a catholic view of evolution
wf...@ptd.net
evolution. the first is they deny the fact that the church accepts
evolution. the second is that they deny the catholic church is
christian. in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
antichristian as it is antiscience.
the support of the church for the science behind evolution is well
known. we have pope jp ii's speech before the pontifical academy of
science, where he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis'. while
creationists try to play fast and loose with the language of the
pope's statement, mike shermer of 'skeptic' magazine wrote the editor
of "l'osservatore romano", the vatican's official newspaper to ask for
a clarification. shermer asked whether the pope said 'evolution is
more than A hypothesis', or 'evolution is more than ONE hypothesis'.
the editor replied saying the FORMER is CORRECT.
and there is little confusion among the clergy. the issue is settled
in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
'america' has, at the following website:
http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
support for creationism within the church. in fact, author of the
article, father richard clifford, s.j., states that the REAL goal of
creationists is:
>As George Marsden has pointed out in Fundamentalism and American Culture:
>The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925
> (1980), American fundamentalism has a political goal--the preservation or restoration of a nondenominational conservative Christian culture. It is clear from the pressure they have exerted on state school boards that creationists share that political agenda. Opponents of creationism must, therefore, not only criticize it as an idea but also actively oppose creationists' strategy of imposing their religious views on others.
so creationism's emperor is unclothed by, unfortunately for them,
other christians. creationism is a naked power grab; an attempt to
force popular culture to accept right wing christianity as 'science',
and to accord it the right to force itself on others.
creationism destroys freedom. it serves only a small fringe group of
american christians. and it must be opposed BY christians.
Schlafly
news:3a46c2d1...@news.ptdprolog.net...
> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of
> evolution. the first is they deny the fact that the church accepts
> evolution. the second is that they deny the catholic church is
> christian. in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
> antichristian as it is antiscience.
I can understand theological criticism of Catholicism, but why is
the Pope's opinion of evolution so interesting? The Pope always
accepts scientific evidence. Do we even know if the Pope was
talking about micro- or macro- evolution?
> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
> support for creationism within the church.
Arguments with the Catholics about Bible interpretation go back
100s of years. Evolution is just a minor and amusing side issue
to that debate.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:3a46c2d1...@news.ptdprolog.net...
>> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of
>> evolution. the first is they deny the fact that the church accepts
>> evolution. the second is that they deny the catholic church is
>> christian. in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
>> antichristian as it is antiscience.
>
>I can understand theological criticism of Catholicism, but why is
>the Pope's opinion of evolution so interesting? The Pope always
>accepts scientific evidence. Do we even know if the Pope was
>talking about micro- or macro- evolution?
he was talking about evolution. as i said, creationists and their
fellow travelers generally try to play word games...you prove my
point. he states no limits on his acceptance of evolution, though it's
very nice of you to try and straigten him out. since he has dual PhD's
in theology (gregorian), and philosophy (cracow), if he thought there
WAS a distinction, he'd probably be smart enough to make it. (in fact,
his address makes it clear he accepts the evolution of humans from
'lower' life forms).;
as to the pope's opinion...in case you hadnt noticed, or perhaps are
unaware of it, many folks DO think his opinion merits study and
consideration.
you do, of course, miss the point. the point is, evolution is entirely
consistent with christian belief. you may not think so. but the pope
does, and the jesuits do.
>
>> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
>> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
>> support for creationism within the church.
>
>Arguments with the Catholics about Bible interpretation go back
>100s of years. Evolution is just a minor and amusing side issue
>to that debate.
>
except the argument is settled about literalism. there is no support
for it in the catholic church. both the article, and the catholic
catechism reject it. and, again, the point you try to sidestep, with
the all adroitness of a sumo wrestler practicing ballet, is that
evolution, much to the dismay of creationists, is consistent with
christian belief.
ZenIsWhen
You're in DEEP SHIT now!
Don't you know that pagano reserves the right to be the only person to give
the RCC position on anything - particularly creation/evolution?
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
yeah i forgot about that...
forget everything i wrote...sorry tony...
Schlafly
> >Arguments with the Catholics about Bible interpretation go back
> >100s of years. Evolution is just a minor and amusing side issue
> >to that debate.
> except the argument is settled about literalism. there is no support
> for it in the catholic church. both the article, and the catholic
> catechism reject it. and, again, the point you try to sidestep, with
> the all adroitness of a sumo wrestler practicing ballet, is that
> evolution, much to the dismay of creationists, is consistent with
> christian belief.
That is correct, as the terms "evolution" and "christian belief" are
used by the Pope. But the Pope hasn't spoken for all Christians
in a long time, and not everyone even means the same thing by
those terms.
Bigdakine
>From: "Schlafly" roger...@deja.com
>Date: 12/25/00 8:29 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <9283lr$v9v$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>
Nope, he just speaks for 75%-80% of them. Where as the creationists speak at
most for a few percent or even less.
and not everyone even means the same thing by
>those terms.
Meaningless drivel.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
A Pagano
> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of evolution. the first is they deny the fact > that the church accepts evolution.
Pagano replies:
wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position. This creationist
position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
conjectural theory of evolutionism. Pope John Paul II (in his much
misrepresented address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) did
describe the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis and
acknowledged that it was accepted by the majority consensus of
scientists. Neither of these facts is denied, but neither of these
facts is sufficient to justify the claim that purely naturalistic
evolutionism is objectively true or even probably true.
Wf3h has in the past ignored the fact that Pope John Paul II in his Oct
96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirmed Pope Pius XII
encyclical "Humani Generis" without correction. In "Humani Generis"
Pope Pius XII said that:
1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution."
2. "In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion
take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly
would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proven facts; but...If such
conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way
be admitted."
3. "research and discussions [concerning evolutionism] on the part of
men...MUST BE DONE in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,
this is, those favorable and those unfavorable to Evolution, be weighed
and judged with necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgement of the
Church..."
*****************************************
Wf3h continues:
> the second is that they deny the catholic church is
> christian.
Pagano replies:
This is easily refuted by the fact that there exists a very small but
growing number of Catholic creationists. However, even if this weren't
true protestants in general and evangelical fundamentalists in
particular have never argued, as near as I can determine, that the
Catholic Church was non christian. They mostly argue that the Catholic
Church holds erroneous doctrines.
*********************************************
wf3h continues:
> in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
> antichristian as it is antiscience.
Pagano replies:
Since wf3h's premise---that creationists deny that the Catholic Church
is christian----is false then so is this conclusion upon which it is
based. While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
their public creationist writings, debates or displays. Whatever their
dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility. Having
collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
*************************************
wf3h continues:
> the support of the church for the science behind evolution is well
> known. we have pope jp ii's speech before the pontifical academy of
> science, where he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis'. while
> creationists try to play fast and loose with the language of the
> pope's statement, mike shermer of 'skeptic' magazine wrote the editor
> of "l'osservatore romano", the vatican's official newspaper to ask for
> a clarification. shermer asked whether the pope said 'evolution is
> more than A hypothesis', or 'evolution is more than ONE hypothesis'.
> the editor replied saying the FORMER is CORRECT.
Pagano replies:
As I have argued above and in previous posts no one has denied that the
theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. "More than a hypothesis"
simply means that evolutionism has garnered confirmations. No one
denies this. However, this is not the same thing as saying the theory
is true. No level of confirmation can justify that a theory is true or
even probably true.
As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
objectively true.
**********************************
wf3h continues:
> and there is little confusion among the clergy. the issue is settled
> in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
> 'america' has, at the following website:
>
> http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
Pagano replies:
Unlike protestantism where everyone is considered a competent authority
to interpret and teach, the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure
with only the Magisterium empowered and authorized to interpret and
teach the faithful. Wf3h either doesn't know this or he intends to
deceive. Neither the Jesuits as an order nor the authors of "America"
are members of the Magisterium and as a result their opinions have no
bearing on Catholic doctrine or the ordinary teachings of the
Magisterium.
We also have Catholics espousing the acceptability of abortion and
homosexual acts. Like the claims of the Jesuits of "America" concerning
evolutionism these unfortunate opinions have neither effect nor force on
Catholic doctrine nor are they Magisterial pronouncements.
****************************************
wf3h continues:
> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
> support for creationism within the church.
Pagano replies:
This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
Catholic Church." From paragraph 115: "According to an ancient
tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
literal and the spiritual, the latter being divided into the
allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of
the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of
Scripture in the Church. From para 116: "The literal sense is the
meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED
SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
***************************************
wf3h continues:
> in fact, author of the
> article, father richard clifford, s.j., states that the REAL goal of
> creationists is:
>
> >As George Marsden has pointed out in Fundamentalism and American Culture:
> >The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925
> > (1980), American fundamentalism has a political goal--the preservation or restoration of a nondenominational conservative Christian culture. It is clear from the pressure they have exerted on state school boards that creationists share that political agenda. Opponents of creationism must, therefore, not only criticize it as an idea but also actively oppose creationists' strategy of imposing their religious views on others.
Pagano replies:
Whatever the political goals of fundamentalism may be, with regard to
the creation of the material world and the life in it a majority of US
citizens agree with them. The pressure they have placed upon school
boards is backed by a majority of US citizens. Marsden fails to
recognize that the secular world has attempted to impose its
religious-like view that the world is a closed system of only material
causes and effects. This is not a scientific claim but a religious-like
one. The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
presupposition that this world was created by design.
***************************************************
wf3h continues:
> so creationism's emperor is unclothed by, unfortunately for them,
> other christians. creationism is a naked power grab; an attempt to
> force popular culture to accept right wing christianity as 'science',
> and to accord it the right to force itself on others.
Pagano replies:
Marsden neither speaks for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church nor
does his opinion represent that of any majority.
*****************************************************
wf3h continues:
> creationism destroys freedom.
Pagano replies:
Creationism destroys atheism and naturalism not freedom.
*******************************************
wf3h continues:
> it serves only a small fringe group of
> american christians. and it must be opposed BY christians.
Pagano replies:
While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
and the life in it by design and with purpose.
******************************************
Regards,
T Pagano
Chris Owen
> in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
> 'america' has, at the following website:
>
> http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
>
> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
> support for creationism within the church.
All of this just goes to prove the point that creationism is largely the
product of a small extreme right-wing US-based Protestant rump.
------o------
Chris Owen
Mark VandeWettering
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of evolution. the first is they deny the fact > that the church accepts evolution.
>
> Pagano replies:
>wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
>vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position. This creationist
>position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
>Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
>conjectural theory of evolutionism. Pope John Paul II (in his much
>misrepresented address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) did
>describe the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis and
>acknowledged that it was accepted by the majority consensus of
>scientists. Neither of these facts is denied, but neither of these
>facts is sufficient to justify the claim that purely naturalistic
>evolutionism is objectively true or even probably true.
I would agree that the exact nature of John Paul's statement on
evolution has largely been represented, but I feel this is rather
further off the beam than wf3h's opinion.
>Wf3h has in the past ignored the fact that Pope John Paul II in his Oct
>96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirmed Pope Pius XII
>encyclical "Humani Generis" without correction. In "Humani Generis"
>Pope Pius XII said that:
>
>1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
>not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
>the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
>pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution."
>
>2. "In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion
>take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly
>would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proven facts; but...If such
>conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
>revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way
>be admitted."
>
>3. "research and discussions [concerning evolutionism] on the part of
>men...MUST BE DONE in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,
>this is, those favorable and those unfavorable to Evolution, be weighed
>and judged with necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
>provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgement of the
>Church..."
I'm uncertain why you claim that he affirmed the Humani Generis. Certainly
JPII references it,
In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor
Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition
between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man
and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight
of several indisputable points.
He goes on to say...
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis
in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory
has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series
of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence,
neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in
favour of this theory.
It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the theory
of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement is
remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
>Wf3h continues:
>> the second is that they deny the catholic church is
>> christian.
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is easily refuted by the fact that there exists a very small but
>growing number of Catholic creationists. However, even if this weren't
>true protestants in general and evangelical fundamentalists in
>particular have never argued, as near as I can determine, that the
>Catholic Church was non christian. They mostly argue that the Catholic
>Church holds erroneous doctrines.
Well, mince words if you like. I've had several fundamentalists
acquaintances tell me to my face that as a Roman Catholic, I am
not a "true" Christian. They obviously were told this by someone
else, so I suspect that the attitude described is more prevalent
than your statement would suggest.
>wf3h continues:
>> in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
>> antichristian as it is antiscience.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Since wf3h's premise---that creationists deny that the Catholic Church
>is christian----is false then so is this conclusion upon which it is
>based.
I think "true" or "false" is too simple an explanation. I would think
that it is "not uncommon" for creationists to declare that Catholics
aren't Christian: in fact, I could name several posters to this very
newsgroup who have asserted as much. I don't link creationism to this
particular issue however: I suspect there are many Christians for whom
evolution is not the key issue, and yet would also deny that Catholicism
is a true branch of Christianity.
>While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
>evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
>much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
>their public creationist writings, debates or displays.
I think you are mistaken.
>Whatever their
>dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility.
At times. One could reference things like the Chick tracts to find out
just how peaceful and civil this dialogue is.
>Having
>collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
>have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
Uh, not so fast. You've done nothing of the source. It might be true
that w3fh hasn't presented evidence that creationists are anti-science
(I'm not sure he really has to, as it is clearly evident), but you have
not presented evidence to refute it.
>wf3h continues:
>> the support of the church for the science behind evolution is well
>> known. we have pope jp ii's speech before the pontifical academy of
>> science, where he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis'. while
>> creationists try to play fast and loose with the language of the
>> pope's statement, mike shermer of 'skeptic' magazine wrote the editor
>> of "l'osservatore romano", the vatican's official newspaper to ask for
>> a clarification. shermer asked whether the pope said 'evolution is
>> more than A hypothesis', or 'evolution is more than ONE hypothesis'.
>> the editor replied saying the FORMER is CORRECT.
>
> Pagano replies:
>As I have argued above and in previous posts no one has denied that the
>theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. "More than a hypothesis"
>simply means that evolutionism has garnered confirmations. No one
>denies this. However, this is not the same thing as saying the theory
>is true. No level of confirmation can justify that a theory is true or
>even probably true.
It is not the job of the Pope to be a scientist. He accepts that
the work of scientists, even potentially atheistic ones, is done
ethically and without deception. To the extent that science
describes the material world, he seems very comfortable in accepting
the conclusions of scientists.
Where he differs is of interest purely to religion and theology. In
trying to ascertain the true nature of man, he claims that man is given
his essential soul by God, no matter how his body was created. I can
see no reason why any scientist, atheistic or otherwise, would seek to
argue this particular point.
>As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
>aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
>confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
>a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
>of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
>NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
>objectively true.
This is correct, but also largely irrelevant. It is not the Church's
role to ensure adequate education in the sciences. John Paul is
merely asserting that it is not necessary to abandon pursuit of
scientific endeavors because of conflicts over faith. In this
respect, the Church has taken a position which is considerably more
progressive than other Christian sects.
>wf3h continues:
>> and there is little confusion among the clergy. the issue is settled
>> in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
>> 'america' has, at the following website:
>>
>> http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unlike protestantism where everyone is considered a competent authority
>to interpret and teach, the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure
>with only the Magisterium empowered and authorized to interpret and
>teach the faithful. Wf3h either doesn't know this or he intends to
>deceive. Neither the Jesuits as an order nor the authors of "America"
>are members of the Magisterium and as a result their opinions have no
>bearing on Catholic doctrine or the ordinary teachings of the
>Magisterium.
>
>We also have Catholics espousing the acceptability of abortion and
>homosexual acts. Like the claims of the Jesuits of "America" concerning
>evolutionism these unfortunate opinions have neither effect nor force on
>Catholic doctrine nor are they Magisterial pronouncements.
It has been quite some time since I studied all this, but I don't believe
that John Paul was speaking in his capacity to establish doctrine of the
Church in his Magisterium.
>wf3h continues:
>> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
>> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
>> support for creationism within the church.
>
> Pagano replies:
>This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
>Catholic Church." From paragraph 115: "According to an ancient
>tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
>literal and the spiritual, the latter being divided into the
>allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of
>the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of
>Scripture in the Church. From para 116: "The literal sense is the
>meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
>following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED
>SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
Certainly my education at a Jesuit high school never emphasized literal
interpretation of the Old Testament, except for the odd bits which were
independently verified by archaeology. The Catholic Church relies on
religious truth to be provided by the Bible, as well as tradition.
>Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
>the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
>arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
>Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
>reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
>mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
>monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
>with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
It wouldn't be the first time. Or the last.
>wf3h continues:
>> in fact, author of the
>> article, father richard clifford, s.j., states that the REAL goal of
>> creationists is:
>>
>> >As George Marsden has pointed out in Fundamentalism and American Culture:
>> >The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925
>> > (1980), American fundamentalism has a political goal--the preservation or restoration of a nondenominational conservative Christian culture. It is clear from the pressure they have exerted on state school boards that creationists share that political agenda. Opponents of creationism must, therefore, not only criticize it as an idea but also actively oppose creationists' strategy of imposing their religious views on others.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Whatever the political goals of fundamentalism may be, with regard to
>the creation of the material world and the life in it a majority of US
>citizens agree with them. The pressure they have placed upon school
>boards is backed by a majority of US citizens. Marsden fails to
>recognize that the secular world has attempted to impose its
>religious-like view that the world is a closed system of only material
>causes and effects. This is not a scientific claim but a religious-like
>one.
I don't feel that this is true nearly to the extent that people claim.
>The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
>presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
>presupposition that this world was created by design.
That could be because design theory is mindless pap.
>While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
>fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
>evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
>and the life in it by design and with purpose.
This of course, does not address whether evolution is in fact true.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
and...@my-deja.com
bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: a catholic view of evolution
> >From: "Schlafly" roger...@deja.com
> >> >Arguments with the Catholics about Bible interpretation go back
> >> >100s of years. Evolution is just a minor and amusing side issue
> >> >to that debate.
> >> except the argument is settled about literalism. there is no
support
> >> for it in the catholic church. both the article, and the catholic
> >> catechism reject it. and, again, the point you try to sidestep,
with
> >> the all adroitness of a sumo wrestler practicing ballet, is that
> >> evolution, much to the dismay of creationists, is consistent with
> >> christian belief.
> >
> >That is correct, as the terms "evolution" and "christian belief" are
> >used by the Pope. But the Pope hasn't spoken for all Christians
> >in a long time,
>
> Nope, he just speaks for 75%-80% of them. Where as the creationists
speak at
> most for a few percent or even less.
Gee, do you also think the US President always speaks for most
Americans? Of course not.
The Pope's statement on evolution was non-binding on Catholics, let
alone non-Catholics. Moreover, his statement referred to the theory of
evolution being more than "une" hypothesis, which can mean more than "a
hypothesis" or "one hypothesis". Either way, it falls far short of
saying that evolution is proven.
The hearsay claim that a newspaper editor endorsed one interpretation,
when his newspaper printed the other interpretation, is line noise at
best. The Pope chose not to clarify his statement, indicating that it
probably did not deserve any more attention.
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mark VandeWettering
The point isn't whether evolution is proven or not, it is whether it
is in conflict with the belief of the Catholic Church. JPII reaffirmed
that it is not.
>The hearsay claim that a newspaper editor endorsed one interpretation,
>when his newspaper printed the other interpretation, is line noise at
>best. The Pope chose not to clarify his statement, indicating that it
>probably did not deserve any more attention.
Another example of AndyLogic, wherein one can determine something when
someone says nothing.
>Andy
and...@my-deja.com
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 25 Dec 2000 18:11:11 -0500, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
First of all, Pagano's posting was a good piece of work. Thank you.
Second of all, Merry Christmas to Mark and Pagano and everyone else.
> I'm uncertain why you claim that he affirmed the Humani Generis.
Certainly
> JPII references it,
>
> In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor
> Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition
> between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man
> and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight
> of several indisputable points.
>
> He goes on to say...
>
> Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
Encyclical,
> new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one
hypothesis
> in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this
theory
> has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a
series
> of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence,
> neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
> conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in
> favour of this theory.
Mark's quote uses the "more than one hypothesis" interpretation of the
Pope's remarks. That was the interpretation originally reported by the
Vatican newspaper. Evolutionists then tried to change that
interpretation into "more than a hypothesis," based on some solicited
hearsay from an editor at the newspaper.
> It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the
theory
> of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement
is
> remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
The Pope supports real science. So do most Catholics and non-Catholics
alike. But that doesn't mean evolution is factual.
[snip]
Joe Cummings
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of evolution. the first is they deny the fact > that the church accepts evolution.
>
> Pagano replies:
>wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
>vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position. This creationist
>position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
>Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
>conjectural theory of evolutionism.
Whoa there Antony.
Has anyone, anyone been so forward as to say any scientific
theory is "objectively true???"
If you claim there has, then please let us know what they or
you mean by "objectively true?" It should be interesting.
and...@my-deja.com
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 25 Dec 2000 19:42:40 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <andysch@my-
Quote please? I don't recall seeing that in the speech.
>
> >The hearsay claim that a newspaper editor endorsed one
interpretation,
> >when his newspaper printed the other interpretation, is line noise at
> >best. The Pope chose not to clarify his statement, indicating that
it
> >probably did not deserve any more attention.
>
> Another example of AndyLogic, wherein one can determine something
when
> someone says nothing.
I guess you haven't realized yet that your own quote used
the "evolution is more than one hypothesis" version.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
the pope speaks for catholic christians. thus creationists who assert
evolution is incompatible with christianity are either wrong, or
anticatholic. take your pick.
