NEWS: Cardinal to Followers: Quit Dissing Evolution, People

CULTURE: Cardinal to Followers: Quit Dissing Evolution, People

In a move likely to spark more "discussion" in the seemingly interminable debate between adherents of evolution and its opponents who find the theory at odds with their religion, Vatican Cardinal Paul Poupard urged followers on Thursday to "listen to that which secular modern science has to offer," particularly on the hot-button issue of evolution, and warning the faithful to heed the dangers of "[becoming] prey to fundamentalism."

He also urged scientists to consider the ethical issues raised by theologians, citing atomic weapons and human cloning as the fruits of science unrestrained. Nonetheless, he squarely reinforced the Vatican's stance on evolution, declaring that it "is more than a hypothesis because there is proof." (These words echoed in stronger terms a statement first made by John Paul II in 1992.)

Whether this has any real effect on the ongoing debate, particularly the fight in the United States over the teaching of Intelligent Design versus Evolution in schools, remains to be seen. Many of the most conservative churches and organizations in America are Protestant, and have in the past glossed over or outright dismissed similar statements by the Roman Catholic Church, with whom they already disagree on a number of more fundamental theological and political points.

he is a wise man

Even the Vatican knows that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. Why is it that the U.S. is alone among Western Civilization in realizing this? This creationism bullshit is not a problem in other Western countries...just in ours. Of all the problems in the world the fact that we have to waste time on this just pisses me off!

[Edited on Nov 04, 2005 9:33PM]

Ignorance may not be the cause of fundamentalism, but it's definitely the breeding ground. If you don't know what the scientific meaning of theory is, then it's a hell of a lot easier to say it's bullshit.

Atomic weapons were produced as a result of politicians demanding them, there's nothing in science that required the production of tens of thousands of the things. I've simply never understood what people have against clones. Although on the other hand, people who want to clone somebody probably misunderstands the situation also.

There are conceivable moral issues *if* you consider clones to be different than human beings produced via other methods. I don't really see any reason to make the distinction.

And yeah, it's nice to see an occasional flash of sense from an otherwise overly conservative religion. Even if I do disagree that faith has anything to offer to science. Ethics should always be factored into the process, but it's certainly not the exclusive province of religion.

Ive reconciled with the fact that people who believe they have access to the exact word of god wont be swayed anytime soon. But it does sadden me when they do so and apply it to others.

*claps*

someone finally told the Fundies "look, you're embarassing us"

Jimmy Carter said the same thing recently.

BUt really how is this even an issue? Evolution has been considered fact for what 150 years now? and other people had it down before Darwin brought it to the masses. IT's all around us. What is domestication if not controlled evolution. If you don't believe in evolution you are mentally deficiant. That's it.

I wish that people would learn that any work of religious writing, whether it's the Bible (New or Old Testament), the Koran, the Sutras, the Gitas, the Testiment of the Flying Spaghetti God, whatever, is cheapened and harmed if it's read literally. Those books are meant to be engaged, argued with. Some sections of them might be thrown away entirely. They're guideposts. At best, they're maps that kind of point out the way to go, but it's up to you to figure out how to get there.

They are not manuals spelling out exactly how to live in black-and-white terms. And they sure as fuck aren't science textbooks.

Fundamentalists destroy the religion they claim in their desire to make everything as simple as possible. This cardinal sees this clearly, and that's what he's saying.

you're kidding me! the Flying Spaghetti Monster would never lie to us...would he?

THANK YOU! I used to take Religion classes in high school and I would hate it when people took the books so literally. Books [novels, holy books, whatever] are non-literal works that make them so interesting to read. People make the religious books seem like they're the guildlines for life and they should be followed word for word.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Church has taught for centuries that the Bible should not be taken literally, word-for-word, as the Word of God. It's not Jehovah's LiveJournal.

On the other hand, they have to take such a flexible position, given how much the Church has, ah, "modified" Christianity over the ages.

Calm yourself brother ..... there is still hope for us.

That makes me happy. Hopefully this gets out to people...

well said

I have never understood the Creationism/Evolution debate for a number of reasons.

1. Evolution is so well demonstrated as a theory that it is nearly inarguable. Even Microbiologists have demonstrated it from a genetic standpoint. So the debate then becomes one of; if God DID create the universe in 7 days...then why place nearly inarguable evidence of a million years of earthly history on the planet when he did OR is the 7 days more of a colloquial analogy for the different stages of universal development over the millennia?

2. More importantly, who gives a shit! I find people who spend a large amount of time on the debate simply using it as a crutch to feel religious zealotry without doing the more important and distasteful commands of the Bible like feeding the poor, hanging around with prisoners and stinky bums and giving 10% of their money away in charity.

As for taking the books literally...before you even address whether they should be taken verbatim, one has to address whether they have been TRANSLATED correctly...which is still a huge debate. I attended a number of seminars discussing the fact that even if the WORDS are translated correctly, we don’t understand the “COLLOQUIAL” aspects of the words.

To draw a poor example...if I write a letter saying, “If someone pisses you off, don’t kick his ass, just chill.” 1000 years from now, even if they get the words right...they will likely have NO IDEA the details of what those three colloquialisms means (I.E. “pissed of”, “kick his ass” and “chill”.) Just imagine the bizarre things that “Church” might be doing with those phrases :-)

A large majority of the New Testament is actually letters written by specific apostles to specific Churches addressing specific issues. The apostles clearly used colloquialisms and specific references which only related to the individuals involved in the letter and which may only be understood by the individuals involved in the “conversation.”

Touched by his Noodly Appendage,
BK

Whenever someone drags out the Genesis thing, ask them WHICH creation account they mean. There are two in Genesis. And they contradict each other.

It would also be nice if more people on BOTH sides understood that the validity of evolution/natural selection as a mechanism for species development has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of God. Evolutionary science doesn't address that question.

Unfortunately, the Pat Robertson crowd thinks "The Catholics" are trying to take over the government for Teh Gays and Teh Abortionists.

those pastafarians need to stop attacking cruise ships and get to converting people!

we can't have this bad publicity!

Although I actually agree with the statement that evolution does not address the origins of the Universe (more of a Steven Hawking question I’d say) I’m curious...just because it has been a while since reading any part of Genesis. Can you reference me the two accounts, so I can read them?

Speaking of the big bang (another sore spot for any fundamentalist Christians) are you aware the big bang theory was first speculated on in 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître?

Just a trivial pursuit question :-)

Although I am not a Christian, I know plenty of scientists who are and still believe in evolution. The two beliefs can coexist.

Agreed. I am one of them. :-)

Thus, my point that the debate is moot. There are far more interesting Biblical debates available (like; if the earth was created in 7 days...why did God place millions of years of evidence on the planet? I think that one would add huge insight into God.)

[Edited on Nov 06, 2005 by BurningKrome]

Definitely. They do not even address the same issues; neither one in any way refutes (or even involves) the other. Nonetheless, I have been criticized by parties on both sides for actually having the gall to believe in both.

I think in many cases it comes down to people not understanding the concepts involved, and zealots on both sides politicizing the issues.

There's no way the Pat Robertson crowd would listen to someone like Cardinal Poupard, even if he weren't associated with Catholicism, because he's a "scholar" and everyone knows that schoolin' is a path straight to HELL!