Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Catholics on Evolution


From Catholic News:

"Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

…Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design."

Creationism is not theological?


"…Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.

He reiterated that evolutionary theory 'is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message.'"

Try reading Genesis again without the need to conform to the world.


"…Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly."

Actually, the last thing the evolution debate needs is to be confused by Catholic worldliness posing as a thoughtful biblical position.


"…While there has been Catholic commentary on the compatibility of faith and evolutionary theories, there is no definitive written source to which people can refer to learn the church's position, he said."

Sounds like a blueprint for anarchy!

16 comments:

Kevin Davis said...

This blog is really getting pitiful. Basically, surf around on the internet, see something Catholics do that you disagree with, and post it, without any serious engagement with the issue. Brilliant!

James Swan said...

This blog is really getting pitiful. Basically, surf around on the internet, see something Catholics do that you disagree with, and post it, without any serious engagement with the issue. Brilliant!

Kevin- you do realize... you're guilty of the same thing you critisized by your comment?

pilgrim said...

I don't think the people at this blog would have to look hard to find something Catholics do that they disagree with. There's a lot of things Catholics do I disagree with--and I also realize and am not surprised there is a lot of stuff protestants do that Catholics disagree with. This is hardly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

GeneMBridges said...

Okay, then I'll be the bigger man here and own up to a "Protestant" blunder myself...

The Anglican Church has issued an apology to none other than Charles Darwin.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4692516a12.html

Okay, there we go...tit for tat, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Is Ken happy now?

Carrie said...

This blog is really getting pitiful. Basically, surf around on the internet, see something Catholics do that you disagree with, and post it, without any serious engagement with the issue. Brilliant!

The simple solution is, don't read this blog.

Almost every time you comment here, Kevin, you just leave disparaging remarks, so save yourself the stress and don't read along.

bkaycee said...

I Love this site! Someone needs to consistently warn people about the apostate church of Rome and it's false gospel.

Alexander Greco said...

I think you are missing the point of Kevin's comments. Some of us come here in the hope to see sound arguments from the Reformed perspective, not a National Inquirer type rant (which even they have some good things to say now and then). I personally believe that you folks can be better than this, but it will take intellectual honesty to make realistic observations.

Carrie said...

I think you are missing the point of Kevin's comments. Some of us come here in the hope to see sound arguments from the Reformed perspective, not a National Inquirer type rant

Actually I think you guys are missing the obvious point, that while you are entitled to your own opinions, I am not required to live up to your standards.

You guys may not like this type of post, I don't really care. It's a BLOG, not a peer-reviewed journal. When you can point me to the internet rule page that says my blog posts must meet the personal taste requirements of Kevin Davis and Alexander Greco, then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, if you are looking for a more academic discussion, I am sure you can find it elsewhere.

Seriously guys, take a step back and evaluate how arrogant and ridiculous your comments sound.

And if you take a moment and still don't see the silliness of it all, sit down and write up an argument as to why my personal blog posts should meet the standards of quality that YOU insist on. And then paste that comment here and I'll be happy to consider it.

BlackBaron said...

Thanks for this post. I had heard something about this on the radio and ended up shaking my head in dismay once again at the "mother church".

Kevin, why not engage the subject of the post instead of doing a "drive by"?

Rhology said...

I personally believe that you folks can be better than this, but it will take intellectual honesty to make realistic observations.

What about these observations were not realistic?
(I'm only halfway expecting an answer, given your history around here.)

DH (DumbHusband) said...

Haven't been able to read this blog for a week due to Ike. It's fun to have several posts to catch up on.
I agree with others. I love this site and the info provided.

This was a great post. Reminiscent of the "Galileo Affair" the RCC is placing more faith in the secular science of the day over the teaching of scripture, IMHO.

Shouldn’t the RCC be able to make an infallible pronouncement on such an important issue? Seriously. They haven’t, have they?

I’m no brilliant scientist but I am a geologist who has found no compelling evidence for evolution in 18 years working in the oil industry and studying this topic.
“…a conference that was strictly scientific… cannot be critically defined as being science…". Creation is not scientific? Evolution is not scientific.

Of course the virgin birth flies in the face of science. So why do we believe it? Just because the Bible says so? That’s weak, isn’t it?

Thanks for the post Carrie (et al). Good stuff.

EA said...

Catholics, what does the 'unanimous consent of the fathers" say about Genesis, creationism, evolution?

Matthew Bellisario said...

I have done a little research on the subject if you are interested. My latest post is on this subject.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/

Alexander Greco said...

Rhology: (I'm only halfway expecting an answer, given your history around here.)

Me: Please elaborate here.

Rhology said...

Looks like I was proved right. You haven't even attempted to answer the question here either. Hopefully that will serve as a clue as to my meaning.

Alexander Greco said...

Rhology, I was commenting on the content of this blog as a whole. Carrie gets it and confirmed my point:

"You guys may not like this type of post, I don't really care. It's a BLOG, not a peer-reviewed journal... if you are looking for a more academic discussion, I am sure you can find it elsewhere."

This blog is not about intellectual integrity, but mere rant and often ill-guided opinion. I am more interested in the facts and honest inquiry. I can only deal with prejudicial radicals for a certain amount of time.