>
>
>
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <20001225142247...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
>>
>
>Gee, do you also think the US President always speaks for most
>Americans? Of course not.
>
>The Pope's statement on evolution was non-binding on Catholics, let
>alone non-Catholics. Moreover, his statement referred to the theory of
>evolution being more than "une" hypothesis, which can mean more than "a
>hypothesis" or "one hypothesis". Either way, it falls far short of
>saying that evolution is proven.
andy, again, is lying, big time. the editor or "l'osservatore romano"
settled the confusion on the issue when he said the pope said
evolution is more than A hypothesis.
>
>The hearsay claim that a newspaper editor endorsed one interpretation,
>when his newspaper printed the other interpretation, is line noise at
>best. The Pope chose not to clarify his statement, indicating that it
>probably did not deserve any more attention.
>
hey andy...the editor quoted by shermer is the editor of the official
vatican newspaper. perhaps you'd like his job since you seem to know
better than he does what goes into the vatican newspaper...
creationists just cant take it...
as to being 'non binding' on catholics, so what? the issue is, is
evolution compatible with christian belief? the pope is a christian.
he's a christian leader in the theology of the catholic church. so the
answer is, yes, it is compatible.
so either you or the pope is wrong about catholic belief...generally
speaking, i'll go with the pope.
wf...@ptd.net
if it were incompatible, why didnt he say so. he said it was science.
you saying the pope claims science is incompatible with belief?
>
>>
Schlafly
news:3a481034....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> the pope speaks for catholic christians. thus creationists who assert
> evolution is incompatible with christianity are either wrong, or
> anticatholic. take your pick.
I suspect a lot of the creationists are indeed anti-Catholic,
and do not follow the Pope.
Even some Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says.
And even some creationists will concede that evolution is more
than a hypothesis.
wf...@ptd.net
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of evolution. the first is they deny the fact > that the church accepts evolution.
>
> Pagano replies:
>wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
>vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position.
gee, having been a catholic seminarian, i wonder how much time pagano
spent in the catholic church.
This creationist
>position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
>Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
>conjectural theory of evolutionism.
the catholic church is not in the science business. it does not accept
or reject ANY scientific idea at all. what it does do is state which
ideas are compatible or incompatible with the church's theology. as
ive stated, neither the pope, nor the jesuit fathers at the weston
jesuit school of theology found a problem with evolution. in fact,
father richard clifford, s.j., specifically stated that creationism is
based on biblical literalism, which is not a catholic position.
Pope John Paul II (in his much
>misrepresented address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) did
>describe the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis and
>acknowledged that it was accepted by the majority consensus of
>scientists. Neither of these facts is denied, but neither of these
>facts is sufficient to justify the claim that purely naturalistic
>evolutionism is objectively true or even probably true.
so pagano admits the pope accepts the scientific conclusion of
evolution...and then goes on to state something that evolution never
does...that man has a 'purely naturalistic' origin. IOW he's given
away the facts about both the church AND evolution, so his only
recourse is to make up something about evolution that evolution does
not say.
typical creationist
>
>Wf3h has in the past ignored the fact that Pope John Paul II in his Oct
>96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirmed Pope Pius XII
>encyclical "Humani Generis" without correction. In "Humani Generis"
>Pope Pius XII said that:
>
>1. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has
>not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains
>the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
>pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution."
except that john paul ii said that, as pagano admits, evolution is
MORE than a hypothesis. thus its not incompatible with belief. pagano
is forced to go back to a document more than 50 yrs old, which itself
claimed the need for MORE RESEARCH.
one wonders what pagano is complaining about, having admitted above
that the pope accepts the facts of evolution, and that biblical
literalism is not catholic.
>
>2. "In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion
>take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly
>would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proven facts; but...If such
>conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
>revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way
>be admitted."
>
pagano is welcome to point to ANY scientific definition of evolution
that includes god, the soul, or limits on god's powers. another
strawman.
>3. "research and discussions [concerning evolutionism] on the part of
>men...MUST BE DONE in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,
>this is, those favorable and those unfavorable to Evolution, be weighed
>and judged with necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
>provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgement of the
>Church..."
since this document was published half a century ago (something pagano
doesnt state), such research as i stated above, HAS been done. there
is NO alternative to evolution. the pope's suggestion WAS followed,
and research confirms evolution, as pagano admits the pope stated in
his address.
again, one wonders what pagano is complaining about.
>*****************************************
>
>
>
>Wf3h continues:
>> the second is that they deny the catholic church is
>> christian.
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is easily refuted by the fact that there exists a very small but
>growing number of Catholic creationists.
for a discussion of historical american anticatholicism, see:
>http://www.americapress.org/articles/martinanticatholicism.htm
which is an article by father james martin, s.j., of the weston jesuit
school of theology. father martin, a professor at the school, with a
PhD from harvard, discusses american anticatholicism...which pagano
says doesnt exist. so pagano accuses me of not knowing anything about
catholicism, but yet denies there was ever any anticatholic sentiment
in the US.
yeah, thats creationist.
However, even if this weren't
>true protestants in general and evangelical fundamentalists in
>particular have never argued, as near as I can determine, that the
>Catholic Church was non christian. They mostly argue that the Catholic
>Church holds erroneous doctrines.
see the above document which refutes pagano's lie. either he's right,
or catholic historians are right. i prefer to go with historians.
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
>> antichristian as it is antiscience.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Since wf3h's premise---that creationists deny that the Catholic Church
>is christian----is false then so is this conclusion upon which it is
>based.
see the reference above. pagano has cited precisely ZERO sources to
buttress his position, other than a 50 yr old document which he admits
destroys his position.
While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
>evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
>much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
>their public creationist writings, debates or displays. Whatever their
>dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility. Having
>collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
>have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
since creationism is an attempt to religionize science, it is, by
definition, antiscience. for another discussion of the catholic
position regarding creationism, see father richard clifford, s.j., at:
>http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
in fact, father clifford specifically states regarding creationism and
biblical literalism:
> A second look, however, shows that the proposal contains two assumptions
>that virtually all professionally trained biblical scholars and scientists
> completely reject: that Genesis 1, interpreted literally, is the only
>or at least the standard biblical creation account, and that the six-day
> creation story in Genesis 1 is a rival to the modern theory of evolution.
> These assumptions show that creationism fundamentally misunderstands the Bible
> and the relation of science and religion.
> The majority of biblical scholars, theologians of the mainstream churches,
> and philosophers of science hold an alternative view that will be summarized
>here under three headings: creation in the Bible, the differences between
> biblical and modern views of creation and the relation of religion and science.
so, again, either pagano is correct, or the reverend father richard
clifford, s.j., PhD (Harvard), is correct.
regarding the position of the church, i think i'll go with the jesuit
priest, rather than pagano.
father clifford shows that creationism is a distortion of the bible.
he also shows that the catholic position ACKNOWLEDGES creationism IS a
distortion. and pagano has NO source to back up HIS view that the
church ACCEPTS creationism. none. nada. zip.
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> the support of the church for the science behind evolution is well
>> known. we have pope jp ii's speech before the pontifical academy of
>> science, where he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis'. while
>> creationists try to play fast and loose with the language of the
>> pope's statement, mike shermer of 'skeptic' magazine wrote the editor
>> of "l'osservatore romano", the vatican's official newspaper to ask for
>> a clarification. shermer asked whether the pope said 'evolution is
>> more than A hypothesis', or 'evolution is more than ONE hypothesis'.
>> the editor replied saying the FORMER is CORRECT.
>
> Pagano replies:
>As I have argued above and in previous posts no one has denied that the
>theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. "More than a hypothesis"
>simply means that evolutionism has garnered confirmations. No one
>denies this. However, this is not the same thing as saying the theory
>is true. No level of confirmation can justify that a theory is true or
>even probably true.
there is no theory in ANY science that is 'true'. if this is pagano's
ONLY objection, then science simply does not exist. physics doesnt
exist. chemistry doesnt exist. or, alternatively, evolution is just as
scientific as physics. and that happens to be the case.
>
>As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
>aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
>confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
>a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
>of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
>NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
>objectively true.
what he was affirming is that evolution is a theory, as scientific as
ANY other theory in science, and that the church has NO objection to
it. what father clifford, s.j. pointed out above is that the catholic
church IS aware of creationism, and considers biblical literalism a
distortion of traditional christianity.
>**********************************
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> and there is little confusion among the clergy. the issue is settled
>> in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
>> 'america' has, at the following website:
>>
>> http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unlike protestantism where everyone is considered a competent authority
>to interpret and teach, the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure
>with only the Magisterium empowered and authorized to interpret and
>teach the faithful. Wf3h either doesn't know this or he intends to
>deceive. Neither the Jesuits as an order nor the authors of "America"
>are members of the Magisterium and as a result their opinions have no
>bearing on Catholic doctrine or the ordinary teachings of the
>Magisterium.
the priests i cited teach theology and church history at the weston
jesuit school of theology (http://www.wjst.edu/). they are official
teachers of catholic doctrine. the recent vatican encyclical 'ex corde
ecclesia' specifically stated that such teachers could teach ONLY with
approval of the church. if they deviated from official doctrine, they
would be suspended.
if pagano believes this about the fathers of the church, i suggest he
look at the numerous examples of priests who've been disciplined for
teaching against church authority. father hans kung had his teaching
authority suspended. father leonardo boff, likewise. the jesuit
magazine 'america' itself has an article by 2 suspended clergy, a nun,
and a priest, disciplined for not condemning homosexuality. if pagano
think clifford is lying, apparently the vatican does not agree.
in addition, pagano is welcome to point to ANY acceptance of biblical
literalism by the pope. he's welcome to point to ANY condemnation of
evolution by the pope. let him prove his case. he's admitted the pope
ACCEPTS evolution as science. he's admitted the pope does NOT say
evolution is 'true', but NO scientist says ANY theory is 'true' at
all.
>
>We also have Catholics espousing the acceptability of abortion and
>homosexual acts.
pagano is welcome to cite a single...even ONE SINGLE priest in good
standing with the church who says abortion is acceptable.
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
>> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
>> support for creationism within the church.
>
> Pagano replies:
>This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
>Catholic Church." From paragraph 115: "According to an ancient
>tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
>literal and the spiritual, the latter being divided into the
>allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of
>the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of
>Scripture in the Church. From para 116: "The literal sense is the
>meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
>following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED
>SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
ironic, in that I myself provided this reference to pagano. he has, of
course, distorted it. there is NO support in this AT ALL that the ONLY
sense of scripture is LITERAL. none.
moreover, there is NO literature which does NOT begin with the LITERAL
at all. even secular literature. that other interpretations are BASED
on the literal simply means that knowledge of the words begins
interpretation. if that were NOT the case, why would the VERY NEXT
PARAGRAPH state:
'the spiritual sense. thanks to the unity of god's plan, not only can
the text of scripture, but also the realities and events about which
it speaks CAN BE SIGNS.'
if there were only ONE sense of scripture...the literal, neither the
spiritual nor the allegorical sense, detailed in paragraph 117 would
exist.
paragraph 117 goes on to detail the ANAGOGICAL sense of scripture. it
says 'we can view REALITIES AND EVENTS IN TERMS OF THEIR ETERENAL
SIGNIFICANCE' it cites a medieval poem about scriptural
interpretation:
'the LETTER speaks of deeds; ALLEGORY to faith; MORAL how to act;
ANAGOGICAL our destiny'
if the LITERAL interpretatoin was ALL, there would be NO acceptance of
evolution by the POPE, nor would jesuit fathers be condemning biblical
literalism at the schools of theology sponsored by the church.
>
>Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
>the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
>arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
>Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
>reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
>mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
>monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
>with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
unfortunately for pagano, he stated above that the pope accepts the
scientific validity of evolution. pagano does not quote from the
source; he gives us his summary of it. he give no reference. he
provides no reason why a catholic priest who teaches at an official
catholic school of theology would be allowed to continue to teach if
he deviated from catholic theology.
pagano also ignores the fact the vatican sponsors the vatican
observatory at kitt peak, arizona, also staffed by jesuits. they are
doing research into cosmology, and agree with the observed age of the
universe: about 15 billion yrs old. since the observatory is funded by
the vatican, pagano is stating that the vatican funds project it
itself does not agree with.
>***************************************
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> in fact, author of the
>> article, father richard clifford, s.j., states that the REAL goal of
>> creationists is:
>>
>> >As George Marsden has pointed out in Fundamentalism and American Culture:
>> >The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925
>> > (1980), American fundamentalism has a political goal--the preservation or restoration of a nondenominational conservative Christian culture. It is clear from the pressure they have exerted on state school boards that creationists share that political agenda. Opponents of creationism must, therefore, not only criticize it as an idea but also actively oppose creationists' strategy of imposing their religious views on others.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Whatever the political goals of fundamentalism may be, with regard to
>the creation of the material world and the life in it a majority of US
>citizens agree with them.
proof? none. and the issue is NOT whether americans have been
hoodwinked by creationist lies, but whether the vatican accepts
evolution; it does. it does not accept literalism. it says so above
when it cites FOUR senses of scriptural interpretation.
The pressure they have placed upon school
>boards is backed by a majority of US citizens.
pagano ignores the fact mississippi had to call out the national guard
to enforce desegregation because the majority of white citizens
opposed it.
Marsden fails to
>recognize that the secular world has attempted to impose its
>religious-like view that the world is a closed system of only material
>causes and effects.
this is pagano's self serving opinion about the state of modern
science; it is a view not shared by the vatican, nor by the citizens
of the state of kansas, who thru out a group of creationists holding
public office. pagano's view is refuted.
This is not a scientific claim but a religious-like
>one. The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
>presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
>presupposition that this world was created by design.
finally pagano admits creationism is religion. fine. let it be taught
by religious authorities. the US govt CANNOT teach religion, period.
pagano admits what scientists and the vatican have known all along;
creationism is an attempt to force a particular view of the bible on
school students.
>***************************************************
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> so creationism's emperor is unclothed by, unfortunately for them,
>> other christians. creationism is a naked power grab; an attempt to
>> force popular culture to accept right wing christianity as 'science',
>> and to accord it the right to force itself on others.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Marsden neither speaks for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church nor
>does his opinion represent that of any majority.
pagano keeps saying that the pope, and official professors of catholic
doctrine dont speak for the church. pagano does.
the church is in much better shape than pagano thinks.
>*****************************************************
>
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> creationism destroys freedom.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Creationism destroys atheism and naturalism not freedom.
science is not atheism. if it was pagano's scientist invented computer
wouldnt work. and as father clifford pointed out above, creationism is
an attempt by right wingers to destroy religious freedom.
>*******************************************
>
>
>
>wf3h continues:
>> it serves only a small fringe group of
>> american christians. and it must be opposed BY christians.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
>fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
>evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
>and the life in it by design and with purpose.
this is an unsupported assertion by pagano. so far we've seen his view
of the catholic church is that the pope and the jesuits are wrong.
wonder what that says about his view of the american public?
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <slrn94fnpv...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>,
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
>> On 25 Dec 2000 18:11:11 -0500, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>First of all, Pagano's posting was a good piece of work. Thank you.
>Second of all, Merry Christmas to Mark and Pagano and everyone else.
really? he got everything wrong, and you say it was good?
oh...you're a creationist...so of course you ignore the fact right
wing creationists are often anticatholic.
never mind...i just have to consider the source...
the editor was the editor of the newspaper which is the official
vatican paper. both you and pagano are saying you're more right than
the pope.
>
>> It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the
>theory
>> of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement
>is
>> remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
>
>The Pope supports real science. So do most Catholics and non-Catholics
>alike. But that doesn't mean evolution is factual.
>
evolution is observed so its a fact.
the pope accepts the theory of evolution as more than A hypothesis.
and the fact you ignore historical anticatholicism, as does pagano,
says alot about how creationists view catholics.
Robert Carroll
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3a481702....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> On 25 Dec 2000 18:11:11 -0500, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> >> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of
evolution. the first is they deny the fact > that the church accepts
evolution.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
> >vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position.
>
> gee, having been a catholic seminarian, i wonder how much time pagano
> spent in the catholic church.
>
> This creationist
> >position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
> >Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
> >conjectural theory of evolutionism.
>
> the catholic church is not in the science business. it does not accept
> or reject ANY scientific idea at all. what it does do is state which
> ideas are compatible or incompatible with the church's theology. as
> ive stated, neither the pope, nor the jesuit fathers at the weston
> jesuit school of theology found a problem with evolution. in fact,
> father richard clifford, s.j., specifically stated that creationism is
> based on biblical literalism, which is not a catholic position.
This is exactly correct. The Catholic Church avers that evolution is not
*inconsistent* with the church's doctrine. The Church does not take a stand
on the truth or falsity of science, or any specific scientific theories,
presumably unless there is a conflict. AFAICT, there is no such conflict
now.
Bob
Mark VandeWettering
>> The point isn't whether evolution is proven or not, it is whether it
>> is in conflict with the belief of the Catholic Church. JPII reaffirmed
>> that it is not.
>
>Quote please? I don't recall seeing that in the speech.
I'm not surprised, but your reading ability has always been questionable.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>Mark's quote uses the "more than one hypothesis" interpretation of the
>Pope's remarks. That was the interpretation originally reported by the
>Vatican newspaper. Evolutionists then tried to change that
>interpretation into "more than a hypothesis," based on some solicited
>hearsay from an editor at the newspaper.
Let's look at this paragraph more carefully, shall we?
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of
more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries
in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
conducted independently is in itself a significant argument
in favour of this theory.
It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
"more than one hypothesis in evolution".
>> It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the
>theory
>> of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement
>is
>> remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
>
>The Pope supports real science. So do most Catholics and non-Catholics
>alike. But that doesn't mean evolution is factual.
I don't believe I ever claimed that the Pope things that evolution is factual
(although given the tone of the Magisterium, I think he certainly thinks it
is a credibly hypothesis), but rather that there is no inherent conflict
between naturalistic evolution and the tenets of Catholicism. Other branches
of Christianity do not feel the same.
Mark
>Andy
Schlafly
news:slrn94gc4a...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> Let's look at this paragraph more carefully, shall we?
> Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of
> more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
> indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
> accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries
> in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
> sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
> conducted independently is in itself a significant argument
>
> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> theory in the singular form.
Theories often contain multiple hypotheses.
> This would seem to indicate the
> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
There are other ambiguities if you scrutinize the words carefully.
Is the acceptable remarkable because the theory is so good or
so lousy? Does "recognition" imply some sort of validity?
> >The Pope supports real science. So do most Catholics and non-Catholics
> >alike. But that doesn't mean evolution is factual.
> I don't believe I ever claimed that the Pope thinks that evolution is
factual
> (although given the tone of the Magisterium, I think he certainly thinks
it
> is a credibly hypothesis), but rather that there is no inherent conflict
> between naturalistic evolution and the tenets of Catholicism.
Or that Catholics should be prepared to modify theology if
necessary, in case evolution turns out to be a fact.
> Other branches of Christianity do not feel the same.
See Protestant Reformation for other such differences.
sarah clark
> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
it's a mistranslation. you should quit using it.
"plus que +" (which was used) does not refer to specific
quantities.
"plus de + article" is the appropriate construction for
specific quantities.
the confusion arises because "une" is both a numeral
and an article. that's why dictionary examples
don't use "une" to illustrate "plus de".
andy's full of crap.
--
sarah clark
Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship
with all living beings, and I made up my mind
then that I was not one bit better than the
meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now,
that while there is a lower class, I am in it,
while there is a criminal element, I am of it,
and while there is a soul in prison, I am not
free.
-- Eugene V. Debs
Emm Foster
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
<...>
>
> The Pope's statement on evolution was non-binding on Catholics, let
> alone non-Catholics. Moreover, his statement referred to the theory of
> evolution being more than "une" hypothesis, which can mean more than "a
> hypothesis" or "one hypothesis". Either way, it falls far short of
> saying that evolution is proven.
The Pope's initial statement is in French and says: "de nouvelles
connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution
PLUS QU'UNE hypothèse.".
http://www.emmanuel-info.com/fr/dossiers/evolution/academie.html
In this context, the use of "une" means "more than A". If the pope
wanted to say "more than one" he would have said "plus D'UNE" instead of
"PLUS QU'UNE" The use of QU' [que] instead of D' [de} makes all the
difference and there is no ambiguity at all when you refer to the French
statement. The meaning conveyed by "UNE" depends of the rest of the
sentence because we don't have different words for "a" and "one".
Regards
Emmanuelle (French catholic)
Emm Foster
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
<...>
> Mark's quote uses the "more than one hypothesis" interpretation of the
> Pope's remarks. That was the interpretation originally reported by the
> Vatican newspaper. Evolutionists then tried to change that
> interpretation into "more than a hypothesis," based on some solicited
> hearsay from an editor at the newspaper.
The "more than one..." is a mistake in the translation from French (see
my other post). The original statement must be translated by "more than
A" from the French "plus QU'UNE" (and not "plus D'UNE..."). When you
refer to the original communication, there is no ambiguity and it is not
necessary to "interpret". Now, the interpretation of the word UNE might
be tricky when you try to translate into English since the meaning of
UNE depends on the whole sentence.
Regards
Emmanuelle
Emm Foster
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
> On 25 Dec 2000 19:55:09 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark's quote uses the "more than one hypothesis" interpretation of the
> >Pope's remarks. That was the interpretation originally reported by the
> >Vatican newspaper. Evolutionists then tried to change that
> >interpretation into "more than a hypothesis," based on some solicited
> >hearsay from an editor at the newspaper.
