Vatican: Darwin was right, oops.

[cannon_fodder]

"The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas actually came up with the idea of evolution a long time ago and it is in line with the basic tenants of Christianity.   They admit to being hostile to the theory and delaying scientific progress in error. Amazingly, they come very close to apologizing for letting theocratic belief get in the way of scientific understanding.

They even went so far as to explicitly say that the Pope will not endorse any variant of intelligent design.  Saying intelligent design is "merely as a '"cultural phenomenon', rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said."

Also, as we near the 200th Anniversary the Church of England is working hard to remind people that he was CoE and they never officially condemned him:

quote:The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, to illustrate how science and Church need not be at odds. Several pages celebrate Darwin's "significant scientific progress" to mark his bicentenary and also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species.

The Church wants to correct the impression that Darwin's relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith, he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece


This should make the debate more fun.  Not that most Catholics are fundamentalist or hostile to most scientific ideas - but there is another official rift of doctrines.  Hey, it took them 400 years to recognize the Earth went around the sun... making the 150 years to recognize evolution is pretty fast change.

[TheArtist]

The Church has for many years held that evolution is a fact. I remember John Paul the 2nd commenting on it several times.  seems to keep popping up in the mid west as startling "new" news every few years though lol. I wonder if this type of thing will cause the Protestants to go back to calling Catholics demon worshippers and the Pope the "Whore of Babylon"? They may not be as blatant about it as they used to be, but they sure will use language that infers something pretty close on those evangelical television shows lol.

I am currently reading "The Wordy Shipmates" by Sarah Vowell, about the early Protestants and Puritans. Its amazing to hear how seemingly small variant groups in Christianity at the time just abhorred each other. I wish I could remember one story about one of the founding fathers and how when he was young he remembered hearing screams one night from a Baptist who was having his bowels torn out for his beliefs. We so often think this countries early start was because of freedom of religion. That the early puritans "vomited their way across the ocean" to set up a place where everyone could worship as they saw fit. Free as long as it was believing what your particular colony or city believed. But dont wander into town holding a different set of beliefs or say you believe differently,,, you may end up losing an ear, eye, tongue, etc. lol.  I think the early Dutch colonies were a little more liberal though. But can you possibly imagine what would have happened if you had tried to teach evolution back then?

[altruismsuffers]

Vatican: It's OK to Believe in Aliens
Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican's chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.

[cannon_fodder]

I understand Artist, but this is the most explicit position the church has taken in favor of and attempting to adopt Darwinian evolution as their own while casting aside Intelligent Design.  While it isn't "news,"  it is an update on a story that has been long coming.  The Church is an old organization, they come out with these things in pieces instead of just shifting gears.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I understand Artist, but this is the most explicit position the church has taken in favor of and attempting to adopt Darwinian evolution as their own while casting aside Intelligent Design.  While it isn't "news,"  it is an update on a story that has been long coming.  The Church is an old organization, they come out with these things in pieces instead of just shifting gears.

I got ya. []

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by altruismsuffers

Vatican: It's OK to Believe in Aliens
Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican's chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.

Careful. This is one of those things the media is good at doing. Misrepresenting what others, whether it be scientists and "global warming/climate change" or in this case the Vatican's chief astronomer, say.

Did not say its ok to believe in aliens, said its reasonable to believe in the possibility of alien life.

Kind of like the Darwin thing you always hear, saying that Darwin said that Man evolved from apes. He never said that. He said that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. You cant loosely change words or you will change the fundamental meaning. Even though it may seem a small insignificant difference. Its the difference between right and wrong, truth and a lie. When people start discussing or arguing something, if they have the wrong wording/meaning at the outset, the whole thing becomes a farce.

[Townsend]

And per Pew Research Center a majority of Americans won't be able to wrap their minds around this one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20090212/ts_pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution

63% - Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution



In the 150 years since he published his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the 200 years since the date of his birth celebrated this week, Charles Darwin has failed to convince the majority of Americans of the validity of his theories; an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that 63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being while only 26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.

[rwarn17588]

Which is yet another example of why this nation is a republic, not a democracy as is often claimed, and that the public shouldn't have majority rule on *everything*.

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

And per Pew Research Center a majority of Americans won't be able to wrap their minds around this one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20090212/ts_pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution

63% - Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution



In the 150 years since he published his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the 200 years since the date of his birth celebrated this week, Charles Darwin has failed to convince the majority of Americans of the validity of his theories; an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that 63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being while only 26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being

The question "has life evolved without the guidance of a supreme being" is a bit of a loaded one in American culture.  People in this country thank Jesus for helping them win football games.  Certainly if He guides the evolution of a football game they would have to think He guides the evolution of species.  As asked, the question essentially queries if they think God is involved in evolution or not (grouping together a ton of people into the NO category).

