no use or application? The arrogant will press on into fruitless “scientific” pursuits, blind to their own closed-loop logic, which on a larger scale amounts to a crazy man’s dellusion. I have experienced this first hand. It is the fallacy of the human mind. We construct definitions upon definitions.

I do not underestimate God’s power in large and small things. Nature does not contradict a nearly literal interpretation of Genesis if the nature of God is not overlooked. He is neither a legalist nor an admin.

The aim of the “Christian Science Fundamentalists” has been largely misunderstood by the secular scientific community and Christian community alike. It has been primarily a defensive movement in response to offensive attacks from much of the scientific community. Here I speak of those who have attempted to explicitely disprove God’s existance and to then impose the scientific method as infallible, removing aspects of uncertainty and the human element. I do agree that many Christian Scientists have missed the mark, having forfeited the relational aim of the Bible to logical arguments. Buy they were pulled into this arena.

You can rely on a probablistic model of the world; as we know, quantum physics violates conventional assumption about physics. We have a physical understanding of pressure as force applied to a surface divided by the area of that surface. A closer look reveals that pressure is truly an average of molecular impulses applied across that area. When you look at a fractal up close and from afar, varying patterns will emerge, none of which can be defined as the defining pattern. We rely on patterns to form understanding of the world. Jesus knew this, which is why he spoke in parables. Many scientists refuse to aknowledge their own bias.

The degree to which you aknowledge a truth is measured by how much you are willing to sacrifice for your belief. Our greatest sacrifice is our lives. What do you live for? What would you die for?”

Thank America for free speech. I dissagree. Do not tell me what human brains can not do.

Regardless of what anyone believes to be true, the TRUTH is TRUTH and IS despite our failed attempts, bad measurement, poor conclusions, biased opinions or what have you.

Science DOES call things FACT that are based on certain assumptions. This is why none of the FACTS of physical laws work at the quantum level. They’re just equations that describe what we assumed to be the truth. When we dive a level deeper and see things at the quantum level we have to acknowledge that everything we assumed is, in fact, an assumption and we will have to learn to understand everything from this level of understanding. Some day we will call these new laws fact…and then we will get into it a level deeper and everything will be stood on its head.

I think its funny that the “minority” of people will post that Religion is impossible to prove and blah blah blah, proves that God doesn’t exist, etc etc, therefore allowing them to poke fun at things other people hold sacred. MOST people believe in some kind of higher power. I would argue that Quantum Phsyics and the multiverse theorims practically demand that such a being (due to laws of infinite probabilities) must exist. Anyway, there are ways of finding God for yourself in such a way that it is “proven” to yourself individually. Its an individual journey. It is meant to be such an INDIVIDUAL journey. No person can PROVE to the other that God does or does not exist.

What happened to “we were created in God’s image”? I guess that’s going to be removed from the Bible too.