>
> Let's look at this paragraph more carefully, shall we?
>
> Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of
> more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
> indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
> accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries
> in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
> sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
> conducted independently is in itself a significant argument
> in favour of this theory.
>
> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this,
It is indeed a translation from French and the correct translation for
"Plus QU'UNE hypothese" is "more than A hypothesis". A more accurate
(IMHO) translation of the French sentence: "de nouvelles connaissances
conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une
hypothèse." would be "new knowledge has led to the recognition that the
theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis"
> but all
> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
You're correct.
<...>
Regards
Emmanuelle
Joe Cummings
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>
>> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
>> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
>> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
>> theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
>> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
>> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
>
>it's a mistranslation. you should quit using it.
>
>"plus que +" (which was used) does not refer to specific
>quantities.
>
>"plus de + article" is the appropriate construction for
>specific quantities.
>
>the confusion arises because "une" is both a numeral
>and an article. that's why dictionary examples
>don't use "une" to illustrate "plus de".
>
>andy's full of crap.
>
>--
>sarah clark
We know there's an ambiguity: so would Fench speakers.
I think they'd say "plus d'une seule hypothčse " if they
wanted to say "more than a single hypothesis."
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Emm Foster
Joe Cummings wrote:
>
> On 26 Dec 2000 08:12:16 -0500, sarah clark <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> >Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
> >> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
> >> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> >> theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
> >> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> >> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
> >
> >it's a mistranslation. you should quit using it.
> >
> >"plus que +" (which was used) does not refer to specific
> >quantities.
> >
> >"plus de + article" is the appropriate construction for
> >specific quantities.
> >
> >the confusion arises because "une" is both a numeral
> >and an article. that's why dictionary examples
> >don't use "une" to illustrate "plus de".
> >
> >andy's full of crap.
> >
> >--
> >sarah clark
>
> We know there's an ambiguity: so would Fench speakers.
There is no ambiguity in the French version.
>
> I think they'd say "plus d'une seule hypothčse " if they
> wanted to say "more than a single hypothesis."
Correct. The use of "plus QU'une" instead of "plus D'une" makes the
difference.
Regards
Emmanuelle
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
Schlafly
news:3A46D389...@lib.drury.edu...
> It is indeed a translation from French and the correct translation for
> "Plus QU'UNE hypothese" is "more than A hypothesis". A more accurate
> (IMHO) translation of the French sentence: "de nouvelles connaissances
> conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une
> hypothèse." would be "new knowledge has led to the recognition that the
> theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis"
Ok, I can see translating "une" as "a" rather than "one", but how
do you get "that ... is" out of "dans"?
A literal translation might be:
new knowledge has led to the recognition in the
theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis
That is, more than a hypothesis is being recognized, but how
do you get that it is saying that evolution itself is more than a
hypothesis? There is no verb between evolution and hypothesis.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
that doesnt even make sense in english. the pope is saying a theory is
more than a hypothesis? now THAT is strained. the most logical
interpretation is that given by the editor of "l'osservatore romano"
that the pope said evolution is more than A hypothesis...
and...@my-deja.com
As already pointed out, the phrase "dans la theorie" suggests multiple
hypotheses *in* the theory. Your translation fails to translate
the "dans".
Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis when the
actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not the
native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants to
emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions of what
happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
> > but all
> > phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> > theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
> > interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> > "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
>
> You're correct.
This inference is incorrect. The very purpose of speaking in terms of
both "theory" and "hypothesis" is to draw a contrast the two. There is
only one of the former, but many of the latter "dans" the former.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3A46D389...@lib.drury.edu>,
> Emm Foster <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>
>> It is indeed a translation from French and the correct translation for
>> "Plus QU'UNE hypothese" is "more than A hypothesis". A more accurate
>> (IMHO) translation of the French sentence: "de nouvelles connaissances
>> conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une
>> hypothèse." would be "new knowledge has led to the recognition that
>the
>> theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis"
>
>As already pointed out, the phrase "dans la theorie" suggests multiple
>hypotheses *in* the theory. Your translation fails to translate
>the "dans".
what andy ignores is that the vatican's newspaper clarified the pope's
statement, and it means that evolution is more than A hypothesis.
andy, the linguistic fetishist, fails to tell us what the hell
'multiple hypotheses in the theory' means to him OR the vatican, as he
both speculates on the pope's language, and ignores the vatican's own
clarification.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Only for someone who translates from French to English via babelfish.
Your translation fails to translate
> the "dans".
Because there is nothing to translate. This "dans" has nothing to do
with what the theory *contains*. "Reconnaitre dans la theorie ..."
actually mirrors the German expression "erkennen in der Theorie ...";
both mean "to recognize the theory *as* ...
> Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis when the
> actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not the
> native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants to
> emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions of what
> happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
Apparently you know French better than native speakers like Emmanuelle
Foster do. Congrats! I am looking forward to the time when you will be
teaching me German (and Hamilton's principle, of course ...) ;-)
Again: "dans"/French and "in"/German do not necessarily refer to a
relation "within", not even in a metaphoric sense.
HRG.
<snip>
wf...@ptd.net
dont forget he knows the vatican better than the editor of the
vatican's official newspaper, as well. some guy, andy...
and...@my-deja.com
If that's what the Pope meant, then the more straightforward way of
stating that would be "to recognize that the theory is ...",
not "recognize in the theory ..."
> > Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis when
the
> > actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not the
> > native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants to
> > emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions of
what
> > happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
>
> Apparently you know French better than native speakers like Emmanuelle
> Foster do. Congrats! I am looking forward to the time when you will be
> teaching me German (and Hamilton's principle, of course ...) ;-)
You avoid the issue here. "plus que" is used to place the emphasis on
the contrast, as in "he's more than such-and-such"; "plus de" is for a
non-emphatic description of a quantity. The Pope was not trying to
estimate how many hypotheses are in evolution, but merely to emphasize
that it is not merely one hypothesis.
> Again: "dans"/French and "in"/German do not necessarily refer to a
> relation "within", not even in a metaphoric sense.
Even if you were correct, then that would not explain the Pope's use of
the word recognize. One recognizes multiple problems in a situation,
for example. Since a "theory" is always more than a "hypothesis",
there would no reason for the Pope to declare that we can now, after
much effort, recognize that the "theory is more than a hypothesis."
The Vatican newspaper's printed translation of the Pope's statement is
the version used by Mark above: evolutionary theory is "more than one
hypothesis."
Andy
Mark VandeWettering
Merci beaucoup.
B.O'Neill
capax-dei. Thus both creationism and end-timer-ism are both anti-human and anti-christian
by asserting one moment of creation, and predetermination. (BTW the Big Bang is creationism).
Evolution, by making claims of man's nature based on animal observations, deny man's nature
as being imago-viva-dei, in the living image of God _because_ of capax-dei or Creative Reason.
So claiming evolution or creationism as 'christian' based on an 'authority' even if Jesuit, denies
creative reason, by appealing to 'authority', even consensus, in a non-cognitive way.
The Jesuits have a very twisted history, and are better referred to as the Anglican Jesuits, the former
being the source of the protestant fundies even in the US. There are of course exceptional Jesuits,
but with Ignatius of Loyola as founder, huge obstacles must be overcome.
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> creationists generally have 2 positions WRT catholicism's view of
> evolution. the first is they deny the fact that the church accepts
> evolution. the second is that they deny the catholic church is
> christian. in this, they betray the fact that creationism is often as
> antichristian as it is antiscience.
>
> the support of the church for the science behind evolution is well
> known. we have pope jp ii's speech before the pontifical academy of
> science, where he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis'. while
> creationists try to play fast and loose with the language of the
> pope's statement, mike shermer of 'skeptic' magazine wrote the editor
> of "l'osservatore romano", the vatican's official newspaper to ask for
> a clarification. shermer asked whether the pope said 'evolution is
> more than A hypothesis', or 'evolution is more than ONE hypothesis'.
> the editor replied saying the FORMER is CORRECT.
>
> and there is little confusion among the clergy. the issue is settled
> in favor of support for evolution. for example, the jesuit publication
> 'america' has, at the following website:
>
> http://www.americapress.org/articles/cliffordcreationism.htm
>
> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
> support for creationism within the church. in fact, author of the
> article, father richard clifford, s.j., states that the REAL goal of
> creationists is:
>
> >As George Marsden has pointed out in Fundamentalism and American Culture:
> >The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925
> > (1980), American fundamentalism has a political goal--the preservation or restoration of a nondenominational conservative Christian culture. It is clear from the pressure they have exerted on state school boards that creationists share that political agenda. Opponents of creationism must, therefore, not only criticize it as an idea but also actively oppose creationists' strategy of imposing their religious views on others.
>
> so creationism's emperor is unclothed by, unfortunately for them,
> other christians. creationism is a naked power grab; an attempt to
> force popular culture to accept right wing christianity as 'science',
> and to accord it the right to force itself on others.
>
> creationism destroys freedom. it serves only a small fringe group of
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Maybe it would be so in English. However, good style seldom survives a
literal translation between two languages. I don't know if you speak
and write another language fluently; if so, I'm sure you will have
recognized this fact.
> > > Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis when
> the
> > > actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not the
> > > native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants to
> > > emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions of
> what
> > > happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
> >
> > Apparently you know French better than native speakers like
Emmanuelle
> > Foster do. Congrats! I am looking forward to the time when you will
be
> > teaching me German (and Hamilton's principle, of course ...) ;-)
>
> You avoid the issue here.
Not at all. I just point out that native speakers usually have the best
grasp on the subtleties of language, meaning and style. Up to now, Emm
Foster is the only "French native" who has contributed to this thread.
"plus que" is used to place the emphasis on
> the contrast, as in "he's more than such-and-such"; "plus de" is for a
> non-emphatic description of a quantity. The Pope was not trying to
> estimate how many hypotheses are in evolution, but merely to emphasize
> that it is not merely one hypothesis.
No. It is *a* theory.
> > Again: "dans"/French and "in"/German do not necessarily refer to a
> > relation "within", not even in a metaphoric sense.
>
> Even if you were correct,
I *am* correct.
then that would not explain the Pope's use of
> the word recognize. One recognizes multiple problems in a situation,
> for example.
> Since a "theory" is always more than a "hypothesis",
A well-established and confirmed hypothesis *becomes* a theory.
> there would no reason for the Pope to declare that we can now, after
> much effort, recognize that the "theory is more than a hypothesis."
You are arguing in the context of the English language. "To recognize"
has not the same semantic context as "reconnaitre".
HRG.
Mark VandeWettering
>"Mark VandeWettering" <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn94gc4a...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
>> Let's look at this paragraph more carefully, shall we?
>> Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
>> Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of
>> more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
>> indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
>> accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries
>> in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
>> sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
>> conducted independently is in itself a significant argument
>> in favour of this theory. [Pope JPII]
>>
>> It is my understanding that this is a translation from French, so
>> perhaps it is inappropriate to read too much into this, but all
>> phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
>> theory in the singular form.
>
>Theories often contain multiple hypotheses.
Yes. And?
Elsewhere someone presented the original french, which used the
construction "plus qu'une" rather than "plus d'une", which is
consistent with my interpretation.
>> This would seem to indicate the
>> interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
>> "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
>
>There are other ambiguities if you scrutinize the words carefully.
>Is the acceptable remarkable because the theory is so good or
>so lousy? Does "recognition" imply some sort of validity?
*sigh* I'll admit, you and your brother, have some considerable skill
at quote mining. Or perhaps you just lack basic reading comprehension
skills.
Again, it hardly matters whether the Pope believes that evolution is
true or false. He is a religious leader, and is expected to explain
whether it is contrary to the teachings of the Church, not whether
it is proven, or even good science. His statement _does_ include
the sentence:
The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in
itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [JPII]
I'd say from this, it is pretty darned obvious that he thinks the
theory is likely to be good science.
>
>> >The Pope supports real science. So do most Catholics and non-Catholics
>> >alike. But that doesn't mean evolution is factual.
>> I don't believe I ever claimed that the Pope thinks that evolution is
>factual
>> (although given the tone of the Magisterium, I think he certainly thinks
>it
>> is a credibly hypothesis), but rather that there is no inherent conflict
>> between naturalistic evolution and the tenets of Catholicism.
>
>Or that Catholics should be prepared to modify theology if
>necessary, in case evolution turns out to be a fact.
Honestly Roger, (it is suprising to see `honest' and `roger' so
close together), the Pope did nothing to modify the theology of
the Catholic Church, and in fact his statement basically heads off
such a crisis by adopting the sane theistic compromise: that while
the origin of man's physical self is due to evolution, that man is
granted his soul by Divine Creation. I don't know of too many
scientists who are going to spend time arguing that particular
point, as it is a religious argument, not a scientific one.
Many sects of Christianity are facing a crisis of their own creation:
a crisis between what they can see to be true, and what they are told
to be true. JPII reaffirmed that "the truth cannot contradict the
truth", an entirely reasonable statement. If your religious beliefs
cannot reconcile the truth of evolution with the truth about the Bible's
teachings, then it is obvious that something is not true. There will
be those who continue to claim that the Bible _must_ be true, despite
the evidence of their own eyes. We've also seen a number of people
who lose their religion, because they grow tired and weary of the lies
that are propagated to shore up the sagging aspects of a broken theology.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Tell me Andy, why do American's say "get on the bus" when they clearly
get in the bus? The French get that one right.
Mark
wf...@ptd.net
>
>The Vatican newspaper's printed translation of the Pope's statement is
>the version used by Mark above: evolutionary theory is "more than one
>hypothesis."
>
>Andy
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
andy, is, of course, wrong. the editor of the newspaper stated that
the pope disagrees with andy's view. but i guess andy figures, what
the hell does the pope know?
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>A literal view of the bible, i.e. that the truth is in the text, denies man's creative reason
>capax-dei. Thus both creationism and end-timer-ism are both anti-human and anti-christian
>by asserting one moment of creation, and predetermination. (BTW the Big Bang is creationism).
o'neill thinks that because his mother and father had sex, and
therefore he had a beginning, that whole idea...the birds and
bees...must be tossed out because its 'creationist'. he abuses
language the way a baby abuses a diaper. to him, EVERY beginning is
'creationist'.
>
>Evolution, by making claims of man's nature based on animal observations, deny man's nature
>as being imago-viva-dei, in the living image of God _because_ of capax-dei or Creative Reason.
he's welcome to show where evolution says ANYTHING about god at all.
it may say something about HIS view of god, but unless he's saying his
view is the ONLY TRUE view of god, his is merely an opinion not shared
by most christians and jews.
>
>
>The Jesuits have a very twisted history,
there aint a religious community in the catholic church which doesnt.
those of us who were seminarians in relatively young orders (i was a
seminarian in the SCJ's...about 150 yrs old), never had an opportunity
to screw things up.
and are better referred to as the Anglican Jesuits, the former
>being the source of the protestant fundies even in the US. There are of course exceptional Jesuits,
>but with Ignatius of Loyola as founder, huge obstacles must be overcome.
oh, boy...here we go again...the jesuits as agents of the queen...
>
sarah clark
right. i am trying to figure out how such a bonehead
translation error occurred. it occurs to me maybe
someone was translating into english who didn't know
english well enough to know that "one" is not an article
in english. the french is so obvious, i cannot imagine
a native english speaker who was proficient enough in
french to be qualified to translate for the pope who
would make such an error.
as you previously stated, there is no ambiguity whatever
in the french. it is plain and simple a *mistranslation*
to render "une" as "one" in that sentence. that is
high school level french. although i am not a french
speaker, french was my second language for my major,
i read quite a lot of french books as the major was
literature. thanks for speaking up, emm, i stated
this a few months back and am gratified to see a native
speaker backing me up.
>
> Regards
>
> Emmanuelle
>
>
--
sarah clark
strike the hammer while
the iron is hot
---bob marley
sarah clark
> > Your translation fails to translate
> > > the "dans".
try here,
http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/quick_look.new.sh?word=reconnaitre
see the entry where it states that reconnaitre can
mean to admit as true or certain, and note that
they use the construction "reconnaitre dans" in
the example.
have you got a problem with the academie francaise
or something?
> >
> > Because there is nothing to translate. This "dans" has nothing to do
> > with what the theory *contains*. "Reconnaitre dans la theorie ..."
> > actually mirrors the German expression "erkennen in der
Theorie ...";
> > both mean "to recognize the theory *as* ...
>
> If that's what the Pope meant, then the more straightforward way of
> stating that would be "to recognize that the theory is ...",
> not "recognize in the theory ..."
what did you do, look it up in an english/french
dictionary? for my own part, when i'm reading something,
i use a regular dictionary written in the language
of the thing i am reading. this is a habit i picked from
up having cross-referenced words back and forth
in bilingual dictionaries, and finding the bilingual
dictionaries to be unreliable.
--
sarah clark
strike the hammer while
the iron is hot
---bob marley
scot...@my-deja.com
no it isn't, andy
From http://www.cin.org/
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
new
knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more
than
a hypothesis"
X2
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical,
new
knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more
than
a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de
l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans
la
théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.]
I see more than "a" not more than "one"
Scott
Mark VandeWettering
Indeed. While whatever French I acquired in six years of study
has been rendered much less useful by more a lapse of a dozen more,
I do remember that after about the third year I found it vastly
more useful to stop trying to use French-English dictionaries, and
to use French dictionaries entirely. One cannot expect to become
fluent when one is forced to translate as you go.
Mark
scot...@my-deja.com
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> wf3h continues:
> > an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> > there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and
no
> > support for creationism within the church.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
> Catholic Church." From paragraph 115: "According to an ancient
> tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
> literal and the spiritual, the latter being divided into the
> allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance
of
> the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of
> Scripture in the Church. From para 116: "The literal sense is the
> meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
> following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF
SACRED
> SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
An argument you to reflect on, Tony.
http://x70.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?
AN=685789016&CONTEXT=977849366.120009531
0
>
> Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
> the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
> arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
> Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
> reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
> mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
> monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
> with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
> ***************************************
1909? lets bring this up to date
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp.htm
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp1.htm
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible,
being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and
interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal
interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation,
one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the
Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It
is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method,
as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the
interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the
Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal
meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged
in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting,
conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of
fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of
Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the
bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the
fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the
world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation,
equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the
20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning
more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among
Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the
Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths
included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting
these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever
the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable
adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only
source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the
Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is
that, refusing to take into account the historical character of
biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full
truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God,
fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the
human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been
expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed,
under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited
capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the
biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.
It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in
language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no
attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be
found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process
extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very
diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain
details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical
events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material
which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers
historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the
past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of
symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems
presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek
form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old
or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of
the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within
the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account
the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final
stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the
initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time
fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first
Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by
Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we
find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its
direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by
the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It
accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply
because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue
with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and
faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the
Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are
marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the
Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone,"
fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the
tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in
union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails
to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church
and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of
which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this,
fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance
the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become
part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the
church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation
which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and
draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to
people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life.
It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are
pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not
necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.
Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually
invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life
a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of
the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
Scott
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/mdavis/fundmntl.htm
Emm Foster
Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Emm Foster" <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A46D389...@lib.drury.edu...
> > It is indeed a translation from French and the correct translation for
> > "Plus QU'UNE hypothese" is "more than A hypothesis". A more accurate
> > (IMHO) translation of the French sentence: "de nouvelles connaissances
> > conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une
> > hypothèse." would be "new knowledge has led to the recognition that the
> > theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis"
>
> Ok, I can see translating "une" as "a" rather than "one", but how
> do you get "that ... is" out of "dans"?
"dans" seems to be confusing for the English speakers too. You seem to
translate it as meaning "in", "inside", "within".... as if the theory
was "containing" something. The "dans" here stands more for something
like "as". Does that make sense? If you keep "dans" and translate it by
"in" you change the meaning of the sentence. Here is another trnaslation
"new knowledge has led to recognize the theory of evolution as more
than a hypothesis".
>
> A literal translation might be:
> new knowledge has led to the recognition in the
> theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis
It would be a "word for word" translation, not an accurate one.
>
> That is, more than a hypothesis is being recognized, but how
> do you get that it is saying that evolution itself is more than a
> hypothesis? There is no verb between evolution and hypothesis.
Everything is in the understanding of "dans". Sorry, I am not a French
teacher and it is very difficult to explain why the meaning of the
sentence is so obvious to me, it is just like if I was trying to explain
to you how to walk.... There must be some kind of rule somewhere but I
am not a specialist, just a French native.
regards
Emmanuelle
Emm Foster
Maybe in English because you translate "dans" by "in" which suggest that
the theory is some kind of container. This is not the case in the French
version, "dans" stands more for something like "as", if that makes
sense.
>
> Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis when the
> actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not the
> native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants to
> emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions of what
> happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
No, if you were trying to convey a sense of number, even if the actual
number is not important you would say "plus D'une" and not "plus
QU'une", unless you are speaking a very sloppy French. An English
speaker might use a bad wording but remember that the original
communication was in French and among the people who helped the pope
writing this declaration there are very brilliant christian French
theologians and writers(I'm thinking of J.M Maldamé for example). Same
thing if you want to put some emphasis. You would say "il y en a plus
D'une!" not "il y en a plus QU'une" (furthermore, the last sentence is
very confusing in French since it seems to be a sloppy version of "il
n'y en a plus qu'une" which means there is ONLY one.)