Darwin's theories do not say that a supreme being isn't involved the process.  They simply explain in what observable fashion evolution occurs.  Is the underlying genetic mutation and the resulting benefit at the bequest of hand of God?  Darwin really didn't care as it didn't help address the matter before him.

Truthfully, the fact that 26% remove a deity from the equation in the entirety is a surprise to me.  A better question, IMHO, would be to inquire as to the percentage of people who "think evolution, as proposed by Darwin, can be utilized to explain the changes and development of species."  I don't care if they think God is influencing the theory - just as I don't care if my oncologist thinks cancer is caused by the devil, so long as it doesn't alter scientific knowledge or the application thereof (God gave us chemo to fight it... whatever).

A better question previously posed WORLDWIDE was "Did human beings, as we know them, develop from previous species of animals."  The good ole' USA had about a 52% positive response.  We were save by Turkey from being the worst among the nations queried.

[shadows]

As is sit here reading the assumption of creation or evolution I reach over and finger this "slide rule calculator" which was a great improvement over the "abacus" preempted by the electronic calculator.  Although through the learning cycle we have not reached the explanation point of the supposed "big bang" theory, nor the estimated 3 trillion solar systems, nor where the cosmic dust gathered for the "big bang" that created them and above all what is the limits, if one exist, to space after we pass the last solar system in any direction.    Then we need to address the vocal communications of the species called man that was not given to animals except possibility the dolphin.  The distribution of races and skin colors on the planet create another obstacle in the path of evolution.

When the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in central America they found a civilization equal to the one they had come from.  Still their native customs, food and animals of burden different greatly. This happened all over this planet which is only a smidge of cosmic  dust in an immeasurable area.  In the explanation of our existence, time is the only missing element that we are unable to inject in an equation.  

I'll put the slide ruler calculator down and try Google'.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Then we need to address the vocal communications of the species called man that was not given to animals except possibility the dolphin. The distribution of races and skin colors on the planet create another obstacle in the path of evolution.

Actually, both of these things are very well and easily explained.  For the sake of brevity I'll just do the latter:

In climates with an excess of sun dark pigment is preferred because it blocks harmful radiation - preventing sun burn, skin cancer, and excess creation of Vitamin D.   In climates with less intense sun lighter skin is needed to increase production of vitamin D and less protection from the sun is required.  Numerous studies have indicated that skin color can readily change within a population by DNA tests of remains (DNA lasts for tens of thousands of years), to wit:

Caucasians who migrated to Central Asia obtained a somewhat dark skin tone in the higher elevation (less radiation filtered).  People migrating from the Middle East to the Hindus valley had their skin turn darker, those that left Southern Asia and settle in Australia became even darker.  Polynesians developed different skin colors based on their latitude as their populations were isolated.  

I was surprised to learn that skin color can change within a group to lighter or darker in about 100 generations (2000 years or so).  HOWEVER, the prominence of full body clothing starting in about 1500 B.C. reduced the effects.  In today's world of global migration, intermarriage, vitamin supplements, and full clothing the change is probably ceased.

Nonetheless, you bring up a great point.  Most people who "do not believe in Darwin" don't understand it.  The skin color issue you mention is a perfect example OF evolution, not a hindrance to the theory.  However, you also bring up an important skeptics point:  evolution is not THE answer.  It is our current understanding of the answer until something better comes along (science).


and FYI, it's cosmic dust.  It isn't particularly funny.  []

[shadows]

Most of our history is preserved in the books of the Jews which is in association with the area South of the Mediterranean Sea that leads to the theory that we are all descendants of the black skin race that through climate changes or the species relations to their positions to the sun, evolution has created the differences in the races.   Still there is the presence of a master designer in the bodies of which Host the action of life.  We can use the theory that once the Host no longer can sustain life form and returns to the funny dust and we are only a product of the evolution of instinct of self preservation to protect the Host.  Thus our actions reflect in the design of reproduction, the height of pleasure to the Host, in order to sustain the species.

The escalation of the life form of the simple Frog could be considered as proof  of evolution in the changing of the life form of its Host along with the mystery of being able to self reproduce any missing parts.  But we must return to the possibilities that we are the products of an experimental master designer who has created a planet with the elements available to create from the funny dust life forms of different species where after a short time they return to the dust to be recycled.

Darwinian theory cannot be overlooked and cannot be ignored any more than an explanation of a master creator where we are confined by a variable of time in calculating a universe without boundaries which is beyond the capacities of the Host brain of the species called man. It is concluded that we are at times flapping our Host arms wishing we were of the accelerated evolution of the simple butterfly.

Thanks for the info on the misspelled word.  I have corrected it.   The cosmic dust is liken the funny clay we once played with that could be reshaped like theories into many forms.