Since you seem to know a little bit of French, I would encourage you to
read what J.M Maldamé has to say about the Pope's point of view on
evolution:
http://www.domuni.org/domuni_france/articles/articles_theologie/evolutio/evol0001.htm
This paper is a lot more detailed than the Pope's communication and it
will give you a more accurate picture of the Pope's statement.
>
> > > but all
> > > phrases subsequent to the "more than one hypothesis" refer to the
> > > theory in the singular form. This would seem to indicate the
> > > interpretation as "more than (just) a hypothesis" more so than
> > > "more than one hypothesis in evolution".
> >
> > You're correct.
>
> This inference is incorrect. The very purpose of speaking in terms of
> both "theory" and "hypothesis" is to draw a contrast the two. There is
> only one of the former, but many of the latter "dans" the former.
No, the "more than a hypothesis" refers to the previous paragraph in
which it is stated that Pie XII was considering the evolution as a
hypothesis (rather than a theory in the scientific sense of the word).
It is very clear. JP 2 states that now the theory of evolution must be
considered as more than a mere hypothesis. You have to take "theory of
evolution" as a whole name, not as a contrast with hypothesis. If there
is contrast, it is between the meaning some people give to the word
theory (it is *only* a theory, meaning a mere hypothesis) and its
scientific meaning. And again, you mistranslate the "dans".
Regards
Emmanuelle
and...@my-deja.com
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92alsj$lme$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <92aikc$j9l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <92ag1j$h6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Your translation fails to translate
> > > > the "dans".
> > >
> > > Because there is nothing to translate. This "dans" has nothing to
do
> > > with what the theory *contains*. "Reconnaitre dans la theorie ..."
> > > actually mirrors the German expression "erkennen in der
> Theorie ...";
> > > both mean "to recognize the theory *as* ...
> >
> > If that's what the Pope meant, then the more straightforward way of
> > stating that would be "to recognize that the theory is ...",
> > not "recognize in the theory ..."
>
> Maybe it would be so in English. However, good style seldom survives a
> literal translation between two languages. I don't know if you speak
> and write another language fluently; if so, I'm sure you will have
> recognized this fact.
If anything, your point underscores the uncertainty in providing a
precise English translation for the French speech. The claim that the
Pope somehow embraced evolution in his speech is false.
> > > > Moreover, "plus que" is a natural phrase to use for emphasis
when
> > the
> > > > actual number is unimportant, particularly when French is not
the
> > > > native language of the speaker. For example, if someone wants
to
> > > > emphasize that a defendant told multiple, conflicting versions
of
> > what
> > > > happened, "plus que" provides emphasis that "plus de" does not.
> > >
> > > Apparently you know French better than native speakers like
> Emmanuelle
> > > Foster do. Congrats! I am looking forward to the time when you
will
> be
> > > teaching me German (and Hamilton's principle, of course ...) ;-)
> >
> > You avoid the issue here.
>
> Not at all. I just point out that native speakers usually have the
best
> grasp on the subtleties of language, meaning and style. Up to now, Emm
> Foster is the only "French native" who has contributed to this thread.
And she has not defended her initial position in a meaningful manner,
or factored in that the Pope is not a "French native."
> "plus que" is used to place the emphasis on
> > the contrast, as in "he's more than such-and-such"; "plus de" is
for a
> > non-emphatic description of a quantity. The Pope was not trying to
> > estimate how many hypotheses are in evolution, but merely to
emphasize
> > that it is not merely one hypothesis.
>
> No. It is *a* theory.
It's unclear what you're trying to say here.
[snip]
> A well-established and confirmed hypothesis *becomes* a theory.
Wishful thinking. A "confirmed hypothesis" is fact, not a theory.
According to Merriam-Webster, a theory is "a hypothesis assumed for the
sake of argument or investigation." A theory is *always* more than a
hypothesis, so that interpretation of the Pope's remarks renders them
inconsequential.
> > there would no reason for the Pope to declare that we can now, after
> > much effort, recognize that the "theory is more than a hypothesis."
>
> You are arguing in the context of the English language. "To recognize"
> has not the same semantic context as "reconnaitre".
And you claim the relevant distinction is __________??
and...@my-deja.com
sarah clark <sec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <92alsj$lme$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Your translation fails to translate
> > > > the "dans".
>
> try here,
> http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/quick_look.new.sh?word=reconnaitre
>
> see the entry where it states that reconnaitre can
> mean to admit as true or certain, and note that
> they use the construction "reconnaitre dans" in
> the example.
>
> have you got a problem with the academie francaise
> or something?
No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans". That's how
the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre" from
the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
So it's unclear what your point is. Your cite does nothing to refute
the printed English translation in the Vatican newspaper or the version
posted by Mark -- that the theory is "more than one hypothesis."
[snip]
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
Where's your cite to the Vatican newspaper's printed English
translation? It used "one" not "a". Hearsay aside, the newspaper
apparently never changed its view in print.
Andy
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>Schlafly wrote:
>>
>> A literal translation might be:
>> new knowledge has led to the recognition in the
>> theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis
>
>It would be a "word for word" translation, not an accurate one.
>>
>> That is, more than a hypothesis is being recognized, but how
>> do you get that it is saying that evolution itself is more than a
>> hypothesis? There is no verb between evolution and hypothesis.
>
>Everything is in the understanding of "dans". Sorry, I am not a French
>teacher and it is very difficult to explain why the meaning of the
>sentence is so obvious to me, it is just like if I was trying to explain
>to you how to walk.... There must be some kind of rule somewhere but I
>am not a specialist, just a French native.
>
>regards
trust me, that isnt going to stop the creationists from telling you
why french is wrong. so far they've tried to say the pope is wrong
about catholicism. disputing french to native french speakers is small
potatoes.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <92ag1j$h6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>> This inference is incorrect. The very purpose of speaking in terms of
>> both "theory" and "hypothesis" is to draw a contrast the two. There
>is
>> only one of the former, but many of the latter "dans" the former.
>>
>> Andy
>
>no it isn't, andy
>From http://www.cin.org/
>http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
>"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
>new
>knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more
>than
>a hypothesis"
this isnt gonna stop andy. so far he's tried to tell native french
speakers they dont know how to speak french, tried to say the editor
of "l'osservatore romano" has no connection with the vatican, etc. to
him, your citation from the catholic information network is just
another misguided catholic attempt to state what catholics SHOULD be
saying, according to andy.
>
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3A47E2FD...@fast.net>,
> A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>> wf3h continues:
>> > an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
>> > there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and
>no
>> > support for creationism within the church.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
>> Catholic Church."
"The literal sense is the
>> meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
>> following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF
>SACRED
>> SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
>
>
>1909? lets bring this up to date
>http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp.htm
pagano's just gonna say that the pontifical biblical commission is a
bunch of priests, so what do they know? tony's a creationist, so he's
quite capable of instructing the roman curia on how it should
interpret the bible.
very valuable reference, actually...
and excellent post. the catholic church does not accept biblical
fundamentalism, nor creationism, as valid expressions of the church's
position.
wf...@ptd.net
l'osservatore romano, the official vatican newspaper disagrees with
andy...but he's always ready, being a creationist, to help the vatican
understand what it REALLY said...
wf...@ptd.net
for the official vatican translation from l'osservatore romano, see
the pope's address at:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
this will not stop the creationist from distorting language...its what
creationists do for a living, but it should enable people to see that
the vatican has accepted evolution as not being incompatible with
faith.
wf...@ptd.net
from the pope's address:
>In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated
>that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith
>about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several
>indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).
so the pope says there is no conflict between evolution and faith.
andy's gonna jump in, give the pope a jingle, and tell him what an
idiot he is....
in addition, the OFFICIAL interpretation says:
>Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of
>evolution of more than a hypothesis.
so andy is disputing the vatican, the pope, and the vatican's
newspaper...they're all wrong about what the pope said, and andy is
right.
yeah, that sounds like a creationist.
Emm Foster
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
<...>
> Where's your cite to the Vatican newspaper's printed English
> translation? It used "one" not "a". Hearsay aside, the newspaper
> apparently never changed its view in print.
The most important is not the Osservatore romano, which a second hand
source, but the original address to the pontifical academy of science
which was in French.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican
newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its
translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.
"In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the
pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged
that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.'
His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of
scientific disciplines doing independent research.
"In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was
translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition
of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;
"U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language
L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly
literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the
real meaning of the text.'
"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to
recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.
"This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation,
published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."
Emmanuelle
Aleister Crowley's Cat
Paging Klaus Wagner,,,paging Klaus Wagner...
Regards,
Dave
>>
>
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
Mark VandeWettering
>If anything, your point underscores the uncertainty in providing a
>precise English translation for the French speech.
Yes, something you appear very ill equipped to do.
>The claim that the
>Pope somehow embraced evolution in his speech is false.
If you'll tell me what 'embraced' means, I tell you whether he did or not.
The Pope DID claim:
1) that the theory of evolution is more than just a hypothesis
2) it has been confirmed by people from different backgrounds
working independently (in other words, people who do science)
3) That Pope Pius XI claimed that there was no inherent conflict
between evolution and Catholic theology, provided that one
believed that the human soul was divinely created by God.
>And she has not defended her initial position in a meaningful manner,
>or factored in that the Pope is not a "French native."
Care to guess how many languages the Pope speaks fluently?
Mark
P.S. Eight.
Mark VandeWettering
Sorry Andy, you've lost this argument. You are wrong. You've been told
why you are wrong. You've been shown why you are wrong. You are wrong.
You can stick your head in a hole (or leave it where it normally is, it
is dark there too) and pretend you don't hear evidence to the contrary,
but your attempt to mislead and misdirect will not stand the light of
reason.
Mark
sarah clark
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92as0a$qj4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sarah clark <sec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92alsj$lme$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Your translation fails to translate
> > > > > the "dans".
> >
> > try here,
> > http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/quick_look.new.sh?word=reconnaitre
> >
> > see the entry where it states that reconnaitre can
> > mean to admit as true or certain, and note that
> > they use the construction "reconnaitre dans" in
> > the example.
> >
> > have you got a problem with the academie francaise
> > or something?
>
> No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans". That's
how
> the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
from
> the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
"Reconnaître, signifie encore, Parvenir à connaître, à apercevoir, à
découvrir la vérité de quelque chose. On a reconnu son innocence. On a
reconnu sa trahison, sa perfidie. On reconnaît en lui le germe du
talent. On reconnaît dans cet ouvrage le caractère du vrai talent.
Il signifie aussi, Admettre une chose comme vraie, comme incontestable.
Reconnaître les vérités de l'Évangile. Tous les vrais philosophes
reconnaissent ce principe, cet axiome. Je reconnais le principe. Ce
fait est reconnu de tout le monde. On a reconnu que cela était vrai,
que cela était nécessaire. "
the sense is much stronger than "to recognize" in the
english vernacular. particularly as compared with
paragraph 4 preceding it, in which the pope states that
the previous encyclique states that you can't consider
the competing hypotheses if you are accepting evolution
as certain and demonstrated. The current pope is saying,
in contrast, a half-century later, (my translation)
"new discoveries (or research) compel(s) us to understand
evolution as more than an hypothesis". any translation
that does not impart how very definite this is in the
french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
i am so pleased to see your website. i was interested
to read this in french and no one could point me to
a french version previously.
>
> So it's unclear what your point is. Your cite does nothing to refute
> the printed English translation in the Vatican newspaper or the
version
> posted by Mark -- that the theory is "more than one hypothesis."
well, that is the point of high-school level french
regarding the difference between the words "que" and
"de" that seems to have escaped your comprehension.
> [snip]
>
> Andy
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
>
--
sarah clark
strike the hammer while
the iron is hot
---bob marley
Brian M. Scott
>In article <92aoce$nmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <92alsj$lme$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > In article <92aikc$j9l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > In article <92ag1j$h6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > Your translation fails to translate
>> > > > the "dans".
>> > > Because there is nothing to translate. This "dans" has nothing to
>> > > do with what the theory *contains*. "Reconnaitre dans la theorie ..."
>> > > actually mirrors the German expression "erkennen in der
>> > > Theorie ..."; both mean "to recognize the theory *as* ...
>> > If that's what the Pope meant, then the more straightforward way of
>> > stating that would be "to recognize that the theory is ...",
>> > not "recognize in the theory ..."
>> Maybe it would be so in English. However, good style seldom survives a
>> literal translation between two languages. I don't know if you speak
>> and write another language fluently; if so, I'm sure you will have
>> recognized this fact.
>If anything, your point underscores the uncertainty in providing a
>precise English translation for the French speech.
There is no uncertainty on the part of those who actually read French.
> The claim that the
>Pope somehow embraced evolution in his speech is false.
The pope very clearly acknowledged that current knowledge shows it to
be more than a mere hypothesis.
[...]
>> > You avoid the issue here.
>> Not at all. I just point out that native speakers usually have the
>> best grasp on the subtleties of language, meaning and style. Up to
>> now, Emm Foster is the only "French native" who has contributed
>> to this thread.
>And she has not defended her initial position in a meaningful manner,
Nonsense; what part of 'I am ... a French native' do you not
understand?
>or factored in that the Pope is not a "French native."
His linguistic abilities are well-known, and he is hardly without
expert assistance.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
and thats exactly what i told andy several days ago. he, of course, is
now gonna tell us why all french speakers are wrong, all jesuits are
wrong, and the vatican's newspaper is wrong...because andy is right.
he is, after all, a creationist.
Jonathan Stone
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote:
>On 26 Dec 2000 16:46:15 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <92as0a$qj4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>So it's unclear what your point is. Your cite does nothing to refute
>>the printed English translation in the Vatican newspaper or the version
>>posted by Mark -- that the theory is "more than one hypothesis."
>
>Sorry Andy, you've lost this argument. You are wrong. You've been told
>why you are wrong. You've been shown why you are wrong. You are wrong.
>You can stick your head in a hole (or leave it where it normally is, it
>is dark there too) and pretend you don't hear evidence to the contrary,
>but your attempt to mislead and misdirect will not stand the light of
>reason.
Yep. Typical schlafly behaviour here on t.o.
Almost ironic that Andy, who appealed to grammatical errors when
arguing against S.J Gould, is hoisted by the petard of his denial
over a grammatical error in a translation form French to English.
Brian M. Scott
VandeWettering) wrote:
>On 26 Dec 2000 11:12:42 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <3A46D389...@lib.drury.edu>,
[...]
>>As already pointed out, the phrase "dans la theorie" suggests multiple
>>hypotheses *in* the theory. Your translation fails to translate
>>the "dans".
>Tell me Andy, why do American's say "get on the bus" when they clearly
>get in the bus? The French get that one right.
I think Andy missed the bus.
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
Let's wait and see. we might get a knee-jerk reaction against bussing--
or against public transport.
Emm Foster
sarah clark wrote:
<...>
> > No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans". That's
> how
> > the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
> from
> > the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
>
> actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
<...>
> the sense is much stronger than "to recognize" in the
> english vernacular. particularly as compared with
> paragraph 4 preceding it, in which the pope states that
> the previous encyclique states that you can't consider
> the competing hypotheses if you are accepting evolution
> as certain and demonstrated. The current pope is saying,
> in contrast, a half-century later, (my translation)
> "new discoveries (or research) compel(s) us to understand
> evolution as more than an hypothesis". any translation
> that does not impart how very definite this is in the
> french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
I'm impressed by your understanding of the French language. You are
correct. I would have translated "reconnaitre" by "admit",or
"acknowledge"
> i am so pleased to see your website. i was interested
> to read this in french and no one could point me to
> a french version previously.
<...>
Regards
Emmanuelle
A Pagano
> >wf3h has demonstrated repeatedly over the last four years that he only
> >vaguely understands the Catholic Church's position. This creationist
> >position would be correct. Nowhere has the Magisterium of the Catholic
> >Church ever accepted---that is, accepted it as objectively true---the
> >conjectural theory of evolutionism. Pope John Paul II (in his much
> >misrepresented address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) did
> >describe the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis and
> >acknowledged that it was accepted by the majority consensus of
> >scientists. Neither of these facts is denied, but neither of these
> >facts is sufficient to justify the claim that purely naturalistic
> >evolutionism is objectively true or even probably true.
Mark VandeWettering replied:
> I would agree that the exact nature of John Paul's statement on
> evolution has largely been represented, but I feel this is rather
> further off the beam than wf3h's opinion.
Pagano replies:
Above I say nothing about the "nature" of the Pontiff's address. I
merely argue that the pontiff's statements that, (1) evolutionism is
more than a hypothesis, and (2) that evolutionism is accepted by a
majority of scientists do not even consititute evidence that the pontiff
"accepts" evolution "himself" let alone that he was teaching this as an
objective truth to the the Catholic faithful. I would be interested in
VandeWettering's argument to the contrary.
As to the nature of his address: it was a trustful dialogue with 80+
natural scientists who are members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
and advise the Magisterium of the findings of secular science. The
pontiff trustfully repeated these facts he heard from the members,
however, this was counter-balanced by his explicit
adoption-without-correction of his predecessor's encyclical: "Humani
Generis."
************************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >Wf3h has in the past ignored the fact that Pope John Paul II in his Oct
> >96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirmed Pope Pius XII
> >encyclical "Humani Generis" without correction. In "Humani Generis"
> >Pope Pius XII said that: [snip]
Mark VandeWettering replied::
> I'm uncertain why you claim that he affirmed the Humani Generis. Certainly
> JPII references it,
>
> In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor
> Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition
> between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man
> and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight
> of several indisputable points.
Pagano responds:
Even if he did not explicitly affirm it, his adoption of the references
from it is evidence of his affirmation. And he did not correct at least
one pronouncement from "Humani Generis" which is at odds with the claims
of modern science.
However he does explicitly affirm it. I direct VanderWettering's
attention to the three sentences immediately preceeding the one he
quoted from above. The Pontiff wrote: "Before offering you several
reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of
life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium
has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of
her own competence. I will cite here two interventions." And the
pontiff goes on to cite from "Humani Generis.
****************************************
VanderWettering continues:
> He goes on to say...
>
> Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
> new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis
> in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory
> has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series
> of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence,
> neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
> conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in
> favour of this theory.
>
> It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the theory
> of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement is
> remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
Pagano replies:
I direct VanderWettering's attention to the first three paragraphs of
the Pope's address: The relationship between the Magisterium and the
members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was designed and is a
trustful dialogue. The Pope's dialogue was with the scientists of the
Academy. In that light the Pope was not teaching these affirmations
(quoted immediately above by VanderWettering) to the members of the
Academy. He was rather repeating what he had heard from them in the
context of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
It would hardly be a congenial, trusting dialogue if the Pope reminded
the scientists of the Academy that consensus is a poor indicator of the
truth and that many false theories throughout the history of science
were accepted by a majority consensus. And the members of the Academy
might be taken aback if the Pope reminded them that virtually every
false theory in history had garnered some level of confirmation and was
"more than a hypothesis."
And immediately above the quote offered by Vanderwettering the Pope
reaffirms the conditions for the study of evolutionism by Catholics.
The two conditions were: [1] "...that this opinion [of evolutionism]
should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain, proven and [2] as
though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the
questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and affirm these
conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of the theory of
evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier? "
The Pope did go on to remind the members of the academy that "A theory's
validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly
tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter,
it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must be rethought." Why
would the Pope bring this bit of Philosophy of Science if he were "more
convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was
fifty years earlier? "
VanderWettering apparently only read the parts of the address that
supported his position. And he completely ignored the context and
nature of the Pope's address.
****************************************************
VanderWettering wrote:
> Well, mince words if you like. I've had several fundamentalists
> acquaintances tell me to my face that as a Roman Catholic, I am
> not a "true" Christian. They obviously were told this by someone
> else, so I suspect that the attitude described is more prevalent
> than your statement would suggest.
Pagano replies:
I've been interested in Catholic apologetics for awhile and I've never
seen this attack (that is, that Catholicism is non christian) by any
formal protestant group. In fact even the rabid anti Catholic Chick
publications that I've read didn't claim Catholicism was non christian.
So the attempt by wf3h and other practical atheists to play christian
against christian will be exposed by me for what it is.
***************************************************
Pagano replies:
> >Since wf3h's premise---that creationists deny that the Catholic Church
> >is christian----is false then so is this conclusion upon which it is
> >based.
VanderWettering replies:
> I think "true" or "false" is too simple an explanation. I would think
> that it is "not uncommon" for creationists to declare that Catholics
> aren't Christian: in fact, I could name several posters to this very
> newsgroup who have asserted as much.
Pagano replies:
Justifying such a claim by referencing some posts in this forum is no
justification at all, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have never
seen any of the established protestant sects (to include evangelical
fundamentalism) have their authorities claim formally and in their
writings that Catholicism is non Christian. I have a sizable YEC
creationist library and none of those sources accuse or attack
Catholicism in any way, shape or form. Do fundamentalists hate
Catholicism, generally, yes. Do they accuse catholics of being in
error, generally, yes. Do they accuse them of being non christian,
generally, No.
*******************************************
[snip]
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
> >evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
> >much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
> >their public creationist writings, debates or displays.
VanderWettering replied:
> I think you are mistaken.
Pagano responds:
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please offer a single
written work by any YEC creationist which accuses Catholicism of being
non christian or directly attacks Catholics. Since I have a sizable
creationist library perhaps I'll have the source you cite. Please cc me
copy of your reply since I would like to find any such creationist
source.
*****************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
> >Whatever their
> >dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility.
VanderWettering replied:
> At times. One could reference things like the Chick tracts to find out
> just how peaceful and civil this dialogue is.
Pagano responds:
The Chick tracts are indeed rabid anti Catholic works, however, they are
not YEC creationist works. And the Chick malcontents do not dispute the
Catholic Church's doctrine on creation (as far as I know). It is
probably one of the unifying doctrines for all but a few christian
sects.
*****************************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
> >Having
> >collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
> >have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
VanderWettering replied:
> Uh, not so fast. You've done nothing of the source. It might be true
> that w3fh hasn't presented evidence that creationists are anti-science
> (I'm not sure he really has to, as it is clearly evident), but you have
> not presented evidence to refute it.
Pagano replies:
Wf3h asserted that: "they betray the fact that creationism is often as
antichristian as it is antiscience." While some creationists might be
antiCatholic they are hardly antiChristian. If they are not often
antiChristian how can they be as often anti science. In fact wf3h's
link of antiChristian behavior with antiScience behavior is simply
mistaken and left unargued by him. Dawkins, for example, is admittedly
antiChristian. Does that mean he is antiScience?
**********************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >As I have argued above and in previous posts no one has denied that the
> >theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. "More than a hypothesis"
> >simply means that evolutionism has garnered confirmations. No one
> >denies this. However, this is not the same thing as saying the theory
> >is true. No level of confirmation can justify that a theory is true or
> >even probably true.
VanderWettering replies:
> It is not the job of the Pope to be a scientist. He accepts that
> the work of scientists, even potentially atheistic ones, is done
> ethically and without deception.
Pagano responds:
That's exactly right. The Pope was merely repeating to the scientists
of the Academy what they had assured him was true. The Pope didn't
teach these facts to the member scientists. Hence the authority for
these statements (more than a hypothesis, accepted by the majority) is
not the Pope as authentic teacher of the Faith, but the members of the
Academy.
********************************************
VanderWettering continues:
> To the extent that science
> describes the material world, he seems very comfortable in accepting
> the conclusions of scientists.
Pagano replies:
Because VanderWettering takes the Pope's statements (1) out of context
of the whole address and (2) out of context of the nature of the address
with the academy members, he mischaracterizes "trustful dialogue" as
"comfort."
*******************************************
VanderWettering continues:
> Where he differs is of interest purely to religion and theology. In
> trying to ascertain the true nature of man, he claims that man is given
> his essential soul by God, no matter how his body was created. I can
> see no reason why any scientist, atheistic or otherwise, would seek to
> argue this particular point.
Pagano replies:
Again VanderWettering read only what he chose to read from the Pontiff's
address. The Church is not only concerned with the creation and
infusion of the soul. From the the Pope's address to the Pont Acad of
Sc: "The church's mageristerium is directly concerned with the question
of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches
us that he was created in the image and likeness of God." This Pope has
said elsewhere that purely materialistic theories are inconsistent with
the Catholic Faith. Evolutionism is purely materialistic.
In addition the main secular presupposition of science that our material
world is a only a closed system of material causes and effects
(naturalism) is in conflict with the christian doctrine that our souls
are created by God and fused with our material bodies.
**************************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
> >As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
> >aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
> >confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
> >a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
> >of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
> >NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
> >objectively true.
VanderWettering replied:
> This is correct, but also largely irrelevant.
Pagano replies:
It's hardly irrelevent because it disputes the claim by wf3h, by you,
and many practical atheists that the Pope both accepts evolutionism as
objectively true and then teaches this truth to the faithful. The Pope
does nothing more than repeat trustfully back to the scientists of the
academy what they have assured them is true even though he knows from
his academic background that these statements are insufficient to prove
evolutionism as true or even probably true. And he instructed the
members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: [1] "...that this opinion
[of evolutionism] should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain,
proven and [2] as though one could totally prescind from revelation with
regard to the questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and
affirm these conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of
the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier?"
********************************************
VanderWettering continues:
> It is not the Church's
> role to ensure adequate education in the sciences.
Pagano replies:
This was not a bone of contention. The bone was wf3h's claim that the
Pope "accepts" evolution and was teaching this to the faithful. It is
the responsibility of the Church to stay abreast of all scientific
inquiries which have bearing on Church doctrine. Evolutionism is one of
those inquiries.
******************************************
VanderWettering continues:
> John Paul is
> merely asserting that it is not necessary to abandon pursuit of
> scientific endeavors because of conflicts over faith. In this
> respect, the Church has taken a position which is considerably more
> progressive than other Christian sects.
Pagano replies:
Again this was not the bone of contention. The bone was the claim that
the Pontiff in his Oct 96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
"accepted" evolutionism and was teaching this truth to the Faithful.
********************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >Unlike protestantism where everyone is considered a competent authority
> >to interpret and teach, the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure
> >with only the Magisterium empowered and authorized to interpret and
> >teach the faithful. Wf3h either doesn't know this or he intends to
> >deceive. Neither the Jesuits as an order nor the authors of "America"
> >are members of the Magisterium and as a result their opinions have no
> >bearing on Catholic doctrine or the ordinary teachings of the
> >Magisterium.
> >
> >We also have Catholics espousing the acceptability of abortion and
> >homosexual acts. Like the claims of the Jesuits of "America" concerning
> >evolutionism these unfortunate opinions have neither effect nor force on
> >Catholic doctrine nor are they Magisterial pronouncements.
VanderWettering replied:
> It has been quite some time since I studied all this, but I don't believe
> that John Paul was speaking in his capacity to establish doctrine of the
> Church in his Magisterium.
Pagano responds:
Here VanderWettering completely misses the point. Wf3h mistakenly
pointed to the authority of some Jesuit authors of the publication
"America" as supporting his claim that the Catholic Church "accepts"
evolution. My rebuttal was that the Jesuits are not members of the
Magisterium which is the only authority of the Church in matters of the
Faith. And the Pope, in his address to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, neither taught evolutionism as acceptable in his Magisterial
capacity or any other capacity for that matter.
*************************************
>
> >wf3h continues:
> >> an article by a jesuit priest regarding the positio of the church.
> >> there is virtually no support for a LITERAL view of the bible, and no
> >> support for creationism within the church.
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >This would be in direct contradiction with the "Catechism of the
> >Catholic Church." From paragraph 115: "According to an ancient
> >tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
> >literal and the spiritual, the latter being divided into the
> >allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of
> >the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of
> >Scripture in the Church. From para 116: "The literal sense is the
> >meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,
> >following the rules of sound interpretation: "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED
> >SCRIPTURE ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL.""
>
> Certainly my education at a Jesuit high school never emphasized literal
> interpretation of the Old Testament, except for the odd bits which were
> independently verified by archaeology. The Catholic Church relies on
> religious truth to be provided by the Bible, as well as tradition.
Pagano responds:
This isn't an answer to the clear and unequivocal teaching of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church which I offered above. The Church
uncovers truths from Scripture, in part, in accordance with paragraph
115 and 116 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see above). If the
Jesuits de-emphasized the literal sense of Scripture during your
religious education then this may be a deficiency of theirs not a
deficiency of the Magisterium's as taught through the Catechism. Long
standing Tradition has held that "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL."
************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
> >the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
> >arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
> >Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
> >reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
> >mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
> >monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
> >with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
VanderWettering replied:
> It wouldn't be the first time. Or the last.
Pagano replies:
As Catholics though we should distance ourselves from those who
contradict the Magisterium. Wf3h went shopping for any Catholic who
supports his anti creationist agenda. Do you support shopping for a
favorable catholic opinion over the legitimate teaching authority of the
church?
*********************************************
Pagano replies:
> >Whatever the political goals of fundamentalism may be, with regard to
> >the creation of the material world and the life in it a majority of US
> >citizens agree with them. The pressure they have placed upon school
> >boards is backed by a majority of US citizens. Marsden fails to
> >recognize that the secular world has attempted to impose its
> >religious-like view that the world is a closed system of only material
> >causes and effects. This is not a scientific claim but a religious-like
> >one.
>
> I don't feel that this is true nearly to the extent that people claim.
Pagano replies:
You don't feel what is true? You don't feel that naturalism is
surreptitiously taught or you don't feel that naturalism is a
religious-like claim or both?
*********************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
> >presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
> >presupposition that this world was created by design.
VanderWettering replied:
> That could be because design theory is mindless pap.
Pagano replies:
Dembski's, "The Design Inference," was published by the Cambridge
University Press and it's being taken seriously. Apparently quite a few
are considering it a threat to the mindless blind watch maker.
********************************************
Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
> >While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
> >fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
> >evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
> >and the life in it by design and with purpose.
VanderWettering replies:
> This of course, does not address whether evolution is in fact true.
Pagano responds:
Oh I quite agree, but its interesting that the supposed "overwhelming"
evidence hasn't convinced most US citizens. And their disbelief does
not make them irrational because sound philosophy of science has shown
that level of confirmation is not related to truth in any known way.
And the number being convinced would be even smaller if the real
contradictions in the evidence were honestly revealed in the 6th thru
undergrad classrooms. And if the myths of evolution (like the
industrial moth myth) were corrected perhaps even fewer would believe.
Perhaps even VanderWettering would become a skeptic.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>Hi Sarah,
>
>sarah clark wrote:
><...>
>> > No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans". That's
>> how
>> > the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
>> from
>> > the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
>>
>> actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
><...>
>
>I'm impressed by your understanding of the French language. You are
>correct. I would have translated "reconnaitre" by "admit",or
>"acknowledge"
>
>> i am so pleased to see your website. i was interested
>> to read this in french and no one could point me to
>> a french version previously.
><...>
>
>Regards
>
>Emmanuelle
>
she aint bad for an accountant...
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Mark VandeWettering replied:
>> I would agree that the exact nature of John Paul's statement on
>> evolution has largely been represented, but I feel this is rather
>> further off the beam than wf3h's opinion.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Above I say nothing about the "nature" of the Pontiff's address. I
>merely argue that the pontiff's statements that, (1) evolutionism is
>more than a hypothesis, and (2) that evolutionism is accepted by a
>majority of scientists do not even consititute evidence that the pontiff
>"accepts" evolution "himself" let alone that he was teaching this as an
>objective truth to the the Catholic faithful. I would be interested in
>VandeWettering's argument to the contrary.]
the pope does not pronounce a verdict on the 'truth' of evolution. he
DOES pronounce a verdict on whether it is compatible with catholic
teaching. and it is. pagano tries to scientize the pope's statement.
creationists play fast and loose with language...
>
>As to the nature of his address: it was a trustful dialogue with 80+
>natural scientists who are members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
>and advise the Magisterium of the findings of secular science. The
>pontiff trustfully repeated these facts he heard from the members,
>however, this was counter-balanced by his explicit
>adoption-without-correction of his predecessor's encyclical: "Humani
>Generis."
which also accepted the possibility that evolution was science. john
paul MODIFIED and UPDATED 'humani generis' by specifically referencing
its call for more research. john paul said that the research done in
the 50 yrs since HG was published have verified evolution.
>
> Pagano responds:
>Even if he did not explicitly affirm it, his adoption of the references
>from it is evidence of his affirmation. And he did not correct at least
>one pronouncement from "Humani Generis" which is at odds with the claims
>of modern science.
really? which one? pagano is deliberately vague...having been caught
in so many lies, no wonder he lacks details.
>
>However he does explicitly affirm it. I direct VanderWettering's
>attention to the three sentences immediately preceeding the one he
>quoted from above. The Pontiff wrote: "Before offering you several
>reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of
>life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium
>has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of
>her own competence. I will cite here two interventions." And the
>pontiff goes on to cite from "Humani Generis.
and the competence of the church is NOT in science, but on the
spirituality of the human person. evolution does not address that.
>****************************************
>
>
>VanderWettering continues:
>>
>>
>> It would appear that JPII is more convinced of the validity of the theory
>> of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier. This statement is
>> remarkably strong in its affirmation of the work of scientists.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I direct VanderWettering's attention to the first three paragraphs of
>the Pope's address: The relationship between the Magisterium and the
>members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was designed and is a
>trustful dialogue. The Pope's dialogue was with the scientists of the
>Academy. In that light the Pope was not teaching these affirmations
>(quoted immediately above by VanderWettering) to the members of the
>Academy. He was rather repeating what he had heard from them in the
>context of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
pagano ignores the fact the pope specifically calls evolution SCIENCE,
and that he says evolution is not in contradiction to catholic
teaching.
>
>It would hardly be a congenial, trusting dialogue if the Pope reminded
>the scientists of the Academy that consensus is a poor indicator of the
>truth and that many false theories throughout the history of science
>were accepted by a majority consensus. And the members of the Academy
>might be taken aback if the Pope reminded them that virtually every
>false theory in history had garnered some level of confirmation and was
>"more than a hypothesis."
which is irrelevant to the pope's acceptance of evolution as science.
>
>And immediately above the quote offered by Vanderwettering the Pope
>reaffirms the conditions for the study of evolutionism by Catholics.
>The two conditions were: [1] "...that this opinion [of evolutionism]
>should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain, proven and [2] as
>though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the
>questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and affirm these
>conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of the theory of
>evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier? "
he never mentions these 2 statements in his address to the academy.
pagano takes the words of the 50 yr old document and pretends john
paul said them. JP didnt, and pagano is lying.
>
>The Pope did go on to remind the members of the academy that "A theory's
>validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly
>tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter,
>it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must be rethought." Why
>would the Pope bring this bit of Philosophy of Science if he were "more
>convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was
>fifty years earlier? "
because he pointed out that the research Humani Generis called for had
been done, had met the criteria for validity, and was verified. he
outlined WHY he was accepting evolution as science. he stated WHY he
found it was NOT in contradiction to catholic teaching.
thats why.
>
>VanderWettering apparently only read the parts of the address that
>supported his position. And he completely ignored the context and
>nature of the Pope's address.
pagano's whole post, including his use of 'and', and 'the', is a lie.
>****************************************************
>
>
>VanderWettering wrote:
>> Well, mince words if you like. I've had several fundamentalists
>> acquaintances tell me to my face that as a Roman Catholic, I am
>> not a "true" Christian. They obviously were told this by someone
>> else, so I suspect that the attitude described is more prevalent
>> than your statement would suggest.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I've been interested in Catholic apologetics for awhile and I've never
>seen this attack (that is, that Catholicism is non christian) by any
>formal protestant group. In fact even the rabid anti Catholic Chick
>publications that I've read didn't claim Catholicism was non christian.
>
>So the attempt by wf3h and other practical atheists to play christian
>against christian will be exposed by me for what it is.
for a summary of anticatholcism in the united states see:
http://www.americapress.org/articles/martinanticatholicism.htm
an article by father james martin, s.j., PhD (harvard), professor of
church history at the weston jesuit school of theology. father martin
writes:
>Examples of anti-Catholicism in the United States are surprisingly easy to find.
> Moreover, Catholics themselves seem to be increasingly aware of the
>specter of anti-Catholic bias. In the past, a largely immigrant church would
> have quietly borne the sting of prejudice, but today American Catholics
> seem less willing to tolerate slander and malicious behavior.
>But besides the lingering influence of our colonial past, and the fact
> that many Americans disagree with the Catholic hierarchy on political
> matters, there are a number of other reasons for anti-Catholic sentiments.
> Most of these reasons are not overtly theological. (However, as the recent
> flap at Bob Jones University demonstrated, strong theological opposition to
> the church still exists among small groups of Baptists and evangelicals in the
> South.)
so pagano is lying. he's out and out lying about the historical and
theological existence of anticatholicism in the US.
pagano is blatantly anticatholic, denying that anticatholicism existed
in the USA.
>***************************************************
>
>
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> I think "true" or "false" is too simple an explanation. I would think
>> that it is "not uncommon" for creationists to declare that Catholics
>> aren't Christian: in fact, I could name several posters to this very
>> newsgroup who have asserted as much.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Justifying such a claim by referencing some posts in this forum is no
>justification at all, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have never
>seen any of the established protestant sects (to include evangelical
>fundamentalism) have their authorities claim formally and in their
>writings that Catholicism is non Christian. I have a sizable YEC
>creationist library and none of those sources accuse or attack
>Catholicism in any way, shape or form.
see father martin's article above. pagano is lying.
Do fundamentalists hate
>Catholicism, generally, yes. Do they accuse catholics of being in
>error, generally, yes. Do they accuse them of being non christian,
>generally, No.
how many fundamentalists are in a 'generally'? when i was catholic, i
was told that i was going to hell by a fundamentalist when i worked at
my father's gas station. bob jones university proudly proclaims its
anticatholicism.
>*******************************************
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
>> >evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
>> >much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
>> >their public creationist writings, debates or displays.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> I think you are mistaken.
>
> Pagano responds:
>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please offer a single
>written work by any YEC creationist which accuses Catholicism of being
>non christian or directly attacks Catholics. Since I have a sizable
>creationist library perhaps I'll have the source you cite. Please cc me
>copy of your reply since I would like to find any such creationist
>source.
see father martin's article above. bob jones university, robustly
anticatholic, also states its robustly creationist in its biology
dept.
>*****************************************
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >Whatever their
>> >dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> At times. One could reference things like the Chick tracts to find out
>> just how peaceful and civil this dialogue is.
>
> Pagano responds:
>The Chick tracts are indeed rabid anti Catholic works, however, they are
>not YEC creationist works. And the Chick malcontents do not dispute the
>Catholic Church's doctrine on creation (as far as I know). It is
>probably one of the unifying doctrines for all but a few christian
>sects.
really? chick accepts evolution like the catholic church does?
>*****************************************************
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >Having
>> >collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
>> >have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> Uh, not so fast. You've done nothing of the source. It might be true
>> that w3fh hasn't presented evidence that creationists are anti-science
>> (I'm not sure he really has to, as it is clearly evident), but you have
>> not presented evidence to refute it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Wf3h asserted that: "they betray the fact that creationism is often as
>antichristian as it is antiscience." While some creationists might be
>antiCatholic they are hardly antiChristian.
since catholics are christians, and creationists are anticatholic...
If they are not often
>antiChristian how can they be as often anti science. In fact wf3h's
>link of antiChristian behavior with antiScience behavior is simply
>mistaken and left unargued by him. Dawkins, for example, is admittedly
>antiChristian. Does that mean he is antiScience?
pagano ignores the fact creationists have a spectrum of belief. they
are often anticatholic. since they are creationists, they are
antiscience.
pagano is left to defend the indefensible...bigotry against catholics
by fundamentalists. i personally work with a member of the assemblies
of god who is a creationist, and considers catholics pagans.
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> It is not the job of the Pope to be a scientist. He accepts that
>> the work of scientists, even potentially atheistic ones, is done
>> ethically and without deception.
>
> Pagano responds:
>That's exactly right. The Pope was merely repeating to the scientists
>of the Academy what they had assured him was true.
so he's so stupid he cant think for himself?
The Pope didn't
>teach these facts to the member scientists. Hence the authority for
>these statements (more than a hypothesis, accepted by the majority) is
>not the Pope as authentic teacher of the Faith, but the members of the
>Academy.
ah...so he's been duped. pagano is smarter than the pope about the
relationship between catholic doctrine and science
too bad the pope didnt consult pagano before writing his address. but,
in any case, pagano is saying the pope accepts evolution as science.
he says the pope is an idiot, but that he accepts evolution
and pagano says creationists arent anticatholic!
>********************************************
>
>
>VanderWettering continues:
>> To the extent that science
>> describes the material world, he seems very comfortable in accepting
>> the conclusions of scientists.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Because VanderWettering takes the Pope's statements (1) out of context
>of the whole address and (2) out of context of the nature of the address
>with the academy members, he mischaracterizes "trustful dialogue" as
>"comfort."
above pagano called the pope a dupe. above, pagano said he knows
catholic doctrine better than the pope.
pagano is in a poor position to tell us what the pope thinks.
>*******************************************
>
>
>
>VanderWettering continues:
>> Where he differs is of interest purely to religion and theology. In
>> trying to ascertain the true nature of man, he claims that man is given
>> his essential soul by God, no matter how his body was created. I can
>> see no reason why any scientist, atheistic or otherwise, would seek to
>> argue this particular point.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again VanderWettering read only what he chose to read from the Pontiff's
>address. The Church is not only concerned with the creation and
>infusion of the soul. From the the Pope's address to the Pont Acad of
>Sc: "The church's mageristerium is directly concerned with the question
>of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches
>us that he was created in the image and likeness of God." This Pope has
>said elsewhere that purely materialistic theories are inconsistent with
>the Catholic Faith. Evolutionism is purely materialistic.
pagano is welcome to point out where evolution addresses ANY statement
about 'pure materialism' at all. pagano is welcome to cite ANY
reference that states man does not have a soul, or is created by god.
pagano is lying about evolution's view of materialism, since science
is silent about the spiritual origins of man.
>
>In addition the main secular presupposition of science that our material
>world is a only a closed system of material causes and effects
>(naturalism) is in conflict with the christian doctrine that our souls
>are created by God and fused with our material bodies.
this is not a presupposition of science. again, pagano is a liar. that
is necessary for creationism.
pagano has never cited a single scientific source which states
ANYTHING about the world as a closed system. pagano has been reading
creationist sources, instead of reading science. he's bought the lies
that creationism teaches.
>**************************************************
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
>> >aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
>> >confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
>> >a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
>> >of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
>> >NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
>> >objectively true.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> This is correct, but also largely irrelevant.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>It's hardly irrelevent because it disputes the claim by wf3h, by you,
>and many practical atheists that the Pope both accepts evolutionism as
>objectively true and then teaches this truth to the faithful
nowhere did i say the pope says evolution is true. pagano is welcome
to quote me. he cant because he's lying...again. he's a typical
creationist...he lies in every single paragraph he writes.
the pope neither confirms the 'truth' of scientific theories, nor does
he teach these to the faithful. he CAN state whether theories are
scientific, and whether they are compatible with catholic teaching.
as pagano quoted above, the pope stated the criteria for the validity
of a theory. and he stated evolution meets this. pagano's opinion is
that the pope is an idiot, but that he accepts evolution.
.. The Pope
>does nothing more than repeat trustfully back to the scientists of the
>academy what they have assured them is true even though he knows from
>his academic background that these statements are insufficient to prove
>evolutionism as true or even probably true. And he instructed the
>members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: [1] "...that this opinion
>[of evolutionism] should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain,
>proven and [2] as though one could totally prescind from revelation with
>regard to the questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and
>affirm these conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of
>the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier?"
because he recognizes science does not preach 'truth'. and he advises
the faithful that science does not address pagano's idea of a 'closed
system' of materialism.
>
>VanderWettering continues:
>> It is not the Church's
>> role to ensure adequate education in the sciences.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This was not a bone of contention. The bone was wf3h's claim that the
>Pope "accepts" evolution and was teaching this to the faithful. It is
>the responsibility of the Church to stay abreast of all scientific
>inquiries which have bearing on Church doctrine. Evolutionism is one of
>those inquiries.
catholic schools teach evolution. the vatican itself funds an
observatory in kitt peak, arizona, at which jesuit astronomers do
research in cosmology. father christopher corbally, sj, staff
astronomer has pointed out the universe is 15 billion yrs old. is
pagano saying, in addition to the pope's stupidity, that the vatican
is paying astronomers to destroy catholic teaching?
>******************************************
>
>
>
>VanderWettering continues:
>> John Paul is
>> merely asserting that it is not necessary to abandon pursuit of
>> scientific endeavors because of conflicts over faith. In this
>> respect, the Church has taken a position which is considerably more
>> progressive than other Christian sects.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again this was not the bone of contention. The bone was the claim that
>the Pontiff in his Oct 96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
>"accepted" evolutionism and was teaching this truth to the Faithful.\
pagano has distorted the pope's address. nowhere does he teach that
science is 'truthful'. but we already know pagano thinks the pope is
an idiot...
>********************************************
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> It has been quite some time since I studied all this, but I don't believe
>> that John Paul was speaking in his capacity to establish doctrine of the
>> Church in his Magisterium.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Here VanderWettering completely misses the point. Wf3h mistakenly
>pointed to the authority of some Jesuit authors of the publication
>"America" as supporting his claim that the Catholic Church "accepts"
>evolution.
i pointed to a teacher of catholic theology at the weston jesuit
school of theology. pagano ignores the fact that in the encyclical 'ex
corde ecclesia', dealing with catholic universities, catholic
theologians are REQUIRED to teach official church doctrine. and the
pontifical biblical commission, and father richard clifford, sj, BOTH
condemn biblical literalism.
My rebuttal was that the Jesuits are not members of the
>Magisterium which is the only authority of the Church in matters of the
>Faith.
pagano is welcome to read 'ex corde ecclesia' for its requirements on
teachers of catholic theology.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>This isn't an answer to the clear and unequivocal teaching of the
>Catechism of the Catholic Church which I offered above.
the catechism does not preach literalism
the pontifical biblical commission specifically mentions literalism as
a creation of american fundamentalism, and condemns it.
The Church
>uncovers truths from Scripture, in part, in accordance with paragraph
>115 and 116 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see above). If the
>Jesuits de-emphasized the literal sense of Scripture during your
>religious education then this may be a deficiency of theirs not a
>deficiency of the Magisterium's as taught through the Catechism. Long
>standing Tradition has held that "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
>ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL."
pagano is distorting the position of the church. one wonders why
creationist lie so often since their blatant fabrications are so easy
to refute. the pontifical biblical commission, at:
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp2.htm
points out:
>The literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense
> to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to
>translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense.
>One must understand the text according to the literary
>conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense
>is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word
>translation (e.g. "Let your loins be girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which
> corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms ("Be
>ready for action"). When it is a question of a story, the literal
> sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted
>actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of
>history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.
pagano pretends the LITERAL sense of ANY text is the ONLY sense of the
text. the scholars who make up the Pontifical biblical commission
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS PAGANO'S ARGUMENT, AND CONDEMN IT.
the PBC states that it is NOT appropriate to PRETEND every action
mentioned in scripture is LITERALLY true, or that it ACTUALLY took
place.
pagano is, again, lying.
paganos ONLY source for his information is...pagano. he denies ALL
catholic sources, including the pontifical biblical commission, the
pontifical academy of science, catholic theologians, and the pope,
whom he considers a moron.
> Pagano replies:
>As Catholics though we should distance ourselves from those who
>contradict the Magisterium. Wf3h went shopping for any Catholic who
>supports his anti creationist agenda. Do you support shopping for a
>favorable catholic opinion over the legitimate teaching authority of the
>church?
the anticreationists include the pope. but we already know what pagano
thinks of the pope...
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
>> >presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
>> >presupposition that this world was created by design.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> That could be because design theory is mindless pap.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Dembski's, "The Design Inference," was published by the Cambridge
>University Press and it's being taken seriously. Apparently quite a few
>are considering it a threat to the mindless blind watch maker.
who is taking it seriously? only other creationists. it is discussed
in right wing theological journals. pagano has cited no scientific
references to it at all. none. zip. nada.
>********************************************
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
>> >fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
>> >evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
>> >and the life in it by design and with purpose.
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> This of course, does not address whether evolution is in fact true.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Oh I quite agree, but its interesting that the supposed "overwhelming"
>evidence hasn't convinced most US citizens.
science does not depend on vox populi.
And their disbelief does
>not make them irrational because sound philosophy of science has shown
>that level of confirmation is not related to truth in any known way.
nor has anyone said it is.
>And the number being convinced would be even smaller if the real
>contradictions in the evidence were honestly revealed in the 6th thru
>undergrad classrooms. And if the myths of evolution (like the
>industrial moth myth) were corrected perhaps even fewer would believe.
>Perhaps even VanderWettering would become a skeptic.
>
>
pagano's argument relies on his view that all catholic theologians are
liars, the pontifical biblical commission is wrong, and the pope is an
idiot. this, he says, proves the catholic church accepts creationism.
with logic like that, who am i to disagree?
scot...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92at9i$riq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Andy, you're mistaken:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm
First, the Pope isn't going to tell anyone what sciences a person
must/must not believe in. AFAICT It's not his mission in life, and it
could introduce ethical problems if he did IMO. The Church's concern is
with how people use science. So you and Tony are free to believe what
you want about evolution, but you're not free to tell me nor any other
Catholic what sciences we must (can/cannot) believe in. The only
offical rule, I've seen, is that a Catholic can't believe in an
atheistic evolution (which goes without saying). Secondly, I use to
have the following book but have since given it away to a friend with a
PHD/biology degree. It's a publication of
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/index.html It doesn't get anymore
offical then this and it said "more than a ..."
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?
userid=5QFP3LOJ2U&mscssid=5DKB1HRCLR6E9KD3R76LN4LGQSM8DXA5&isbn=02680275
36
"Evolutionary and Molecular Biology : Scientific Perspectives on Divine
Action"
From the Publisher
This collection of twenty-two research papers explores the creative
interaction between evolutionary and molecular biology, philosophy, and
theology. It is the result of the third of five international research
conferences co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory, Rome, and the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley. The overarching
goal of these conferences is to support the engagement of constructive
theology with the natural sciences and to investigate the philosophical
and theological elements in ongoing theoretical research in the natural
sciences.
FROM THE BOOK
Table of Contents
Introduction
Message to the Vatican Observatory Conference on Evolutionary and
Molecular Biology 1
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 2
Evolution and the Human Person: The Pope in Dialogue 11
The Evolution of Life: An Overview 21
The Hominid Evolutionary Journey: A Summary 59
The Phenomenon of the Eukaryotic Cell 79
Darwin's Devolution: Design Without Designer 101
Evaluating the Teleological Argument for Divine Action 117
Teleology Without Teleology: Purpose through Emergent Complexity 151
The Immanent Directionality of the Evolutionary Process, and its
Relationship to Teleology 163
Special Providence and Genetic Mutation: A New Defense of Theistic
Evolution 191
Neo-Darwinism, Self-organization, and Divine Action in Evolution 225
The Thinking Underlying the New 'Scientific' World-views 251
Darwin's Revolution in the Origin of Species: A Hermeneutical Study of
the Movement from Natural Theology to Natural Selection 281
Evolutionary Naturalism and Religion 303
Biocultural Evolution: A Clue to the Meaning of Nature 329
Biological Evolution - A Positive Theological Appraisal 357
Original Sin and Saving Grace in Evolutionary Context 377
Darwin's Gift to Theology 393
Five Models of God and Evolution 419
Beyond Biological Evolution: Mind, Morals, and Culture 445
Supervenience and the Nonreducibility of Ethics to Biology 463
Playing God with Our Evolutionary Future 491
Evolution, Divine Action, and the Problem of Evil 511
Contributors 531
Name Index 533
Subject Index 539
scot...@my-deja.com
Thanks. And a ref I've given (him) in the past. I'm amazed this poor
ol'horse (the Catholic position) is still be rode.
Scott
and...@my-deja.com
I'm aware that a member of the staff of the Vatican newspaper
supposedly disagreed, under pressure, with the printed English
translation. However, the newspaper itself apparently did not publish
a modification to its English translation, and that's what matters.
(You can always find someone on the staff of a newspaper to disagree
with something it published.)
Also, note that the quote of Fr. Dempsey is deficient in two respects:
(1) it is unclear if (and doubtful that) Fr. Dempsey had any connection
to the issue or any expertise in the Pope's use of French and (2) Fr.
Dempsey claims that the Pope was saying that "it is now possible to
recognize that ...." That has too much editorializing in it.
wf...@ptd.net
ROFLMAO!! so the official vatican newspaper capitulated to some
unknown, unnamed pressure to contradict the vatican??
gee...whats next? the vatican's newspaper becoming the house organ for
bob jones university??
However, the newspaper itself apparently did not publish
>a modification to its English translation, and that's what matters.
>(You can always find someone on the staff of a newspaper to disagree
>with something it published.)
no, you cant. thats the whole point of l'osservatore romano. it is not
an independent newspaper like the new york times. in fact, go to the
vatican's website, because there's where you'll find the link to LOR.
>
>Also, note that the quote of Fr. Dempsey is deficient in two respects:
>(1) it is unclear if (and doubtful that) Fr. Dempsey had any connection
>to the issue or any expertise in the Pope's use of French and (2) Fr.
>Dempsey claims that the Pope was saying that "it is now possible to
>recognize that ...." That has too much editorializing in it.
>
>Andy
andy tries to tell us that he knows better than the catholic
priest/editor of LOR what the newspaper should be saying...
scot...@my-deja.com
BTW Tony if you don't think there's anti-catholic bias out there among
prots I invite you to read and post to:
http://www.deja.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
scott
and...@my-deja.com
Emm Foster <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
> Hi Sarah,
>
> sarah clark wrote:
> <...>
> > > No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans".
That's
> > how
> > > the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
> > from
> > > the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
> >
> > actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
None of the major published translations have disputed this or agreed
with your view of "reconnaitre".
> <...>
> > the sense is much stronger than "to recognize" in the
> > english vernacular. particularly as compared with
> > paragraph 4 preceding it, in which the pope states that
> > the previous encyclique states that you can't consider
> > the competing hypotheses if you are accepting evolution
> > as certain and demonstrated. The current pope is saying,
> > in contrast, a half-century later, (my translation)
> > "new discoveries (or research) compel(s) us to understand
> > evolution as more than an hypothesis".
This has numerous errors -- both in translation and in the english
version. It's new "knowledge", not "discoveries" or "research". Your
verb "compel" is wishful thinking at best, and an incorrect translation
of "conduisent à". The "us" has no textual support -- again, wishful
thinking that the Pope might believe in the theory of evolution. You
drop the "dans" in translation. You completely omit the term "theory",
rendering the english incoherent. Also, in english it would be "a
hypothesis", not "an hypothesis". All that in addition to your
mistranslation of "reconnaitre".
> > any translation
> > that does not impart how very definite this is in the
> > french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
That's funny.
> I'm impressed by your understanding of the French language. You are
> correct. I would have translated "reconnaitre" by "admit",or
> "acknowledge"
With all due respect, Emm, I'm surprised you missed all the other
errors above.
Perhaps you could comment on how a theory is *always* more than a
hypothesis, so your interpretation renders the statement
inconsequential.
Elmer Bataitis
> The Pope's dialogue was with the scientists of the
> Academy. In that light the Pope was not teaching these affirmations
> (quoted immediately above by VanderWettering) to the members of the
> Academy. He was rather repeating what he had heard from them in the
> context of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
Gee Tony. I guess you really are claiming that the Pope has no idea what he's
saying. Why do you think this?
Mark VandeWettering
I'd like to say this is the most absurd and wrong headed thing you've
ever said Andy, but you provide so many things to choose from, I'll merely
say it is among the most absurd etc....
>Andy
and...@my-deja.com
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
[snip]
> The Pope DID claim:
> 1) that the theory of evolution is more than just a hypothesis
That would be a meaningless claim. A theory is *always* more than a
hypothesis.
> 2) it has been confirmed by people from different backgrounds
> working independently (in other words, people who do science)
The Pope made no such claim. He merely observed that people from
different backgrounds have accepted the theory. A poll would have said
the same thing in 1996.
The Pope then clarified that he should speak in terms of multiple
theories of evolution.
> 3) That Pope Pius XI claimed that there was no inherent conflict
> between evolution and Catholic theology, provided that one
> believed that the human soul was divinely created by God.
This is false as well. Pope Pius XII (not XI as you say) expressly
stated that the hypothesis of evolution (1) was worthy of study equal
to that of the opposing hypothesis and (2) should not be adopted as
though it were a certain, proven doctrine.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <slrn94i89g...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>,
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
>[snip]
>> The Pope DID claim:
>> 1) that the theory of evolution is more than just a hypothesis
>
>That would be a meaningless claim. A theory is *always* more than a
>hypothesis.
he said evolution is more than a hypothesis. funny how quick you are
to jump on other folks, but fight tooth and nail against the vatican's
own words...what was that some guy said about the beam in your own
eye..
>
>> 2) it has been confirmed by people from different backgrounds
>> working independently (in other words, people who do science)
>
>The Pope made no such claim. He merely observed that people from
>different backgrounds have accepted the theory. A poll would have said
>the same thing in 1996.
he said independent sciences..geology...biology...physics...have all
confirmed evolution. you're just too sloppy with language to be
coherent.
>
>The Pope then clarified that he should speak in terms of multiple
>theories of evolution.
>
>> 3) That Pope Pius XI claimed that there was no inherent conflict
>> between evolution and Catholic theology, provided that one
>> believed that the human soul was divinely created by God.
>
>This is false as well. Pope Pius XII (not XI as you say) expressly
>stated that the hypothesis of evolution (1) was worthy of study equal
>to that of the opposing hypothesis and (2) should not be adopted as
>though it were a certain, proven doctrine.
>
what he said was that further research was needed. that was 50 yrs
ago. and, much to the dismay of creationists, additional research has
been done, and the pope accepts this confirms evolution.
wf...@ptd.net
<nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
aint it amazing how tony thinks the pope is so stupid he's been
hoodwinked on catholic theology by a bunch of scientists at the
pontifical academy of sciences...
guess he should get rid of 'em and hire tony, huh?
Gyudon Z
Are we to assume that every word has only one connotation?
Can you give the definition from a French dictionary to us?
>Your
>verb "compel" is wishful thinking at best, and an incorrect translation
>of "conduisent à".
I don't speak French, but if I recognize the Latin aright, that is exactly what
conduisent a is.
>The "us" has no textual support --
So? Do you think that "Stop." is not a complete sentence because it doesn't say
who is to stop?
The understood subject is perfectly acceptable usage.
>again, wishful
>thinking that the Pope might believe in the theory of evolution.
It seems more like the Pope (Watchmaker's benison upon him) actually listened
the millions of times scientists have stated that science can say nothing about
god/the soul/&c.
>You
>drop the "dans" in translation.
Because "reconnaitre dans" translates as one word, just as "watashi ga" in
Japanese still translates into "I."
>You completely omit the term "theory",
>rendering the english incoherent.
The sentence seems quite coherent to us.
>Also, in english it would be "a
>hypothesis", not "an hypothesis".
Certain variants of British English actually do say "an historic" and so forth.
It is a construction that dates at least back to the Canterbury Tales.
>All that in addition to your
>mistranslation of "reconnaitre".
And the definition of reconnaitre taken from a French dictionary is...?
>> > any translation
>> > that does not impart how very definite this is in the
>> > french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
>That's funny.
At least she knows how to speak French.
>> I'm impressed by your understanding of the French language. You are
>> correct. I would have translated "reconnaitre" by "admit",or
>> "acknowledge"
>With all due respect, Emm, I'm surprised you missed all the other
>errors above.
None of the above errors are actually errors.
>Perhaps you could comment on how a theory is *always* more than a
>hypothesis, so your interpretation renders the statement
>inconsequential.
So you admit that the Pope does accept evolution as a scientific theory (i.e.
"believes" in it)?
The what was the point of this exchange?
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
and...@my-deja.com
"Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> <wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:3a481702....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> > the catholic church is not in the science business. it does not
accept
> > or reject ANY scientific idea at all. what it does do is state which
> > ideas are compatible or incompatible with the church's theology. as
> > ive stated, neither the pope, nor the jesuit fathers at the weston
> > jesuit school of theology found a problem with evolution. in fact,
> > father richard clifford, s.j., specifically stated that creationism
is
> > based on biblical literalism, which is not a catholic position.
>
> This is exactly correct. The Catholic Church avers that evolution
is not
> *inconsistent* with the church's doctrine. The Church does not take
a stand
> on the truth or falsity of science, or any specific scientific
theories,
> presumably unless there is a conflict. AFAICT, there is no such
conflict
> now.
In fact, the Church does reject these aspects of what the Pope calls
the theories of evolution: (1) abiogenesis by chance, (2) treating
evolution as a certain, proven doctrine, (3) eliminating inquiry into
other theories, and (4) descent from anyone other than Adam. (see
Pope's 1996 statement for 2 & 3; Ratzinger for 1; Pius XII for 4).
Whatever's left of evolution -- and that's not much -- is fair game.
sarah clark
>
> In article <3A493164...@lib.drury.edu>,
> Emm Foster <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
> > Hi Sarah,
> >
> > sarah clark wrote:
> > <...>
> > > > No one disputes that reconnaitre can be followed by "dans".
> That's
> > > how
> > > > the Pope used it. Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
> > > from
> > > > the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
> > >
> > > actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
>
> None of the major published translations have disputed this or agreed
> with your view of "reconnaitre".
and that is a very conventional, safe translation. big
surprise. however, the sense of the message is removed
from the the rendition. there is not the slightest
ambiguity in the french, and the language is quite strong.
the dictionary entry we find for "reconnaitre" supports
my view of whst it means in this sentence. i agree
with emm that it should be translated as "acknowledge"
i invite you to go through all of the other alternate
definitions _from a francophone dictionary_ and explain
why they are more relevant to this sentence than the
entry i view as relevant. i am afraid this may be
more time consuming than simply picking up an
english/french dictionary and using the first
word in the word list, but you are asserting
proficiency in french, so i am sure this will be
no trouble to you.
>
> > <...>
> > > the sense is much stronger than "to recognize" in the
> > > english vernacular. particularly as compared with
> > > paragraph 4 preceding it, in which the pope states that
> > > the previous encyclique states that you can't consider
> > > the competing hypotheses if you are accepting evolution
> > > as certain and demonstrated. The current pope is saying,
> > > in contrast, a half-century later, (my translation)
> > > "new discoveries (or research) compel(s) us to understand
> > > evolution as more than an hypothesis".
>
> This has numerous errors -- both in translation and in the english
> version. It's new "knowledge", not "discoveries" or "research".
lol, he's talking quite specifically about scientific knowledge.
do you think he's not? why use general knowledge, when what he's
talking about is scientific knowledge. so we use a word that is
associated in english with scientific knowledge.
> Your
> verb "compel" is wishful thinking at best, and an incorrect translation
> of "conduisent à".
oh, bull. do you even know the infinitve for that verb?
if so, i invite you again to look it up in a francophone
dictionary and explain which entry you use, and why.
> The "us" has no textual support
that's quite incorrect, there is an understood pronoun
in the sentence. now, that could be "you", "we", or
"one". "one" is the most correct, but it is rarely
used in english, and in fact if you check your english
grammar books, you may find that they instruct you to
convert all of your passive voice sentences to active
voice and to avoid the use of the word "one". to
substitute "you" or "we" instead. this is a stylistic
concern that occurs in english and not in french. you
are not obliged to use poor english grammar in a translation,
simply because the original language put the words in that
order.
> -- again, wishful
> thinking that the Pope might believe in the theory of evolution. You
> drop the "dans" in translation. You completely omit the term "theory",
> rendering the english incoherent.
the "theory" comment is well taken. in an ideal world, all
english speakers would know that evolution is a theory. we
are, however, in the usa, so yes, the "theory" is required.
i imagine one could safely omit it in the united kingdom.
this all reminds me of the schliermacher essay
regarding translation.* is it a proper translation if the
meaning of the words are lost? must you go word-for-word?
the fact of the matter is that french contains often these
passive constructions, and this is not proper english.
so, do you keep the construction and lose the meaning by
rendering stilted and ambiguous prose? or do you adopt the
style of the target language, (in this case, use the active
voice), and retain the meaning of the original? three
guesses how i do it. but then again, occupationally,
accountants are always arguing with lawyers about the
lawyers' desire to elevate form over substance.
> Also, in english it would be "a
> hypothesis", not "an hypothesis".
this is plain wrong. to use "an" in this
situation is optional. you are showing your
age. do you also omit the comma at the end
of a series?
<snip>
* the irony of reading this essay, in english, makes me
laugh to this day. but it's a rather serious issue. i
bacme sensitive to it by participating in classes that
were principally in english but that used dual=language
editions for the readings. this is quite interesting,
because the readers of the original language can often
find some problem in the translation. no translation
can compare to reading something in the native tongue.
--
sarah clark
Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship
with all living beings, and I made up my mind
then that I was not one bit better than the
meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now,
that while there is a lower class, I am in it,
while there is a criminal element, I am of it,
and while there is a soul in prison, I am not
free.
-- Eugene V. Debs
wf...@ptd.net
prove it.
(2) treating
>evolution as a certain, proven doctrine,
and evolution itself never states that it IS a 'proven doctrine',
since NO science says this at all...typical creationist. andy is a
slut when it comes to language..a common creationist language whore.
>(3) eliminating inquiry into
>other theories,
the pope never mentions these. please provide a reference...otherwise,
go paint your face and walk the streets, whore.
>and (4) descent from anyone other than Adam. (see
>Pope's 1996 statement for 2 & 3; Ratzinger for 1; Pius XII for 4).
the pope never mentioned adam, either. guess he forgot to call you and
get an update. he said he accepts the scientific validity of
evolution. evolution never mentions adam.
>
>Whatever's left of evolution -- and that's not much -- is fair game.
whats left of catholicism after you creationists get done with it
would fit in a thimble.
sarah clark
>
> From andysch:
>
> And the definition of reconnaitre taken from a French dictionary is...?
ah, heck, i _posted_ that already...
what i wanta know is if andy is willing to take this over to
cafe-babel, which is a translator's mailing list that hosts
a number of french speakers. let me know andy, and
i'll get you the details and see you there.
> >> > any translation
> >> > that does not impart how very definite this is in the
> >> > french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
>
> >That's funny.
>
> At least she knows how to speak French.
that would be emmanuelle. after 15 years of
french, i still can only read it with proficiency.
<snip>
Mark VandeWettering
>Mark VandeWettering replied:
>> I would agree that the exact nature of John Paul's statement on
>> evolution has largely been represented, but I feel this is rather
>> further off the beam than wf3h's opinion.
> Pagano replies:
>Above I say nothing about the "nature" of the Pontiff's address. I
>merely argue that the pontiff's statements that, (1) evolutionism is
>more than a hypothesis, and (2) that evolutionism is accepted by a
>majority of scientists do not even consititute evidence that the pontiff
>"accepts" evolution "himself" let alone that he was teaching this as an
>objective truth to the the Catholic faithful. I would be interested in
>VandeWettering's argument to the contrary.
Frankly, I care not at all whether the Pope accepts evolution as a
matter of "objective truth" or not. That is not the subject of the
Magisterium.
>As to the nature of his address: it was a trustful dialogue with 80+
>natural scientists who are members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
>and advise the Magisterium of the findings of secular science. The
>pontiff trustfully repeated these facts he heard from the members,
>however, this was counter-balanced by his explicit
>adoption-without-correction of his predecessor's encyclical: "Humani
>Generis."
Can you please point to the portion of his address where he adopted
without correction the Humani Generis? I see him referencing it,
but he does make the claim that since that time, research has confirmed
that evolution is more than a hypothesis.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >Wf3h has in the past ignored the fact that Pope John Paul II in his Oct
>> >96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirmed Pope Pius XII
>> >encyclical "Humani Generis" without correction. In "Humani Generis"
>> >Pope Pius XII said that: [snip]
>
>Mark VandeWettering replied::
>> I'm uncertain why you claim that he affirmed the Humani Generis. Certainly
>> JPII references it,
>>
>> In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor
>> Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition
>> between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man
>> and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight
>> of several indisputable points.
>
> Pagano responds:
>Even if he did not explicitly affirm it,
I'm sorry, you just said above that he explicitly affirmed it. Now, when
pressed you admit that he did not.
>his adoption of the references from it is evidence of his affirmation.
I certainly believe that John Paul believes in most of what is asserted
in the Humani generis. He went considerably beyond that however, and in
particular was much less skeptical of the scientific basis for the theory
of evolution.
>And he did not correct at least
>one pronouncement from "Humani Generis" which is at odds with the claims
>of modern science.
Which was?
>However he does explicitly affirm it.
Wait, he did?
>I direct VanderWettering's [ed: VandeWettering, or Mark if you'd rather]
>attention to the three sentences immediately preceeding the one he
>quoted from above. The Pontiff wrote: "Before offering you several
>reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of
>life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium
>has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of
>her own competence. I will cite here two interventions." And the
>pontiff goes on to cite from "Humani Generis.
This is again, hardly an explicit affirmation of the totality of the
Humani generis.
Again, as a religious leader, the Pope's job isn't to decide whether
evolution is "objective truth" or not. By asking the scientists of the
Academy for their dialogue, the Pope rightfully asks for scientific
evidence from _scientists_. The Pope's statement is important not as
an official recognition of evolution as true, but rather as a statement
that the theory of evolution (and the science that it represents) does
not represent an inherent conflict with the doctrine of the Church.
>And immediately above the quote offered by Vanderwettering the Pope
>reaffirms the conditions for the study of evolutionism by Catholics.
>The two conditions were: [1] "...that this opinion [of evolutionism]
>should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain, proven and [2] as
>though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the
>questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and affirm these
>conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of the theory of
>evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier? "
There certainly is an undeniable possibility
>The Pope did go on to remind the members of the academy that "A theory's
>validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly
>tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter,
>it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must be rethought." Why
>would the Pope bring this bit of Philosophy of Science if he were "more
>convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was
>fifty years earlier? "
Why do you feel that the Pope is speaking for himself in this context,
but was merely echoing the Academy's concerns above? I find it far more
likely that the scientists themselves
>VanderWettering apparently only read the parts of the address that
>supported his position. And he completely ignored the context and
>nature of the Pope's address.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
>VanderWettering wrote:
>> Well, mince words if you like. I've had several fundamentalists
>> acquaintances tell me to my face that as a Roman Catholic, I am
>> not a "true" Christian. They obviously were told this by someone
>> else, so I suspect that the attitude described is more prevalent
>> than your statement would suggest.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I've been interested in Catholic apologetics for awhile and I've never
>seen this attack (that is, that Catholicism is non christian) by any
>formal protestant group. In fact even the rabid anti Catholic Chick
>publications that I've read didn't claim Catholicism was non christian.
I'm speaking from personal experience. You can choose to argue that
the events I described didn't happen, or that they aren't part of any
organized protestant group if you like.
As for Jack Chick, I suggest you reread the incredibly fun tracts,
"The Death Cookie", and "Are Roman Catholics Christian?".
>So the attempt by wf3h and other practical atheists to play christian
>against christian will be exposed by me for what it is.
Whatever.
>Pagano replies:
>> >Since wf3h's premise---that creationists deny that the Catholic Church
>> >is christian----is false then so is this conclusion upon which it is
>> >based.
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> I think "true" or "false" is too simple an explanation. I would think
>> that it is "not uncommon" for creationists to declare that Catholics
>> aren't Christian: in fact, I could name several posters to this very
>> newsgroup who have asserted as much.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Justifying such a claim by referencing some posts in this forum is no
>justification at all, at least as far as I'm concerned.
I'd be interested in knowing what you would consider reasonable
evidence then.
>I have never
>seen any of the established protestant sects (to include evangelical
>fundamentalism) have their authorities claim formally and in their
>writings that Catholicism is non Christian. I have a sizable YEC
>creationist library and none of those sources accuse or attack
>Catholicism in any way, shape or form. Do fundamentalists hate
>Catholicism, generally, yes.
Doesn't the fact that they hate Catholics mean something to you?
>Do they accuse catholics of being in
>error, generally, yes. Do they accuse them of being non christian,
>generally, No.
Not generally perhaps, but it is not uncommon.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >While I don't deny that some creationists who are also
>> >evangelical fundamentalists frequently loathe Roman Catholicism with as
>> >much ferver as they do atheism, such loathing rarely if ever surfaces in
>> >their public creationist writings, debates or displays.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> I think you are mistaken.
>
> Pagano responds:
>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please offer a single
>written work by any YEC creationist which accuses Catholicism of being
>non christian or directly attacks Catholics. Since I have a sizable
>creationist library perhaps I'll have the source you cite. Please cc me
>copy of your reply since I would like to find any such creationist
>source.
You can begin by addressing the two Chick tracts that I mentioned above.
I'll work on coming up with some others.
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >Whatever their
>> >dispute with Catholics they have maintained peace and civility.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> At times. One could reference things like the Chick tracts to find out
>> just how peaceful and civil this dialogue is.
>
> Pagano responds:
>The Chick tracts are indeed rabid anti Catholic works, however, they are
>not YEC creationist works. And the Chick malcontents do not dispute the
>Catholic Church's doctrine on creation (as far as I know). It is
>probably one of the unifying doctrines for all but a few christian
>sects.
I'm confused now. Your admitting that they are "rabid anti Catholic" works,
but are claiming that they fall short of not being Christian religions?
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >Having
>> >collapsed wf3h's false claim that creationists are antichristian, we
>> >have at the same time collapsed his claim that they are anti science.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> Uh, not so fast. You've done nothing of the source. It might be true
>> that w3fh hasn't presented evidence that creationists are anti-science
>> (I'm not sure he really has to, as it is clearly evident), but you have
>> not presented evidence to refute it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Wf3h asserted that: "they betray the fact that creationism is often as
>antichristian as it is antiscience." While some creationists might be
>antiCatholic they are hardly antiChristian. If they are not often
>antiChristian how can they be as often anti science. In fact wf3h's
>link of antiChristian behavior with antiScience behavior is simply
>mistaken and left unargued by him. Dawkins, for example, is admittedly
>antiChristian. Does that mean he is antiScience?
I believe that creationism is as often anti-christian as it is anti-science.
I don't believe that wf3h has proved it, but the fact that he hasn't proved
it doesn't mean that you can assume that he was wrong.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >As I have argued above and in previous posts no one has denied that the
>> >theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. "More than a hypothesis"
>> >simply means that evolutionism has garnered confirmations. No one
>> >denies this. However, this is not the same thing as saying the theory
>> >is true. No level of confirmation can justify that a theory is true or
>> >even probably true.
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> It is not the job of the Pope to be a scientist. He accepts that
>> the work of scientists, even potentially atheistic ones, is done
>> ethically and without deception.
>
> Pagano responds:
>That's exactly right. The Pope was merely repeating to the scientists
>of the Academy what they had assured him was true. The Pope didn't
>teach these facts to the member scientists. Hence the authority for
>these statements (more than a hypothesis, accepted by the majority) is
>not the Pope as authentic teacher of the Faith, but the members of the
>Academy.
I agree. I do think that were you to have a conversation on the topic
of evolution, that one might find that the Pope was better informed than
might be imagined.
>VanderWettering continues:
>> To the extent that science
>> describes the material world, he seems very comfortable in accepting
>> the conclusions of scientists.
> Pagano replies:
>Because VanderWettering takes the Pope's statements (1) out of context
>of the whole address and (2) out of context of the nature of the address
>with the academy members, he mischaracterizes "trustful dialogue" as
>"comfort."
I'm not sure that those two are even different, much less whether I
mischaracterized anything. If he as pontiff had any misigivings about
the conclusions of the Academy's scientists, he could have used this
opportunity to air them. When I claimed he "seeme comfortable in
accepting the conclusions of scientists", that is merely an observation.
You can of course disagree.
>VanderWettering continues:
>> Where he differs is of interest purely to religion and theology. In
>> trying to ascertain the true nature of man, he claims that man is given
>> his essential soul by God, no matter how his body was created. I can
>> see no reason why any scientist, atheistic or otherwise, would seek to
>> argue this particular point.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again VanderWettering read only what he chose to read from the Pontiff's
>address. The Church is not only concerned with the creation and
>infusion of the soul. From the the Pope's address to the Pont Acad of
>Sc: "The church's mageristerium is directly concerned with the question
>of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches
>us that he was created in the image and likeness of God." This Pope has
>said elsewhere that purely materialistic theories are inconsistent with
>the Catholic Faith. Evolutionism is purely materialistic.
I think you are trying to paint this in black and white, when there is
obviously significant grey areas. The Pope (and the Catholic Church) have
consistently held the idea that man was created in God's image. It is
clear that the Pope acknowledges that this "image" of man or God need
not be physical:
It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person
possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed
this essential point: if the human body takes its origin
from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is
immediately created by God
>In addition the main secular presupposition of science that our material
>world is a only a closed system of material causes and effects
>(naturalism) is in conflict with the christian doctrine that our souls
>are created by God and fused with our material bodies.
If true, the assumption of naturalism is not unique to evolution,
so I'm not sure how to reconcile the views of the Church and science
in this regard.
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> >As a student of philosophy Pope John Paul II is well aware of this and
>> >aware that every false theory in the history of science has garnered
>> >confirmations and can be characterized as "more than a hypothesis." As
>> >a result the Pontiff was NOT affirming the objective truth of the theory
>> >of evolution, he was NOT affirming that it was probably true, and he was
>> >NOT teaching the faithful that the Church "accepted" such a theory as
>> >objectively true.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> This is correct, but also largely irrelevant.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>It's hardly irrelevent because it disputes the claim by wf3h, by you,
>and many practical atheists that the Pope both accepts evolutionism as
>objectively true and then teaches this truth to the faithful.
You are mischaracterizing my position, you misunderstand. I have claimed
that the Pope did not declare evolution to be true, merely that it was
not in conflict with the doctrine of the Church.
>The Pope
>does nothing more than repeat trustfully back to the scientists of the
>academy what they have assured them is true even though he knows from
>his academic background that these statements are insufficient to prove
>evolutionism as true or even probably true.
I think this is not evidenced by the Magisterium.
>And he instructed the
>members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: [1] "...that this opinion
>[of evolutionism] should NOT be adopted as though it were a certain,
>proven and [2] as though one could totally prescind from revelation with
>regard to the questions it raises." Why would the Pope reference and
>affirm these conditions if he were "more convinced of the validity of
>the theory of evolution than Pope Pius was fifty years earlier?"
Neither of those two conditions are inconsistent with my statement that
he appears to be more convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution
than Pope Pius was.
>VanderWettering continues:
>> It is not the Church's
>> role to ensure adequate education in the sciences.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This was not a bone of contention. The bone was wf3h's claim that the
>Pope "accepts" evolution and was teaching this to the faithful.
If that was indeed wf3h's claim, then I disagree with that claim.
>It is
>the responsibility of the Church to stay abreast of all scientific
>inquiries which have bearing on Church doctrine. Evolutionism is one of
>those inquiries.
>VanderWettering continues:
>> John Paul is
>> merely asserting that it is not necessary to abandon pursuit of
>> scientific endeavors because of conflicts over faith. In this
>> respect, the Church has taken a position which is considerably more
>> progressive than other Christian sects.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Again this was not the bone of contention. The bone was the claim that
>the Pontiff in his Oct 96 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
>"accepted" evolutionism and was teaching this truth to the Faithful.
Perhaps that was your bone of contention, it was never mine. I
think the claim that the Pope thinks that evolution should be taught
as church doctrine is certainly incorrect, nevertheless, I think
it likely that the Pope has made a significant statement about the
lack of conflict between the theory of evolution and church doctrine.
Nevertheless, I don't believe the Pope was speaking in that capacity
in this Magisterium. Am I incorrect?
>And the Pope, in his address to the Pontifical Academy of
>Sciences, neither taught evolutionism as acceptable in his Magisterial
>capacity or any other capacity for that matter.
It is clear the Pope did claim that evolutionism is not inherently
in conflict with Church doctrine. If that is "acceptable", then he
did claim that evolutionism is acceptable.
I'm likely to have a viewpoint of the Church significantly modified by
my education by Jesuits. Whether you view that as a deficiency is I suspect
a matter of personal perspective.
>Long
>standing Tradition has held that "ALL OTHER SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
>ARE BASED ON THE LITERAL."
Yes, I did read that. I'm not enough of a theological scholar to have a
response, other than to claim that all interpretations of the Bible _are_
based upon what is written there.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >Not only this but the Magisterium has affirmed and has never corrected
>> >the Biblical Commission's declaration of June 30, 1909 while still an
>> >arm of the Magisterium. It declared that the first three chapters of
>> >Genesis contain an account of real facts corresponding to objective
>> >reality and historical truth and are not fiction derived from ancient
>> >mythologies and comogonies, purged of their polytheism and adapted to
>> >monotheism. This would place this Jesuit priest's opinion's at odds
>> >with the Magisterium and therefore outside the Catholic Church.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> It wouldn't be the first time. Or the last.
>
> Pagano replies:
>As Catholics though we should distance ourselves from those who
>contradict the Magisterium.
Well, I'm hardly a good Catholic. I contradict a great deal of what
the Church has to say.
>Wf3h went shopping for any Catholic who
>supports his anti creationist agenda. Do you support shopping for a
>favorable catholic opinion over the legitimate teaching authority of the
>church?
I've made my decision about my religion, and continue to do so as part
of my personal growth as an individual. Nevertheless, I greatly admire
the Pope as a remarkable man, and have found his writings and speeches
to be thought provoking and worthy of commentary.
>Pagano replies:
>> >Whatever the political goals of fundamentalism may be, with regard to
>> >the creation of the material world and the life in it a majority of US
>> >citizens agree with them. The pressure they have placed upon school
>> >boards is backed by a majority of US citizens. Marsden fails to
>> >recognize that the secular world has attempted to impose its
>> >religious-like view that the world is a closed system of only material
>> >causes and effects. This is not a scientific claim but a religious-like
>> >one.
>>
>> I don't feel that this is true nearly to the extent that people claim.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>You don't feel what is true? You don't feel that naturalism is
>surreptitiously taught or you don't feel that naturalism is a
>religious-like claim or both?
I don't feel that naturalism is surreptitiously taught to the extent that
most people would claim. I suspect vastly more people are surreptitiously
religious.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >The education system has failed to warn students of this religous
>> >presupposition and they refuse to present the competing religious
>> >presupposition that this world was created by design.
>
>VanderWettering replied:
>> That could be because design theory is mindless pap.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Dembski's, "The Design Inference," was published by the Cambridge
>University Press and it's being taken seriously.
Sorry, not by anyone with two firing neurons. In most of this I've tried
to remain civil, but Dembski is a charlatan.
>Apparently quite a few
>are considering it a threat to the mindless blind watch maker.
Then quite a few are mistaken.
>Pagano previously wrote to wf3h:
>> >While there are only a relatively small number of evangelical
>> >fundamentist creationists the majority of US citizens disbelieve in
>> >evolutionism and believe in a supernatural Creator who Created the world
>> >and the life in it by design and with purpose.
>
>VanderWettering replies:
>> This of course, does not address whether evolution is in fact true.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Oh I quite agree, but its interesting that the supposed "overwhelming"
>evidence hasn't convinced most US citizens.
Most US citizens aren't aware of this overwhelming evidence, nor in fact
the least bit interested.
>And their disbelief does
>not make them irrational because sound philosophy of science has shown
>that level of confirmation is not related to truth in any known way.
Agreed. Most of them are merely ignorant, not irrational.
>And the number being convinced would be even smaller if the real
>contradictions in the evidence were honestly revealed in the 6th thru
>undergrad classrooms.
Most of the "contradictions" are idiotic. If you'd like to say that
schools should do a better job of teaching science, I'd agree, but
the Design Inference isn't it.
>And if the myths of evolution (like the
>industrial moth myth) were corrected perhaps even fewer would believe.
>Perhaps even VanderWettering would become a skeptic.
I am a skeptic, of virtually everything. Ask anyone. It is one of the
reasons I am a poor Catholic.
Mark
Gyudon Z
>In article <hWV16.619$iK.5...@monger.newsread.com>,
> "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>> <wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>> news:3a481702....@news.ptdprolog.net...
>
>> > the catholic church is not in the science business. it does not
>accept
>> > or reject ANY scientific idea at all. what it does do is state which
>> > ideas are compatible or incompatible with the church's theology. as
>> > ive stated, neither the pope, nor the jesuit fathers at the weston
>> > jesuit school of theology found a problem with evolution. in fact,
>> > father richard clifford, s.j., specifically stated that creationism
>is
>> > based on biblical literalism, which is not a catholic position.
>>
>> This is exactly correct. The Catholic Church avers that evolution
>is not
>> *inconsistent* with the church's doctrine. The Church does not take
>a stand
>> on the truth or falsity of science, or any specific scientific
>theories,
>> presumably unless there is a conflict. AFAICT, there is no such
>conflict
>> now.
>
>In fact, the Church does reject these aspects of what the Pope calls
>the theories of evolution: (1) abiogenesis by chance,
Which is not part of the theory of evolution.
>(2) treating
>evolution as a certain, proven doctrine,
Which is not a characteristic of any scientific theory.
>(3) eliminating inquiry into
>other theories,
Which no scientific theory does.
and (4) descent from anyone other than Adam. (see
>Pope's 1996 statement for 2 & 3; Ratzinger for 1; Pius XII for 4).
>Whatever's left of evolution -- and that's not much -- is fair game.
The theory of evolution appears pretty much unchanged, then. The Vatican just
doesn't seem to think it applies to species Homo sapiens sapiens.
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z wrote:
>>
>> From andysch:
>>
>
>> And the definition of reconnaitre taken from a French dictionary is...?
>
>ah, heck, i _posted_ that already...
>
>what i wanta know is if andy is willing to take this over to
>cafe-babel, which is a translator's mailing list that hosts
>a number of french speakers. let me know andy, and
>i'll get you the details and see you there.
Nah. He'll probably insist that the Cafe Babel people are all Darwinists and
therefore speak only Darwinist French, which is the language of the conspiracy.
Vive la "conspiracy"!
>> >> > any translation
>> >> > that does not impart how very definite this is in the
>> >> > french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
>>
>> >That's funny.
>>
>> At least she knows how to speak French.
>
>that would be emmanuelle. after 15 years of
>french, i still can only read it with proficiency.
If you look carefully, I think you'll find that it was Emmanuelle.
Bigdakine
>From: and...@my-deja.com
>Date: 12/25/00 2:42 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <928pi1$dbm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <20001225142247...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: a catholic view of evolution
>> >From: "Schlafly" roger...@deja.com
>> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote
>> >> >Arguments with the Catholics about Bible interpretation go back
>> >> >100s of years. Evolution is just a minor and amusing side issue
>> >> >to that debate.
>> >> except the argument is settled about literalism. there is no
>support
>> >> for it in the catholic church. both the article, and the catholic
>> >> catechism reject it. and, again, the point you try to sidestep,
>with
>> >> the all adroitness of a sumo wrestler practicing ballet, is that
>> >> evolution, much to the dismay of creationists, is consistent with
>> >> christian belief.
>> >
>> >That is correct, as the terms "evolution" and "christian belief" are
>> >used by the Pope. But the Pope hasn't spoken for all Christians
>> >in a long time,
>>
>> Nope, he just speaks for 75%-80% of them. Where as the creationists
>speak at
>> most for a few percent or even less.
>
>Gee, do you also think the US President always speaks for most
>Americans? Of course not.
>
>The Pope's statement on evolution was non-binding on Catholics, let
>alone non-Catholics.
Didn't claim it was binding, Andy. Did I? Why do you consistently fail to
respond to the point made. In case you need a refresher, the point is, that the
evolution of man from "lower" forms of life is not in conflict with the
Catholic religion. That is all. Why is that so hard to grasp? What? It has to
be binding?
Moreover, his statement referred to the theory of
>evolution being more than "une" hypothesis, which can mean more than "a
>hypothesis" or "one hypothesis". Either way, it falls far short of
>saying that evolution is proven.
Again, Andy responds to a point I did not make. I did not claim that the Pope
thinks evolution is proven. All I claim is that evolution does not conflict
with Christian doctrine for the Church that represents 75%-80% of all
Christians.
Why not repsond to the points I did make, as opposed to the points I did not
make?
>
>The hearsay claim that a newspaper editor endorsed one interpretation,
>when his newspaper printed the other interpretation, is line noise at
>best. The Pope chose not to clarify his statement, indicating that it
>probably did not deserve any more attention.
Perhaps this will clear things up for you Andy..
In Evolution and Creation - A Catholic Understanding by Rev. William Kramer.
This book has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur markings.
You might start reading on page 113.
On January 29, 1986, the Pope restated his view of evolution to a general
audience: Indeed the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that
does not include divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth
about creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis.
Now this was a direct reference to the theory of natural evolution.
Do you still wish to flagellate yourself further?
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
A Pagano
> the pope does not pronounce a verdict on the 'truth' of evolution. he
> DOES pronounce a verdict on whether it is compatible with catholic
> teaching. and it is. pagano tries to scientize the pope's statement.
> creationists play fast and loose with language...
Pagano replies:
What the Pope actually said was that, "there was no opposition between
evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation, on
condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points."
Wf3h and others read the first part of this statement but ignore the
second part. The indisputable points and conditions are routinely
violated rendering the "no opposition" void.
*************************************
wf3h continues:
> which also accepted the possibility that evolution was science. john
> paul MODIFIED and UPDATED 'humani generis' by specifically referencing
> its call for more research.
Pagano replies:
Whether purely naturalistic evolution is science was not an issue
between the Pope and the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
The call for research has no effect on "Humani Generis" whatsoever. On
the other hand the Pontiff reiterated the conditions "Humani Generis"
places on further research. I suggest you reread (or for the first
time) the three page address over again.
***********************************
wf3h continues:
> john paul said that the research done in
> the 50 yrs since HG was published have verified evolution.
Pagano replies:
The problem is that the Pope is not a scientist and he is not teaching,
guarranteeing, or even endorsing this claim to the scientist members of
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to whom the address was made on Oct
96. It was the duty of the scientist members to advise the Pontiff in
these matters and it was the scientist members who advised him that new
knowledge since "Humani Generis" led to the recognition of the theory of
evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. During the address
the Pope merely repeated back to them in a trustful dialogue what they
had assured him was true. Wf3h has completely ignored the identity of
the audience of the Pope's address and the relationship between he and
the members of the pontifical academy of sciences.
While "verification" has its value, it is not proof that a theory is
objectively true or even probably true. Every false theory in history
was verified by some level of corroboration.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> really? which one? pagano is deliberately vague...having been caught
> in so many lies, no wonder he lacks details.
Pagano replies:
One has to be careful here since wf3h uses the label "lie" as synonmous
with "disagrees with what wf3h believes." If he were to use the
dictionary meaning of "lie" he couldn't find one lie in any of my 1300+
posts. And as near as I can determine he has never attempted to do so.
I suggest wf3h read "Humani Generis" and discover for himself; it is
very short.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> and the competence of the church is NOT in science, but on the
> spirituality of the human person. evolution does not address that.
Pagano replies:
The Church is competent to involve itself in any matter that directly
concerns matters of faith. The doctrine of creation concerns more than
spirituality. And the Pope made this explicit in his address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences. One wonders if wf3h actually read the
short three page address.
***********************************************
Pagano replies:
> >I direct VanderWettering's attention to the first three paragraphs of
> >the Pope's address: The relationship between the Magisterium and the
> >members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was designed and is a
> >trustful dialogue. The Pope's dialogue was with the scientists of the
> >Academy. In that light the Pope was not teaching these affirmations
> >(quoted immediately above by VanderWettering) to the members of the
> >Academy. He was rather repeating what he had heard from them in the
> >context of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
>
> pagano ignores the fact the pope specifically calls evolution SCIENCE,
> and that he says evolution is not in contradiction to catholic
> teaching.
Pagano replies:
I didn't ignore it because whether or not the Pope called evolution
science was never an issue. The issue was that wf3h asserted that the
Pope "accepted" evolution in his address to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences. And, AGAIN, the Pope said more than simply evolution is not in
contradiction to the faith. What the Pope said was that, "there was no
opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his
vocation, ON CONDITION THAT ONE DID NOT LOSE SIGHT OF SEVERAL
INDISPUTABLE POINTS." Wf3h and others read the first part of this
statement but ignore the second. The indisputable points and conditions
are routinely violated. The violation of these points and conditions
renders the "no opposition" void.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> which is irrelevant to the pope's acceptance of evolution as science.
Pagano replies:
Please offer the quote wherein the Pontiff says or implies that either
he personally or the Church "accepts" evolution. The implication of
"acceptance" is that accepted statement is objectively true. No where
could wf3h find this in the Pope's address. He does say there is no
opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith if certain
provisions and conditions are not violated---but they are violated.
Perhaps the Pope accepts that evolution is more than a hypothesis, but
then so is virtually every falsified theory in history which garnered
confirmations. Perhaps the Pope accepts that evolution is accepted by
the majority of scientists, but so were many falsified theories in
history. As a student of philosophy the Pope is aware of these facts
which directly bear on any acceptance. To deny their relevence is
irrational which the Pope surely is not.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> he never mentions these 2 statements in his address to the academy.
> pagano takes the words of the 50 yr old document and pretends john
> paul said them. JP didnt, and pagano is lying.
Pagano replies:
I'm thoroughly convinced now that wf3h has never read the Pope's Oct 96
address. As usual wf3h never identifies my lies, never identifies whom
I am supposed to be deceiving, and never explains my intent for doing
so.
******************************************************
wf3h wrote:
> because he pointed out that the research Humani Generis called for had
> been done, had met the criteria for validity, and was verified. he
> outlined WHY he was accepting evolution as science. he stated WHY he
> found it was NOT in contradiction to catholic teaching.
Pagano replies:
This doesn't answer why the Pontiff specifically reminded the scientists
of the Academy of the conditions of a valid theory: specifically he
reminded them that whenever a theory cannot explain all the facts it
shows its limitations and unsuitability. Why bring this up if evolution
is completely verified and accepted?
"Humani Generis" didn't call for research, it placed conditions on
research conducted by catholics. The Pope never says why evolution is
not opposed, he simply asserts that evolution is not opposed to the
faith provided certain conditions are met. I'm more certain than ever
now that wf3h has never read the Pope's address.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> pagano's whole post, including his use of 'and', and 'the', is a lie.
Pagano replies:
How very childish.
********************************************
wf3h continues:
> so pagano is lying. he's out and out lying about the historical and
> theological existence of anticatholicism in the US.
>
> pagano is blatantly anticatholic, denying that anticatholicism existed
> in the USA.
Pagano replies:
This, of course, is nonsense. wf3h doesn't recall his own mistaken
claim. Wf3h claimed that creationists asserted that Catholicism was non
christian. It was this that I disputed not that some fundamentalist
creationists are anti catholic.
*********************************************
wf3h continues:
> see father martin's article above. pagano is lying.
Pagano replies:
Martin's article says nothing about protestants attacking catholicism as
non christian. This was the mistaken claim of wf3h which I disputed.
*****************************************
wf3h continues:
> how many fundamentalists are in a 'generally'? when i was catholic, i
> was told that i was going to hell by a fundamentalist when i worked at
> my father's gas station. bob jones university proudly proclaims its
> anticatholicism.
Pagano replies:
And I quote from wf3h's original post: "...the second is that they deny
the catholic church is christian." This is the mistaken claim by wf3h
that I disputed not that fundamentalists were anti catholic. Notice
that wf3h isn't so much defending the catholic church as he is attacking
the fundamentalists and pitting them against catholics.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> really? chick accepts evolution like the catholic church does?
Pagano replies:
Please offer the quote from the Pope's address wherein he uses the word
"accept" or even implies the word "accept." This should be a neat trick
since wf3h has amply shown he's never read the three page address.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> since catholics are christians, and creationists are anticatholic...
Pagano replies:
Very good...probably the best reply wf3h has made with me in four
years. However, wf3h still has failed to demonstrate the link between
antichristian behavior and antiscience behavior.
*************************************************
wf3h continues:
> pagano ignores the fact creationists have a spectrum of belief. they
> are often anticatholic. since they are creationists, they are
> antiscience.
Pagano replies:
Good recovery...once wf3h discovered that linking antichristian behavior
to antiscience behavior condemned virtually every practical atheist
(like Dawkins, Gould and Dennett) to being antiscience he had to abandon
ship. Since creationists accept the vast majority of knowledge
contained under "science" wf3h will have to do better than merely
claiming a relation between creationist and antiscience.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> pagano is left to defend the indefensible...bigotry against catholics
> by fundamentalists. i personally work with a member of the assemblies
> of god who is a creationist, and considers catholics pagans.
Pagano replies:
Notice again that wf3h isn't defending catholicism as much as he is
inciting hatred between the two. I know what wf3h is. And I hope
christian lurkers will see him for what he is.
***********************************************
wf3h continues:
> so he's so stupid he cant think for himself?
Pagano replies:
If one reads the address (which wf3h obviously has not) one will
discover that the Pontiff is dumb-like-a-fox. And it has nothing to do
with independent thinking. The address was a trustful dialogue between
80+ natural scientists and the Pontiff.
**********************************************
wf3h continues:
> ah...so he's been duped. pagano is smarter than the pope about the
> relationship between catholic doctrine and science
Pagano replies:
He's neither been duped nor has he stopped thinking for himself. He has
merely repeated what the scientists have assured him is true. He in
return has reminded them of the Church's position and the Church's
conditions for research in this area.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> too bad the pope didnt consult pagano before writing his address. but,
> in any case, pagano is saying the pope accepts evolution as science.
Pagano replies:
Never claimed otherwise. I believe evolution is a metaphysical research
program which has generated a number of scientific investigations some
of which are mistaken.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> he says the pope is an idiot, but that he accepts evolution and pagano says creationists arent anticatholic!
Pagano replies:
The Pope accepts that the members of the Academy assert that evolution
is more than a hypothesis and is accepted by the majority of
scientists. There is nothing earth shattering about this. Every
creationist accepts this as true as well. These facts simply don't
justify accepting evolution as objectively true or even probably true.
And as a student of philosophy this Pope is very well aware of this.
*******************************************
wf3h continues:
> above pagano called the pope a dupe. above, pagano said he knows
> catholic doctrine better than the pope. pagano is in a poor position to tell us what the pope thinks.
Pagano replies:
My comments which wf3h criticizes here were addressing Vanderweller not
the Pontiff.
*******************************************
wf3h continues:
> pagano is welcome to point out where evolution addresses ANY statement
> about 'pure materialism' at all. pagano is welcome to cite ANY
> reference that states man does not have a soul, or is created by god.
> pagano is lying about evolution's view of materialism, since science
> is silent about the spiritual origins of man.
Pagano replies:
Modern secularists claim unequivocally that life and all its diversity
are the result soley and only of material mechanism (that is, physics
and chemistry), neoDarwinism, and historical contingency. That sounds
purely materialistic to me. The likes of Gould and Dennett have claimed
that if there is something like a soul, such an entity would merely be
some epiphenomenon of matter.
**********************************************
wf3h continues:
> this is not a presupposition of science. again, pagano is a liar. that
> is necessary for creationism.
>
> pagano has never cited a single scientific source which states
> ANYTHING about the world as a closed system. pagano has been reading
> creationist sources, instead of reading science. he's bought the lies
> that creationism teaches.
Pagano replies:
If naturalism is not presupposed then on what basis is supernatural
action ruled inadmissable as a cause in our reconstruction of
prehistory. While supernatural action is not observable its empirical
implications are, in principle, observable and testable.
**********************************************
wf3h continues:
> nowhere did i say the pope says evolution is true. pagano is welcome
> to quote me. he cant because he's lying...again. he's a typical
> creationist...he lies in every single paragraph he writes.
Pagano replies:
It was wf3h who claimed that the Pope accepted evolution. If he doesn't
accept it as true then what does he accept it
as...possible?...probable?...believable? Anything less than accepted as
true is hollow which is why I doubt he even implied its acceptance.
*****************************************
wf3h continues:
> because he recognizes science does not preach 'truth'. and he advises
> the faithful that science does not address pagano's idea of a 'closed
> system' of materialism.
Pagano replies:
This is where we know that wf3h is not christian. Truth is everything
in christianity. If the Pope thought for one minute that the 80+ member
scientists were not interested in the truth he would have disbanded
them. While science has no method to arrive at truth its aim is (or
should be) the objective truth.
***************************************************
wf3h continues:
> catholic schools teach evolution.
Pagano replies:
And so they should teach the best of secular science. They should also
be teaching its shortfalls and failures (which they currently do not
do). I predict that the effect of the Kansas BOE will be felt across
the country within 10 years.
**************************************************
wf3h continues:
> the vatican itself funds an
> observatory in kitt peak, arizona, at which jesuit astronomers do
> research in cosmology. father christopher corbally, sj, staff
> astronomer has pointed out the universe is 15 billion yrs old. is
> pagano saying, in addition to the pope's stupidity, that the vatican
> is paying astronomers to destroy catholic teaching?
Pagano replies:
I suggest wf3h read for the first time the Pontiff's Oct 96 address to
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and "Humani Generis." These allow
the study of such theories as long as Catholic researchers abide by the
provisions and conditions set out. That the Holy See instituted the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences and funds scientific research should tell
its enemies that science and theology bear on each other and the Church
has a direct interest in the claims of science.
As far as I know Jesuit astronomers aren't publishing findings contrary
to doctrine. The creationist Humphreys also theorizes that the universe
is about 15 billion years also and his theory fits reasonable well with
a historical and literal understanding of Genesis.
*******************************************
wf3h continues:
> pagano has distorted the pope's address. nowhere does he teach that
> science is 'truthful'. but we already know pagano thinks the pope is
> an idiot...
Pagano replies:
It was wf3h who claimed that the Pope accepted evolution. If he doesn't
accept it as true then what does he accept it
as...possible?...probable?...believable? Anything less than accepted as
true is hollow which is why I doubt he even implied its acceptance.
*******************************************
wf3h continues:
> i pointed to a teacher of catholic theology at the weston jesuit
> school of theology. pagano ignores the fact that in the encyclical 'ex
> corde ecclesia', dealing with catholic universities, catholic
> theologians are REQUIRED to teach official church doctrine. and the
> pontifical biblical commission, and father richard clifford, sj, BOTH
> condemn biblical literalism.
Pagano replies:
"Ex Corde Ecclesia" has not been implemented yet but it will be in the
near future and the fire works will begin as it is. If certain clergy
condemned the literal sense of the Scripture then they are contradicting
para 115 and 116 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This would
place them outside of Catholic Doctrine. The Pontifical Biblical
Commission hasn't been an arm of the Magisterium for quite some time and
doesn't speak for the magisterium.
********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
> My rebuttal was that the Jesuits are not members of the
> >Magisterium which is the only authority of the Church in matters of the
> >Faith.
wf3h continues:
> pagano is welcome to read 'ex corde ecclesia' for its requirements on
> teachers of catholic theology.
Pagano replies:
Ex Corde Ecclesia, even if it was in effect now, would not convert the
pronouncments of Jesuits teaching at some university into members of the
magisterium. Nor would it prevent them from making any statements about
evolution so long as they did not violate the conditions set forth in
"Humani Generis." And even if they did violate the conditions of
"Humani Generis" (which they probably have) the Church would only move
against them if such statements were causing significant harm to the
faithful or causing scandal.
***********************************************
wf3h continues:
> the catechism does not preach literalism
Pagano replies:
I suggest you read for the first time paragraphs 115 and 116 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
******************************************
wf3h continues:
> the pontifical biblical commission specifically mentions literalism as
> a creation of american fundamentalism, and condemns it.
Pagano replies:
This commission was removed as an arm of the magisterium some time ago.
The Church has never retracted the teaching of this Commission of 1909
(when it was an arm of the magisterium) wherein the historicity of
Genesis and its correspondence with reality were affirmed.
********************************************
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Gyudon Z
>What the Pope actually said was that, "there was no opposition between
>evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation, on
>condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points."
>Wf3h and others read the first part of this statement but ignore the
>second part. The indisputable points and conditions are routinely
>violated rendering the "no opposition" void.
So, Pagano, what are these points?
If they're the four you enumerated in a separate post, the first three were
irrelevant to the theory of evolution and the fourth left the theory of
evolution unchanged apart from one specific population.
Schlafly
news:3A4907E5...@lib.drury.edu...
> > > > Let's look at this paragraph more carefully, shall we?
> > > > Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> > > > more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is
> > > > indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
> > > > accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries
> > > > in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
> > > > sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was
> > > > conducted independently is in itself a significant argument
> > > > in favour of this theory.
> > This inference is incorrect. The very purpose of speaking in terms of
> > both "theory" and "hypothesis" is to draw a contrast the two. There is
> > only one of the former, but many of the latter "dans" the former.
> No, the "more than a hypothesis" refers to the previous paragraph in
> which it is stated that Pie XII was considering the evolution as a
> hypothesis (rather than a theory in the scientific sense of the word).
> It is very clear. JP 2 states that now the theory of evolution must be
> considered as more than a mere hypothesis. You have to take "theory of
> evolution" as a whole name, not as a contrast with hypothesis. If there
> is contrast, it is between the meaning some people give to the word
> theory (it is *only* a theory, meaning a mere hypothesis) and its
> scientific meaning. And again, you mistranslate the "dans".
ISTM that the Pope is saying a couple of things about evolution:
1. the theory is more than a hypothesis.
2. the theory is widely accepted by researchers.
3. there is more evidence today than 50 yrs ago.
These statements are unassailable. On (1), every theory is more
than a hypothesis. On (2), a survey of researchers would surely
confirm it. On (3), new fossil and DNA evidence have indeed
greatly strengthened the case for weak forms of evolution, at
the very least. I would think that even an (honest) creationist
would have to accept these statements.
What the Pope doesn't say is also significant. He doesn't say
how to resolve the related theological problems (if any). He
doesn't say precisely what means by evolution -- is it common
descent or just DNA mutation? He doesn't say whether he
personally accepts evolution, or suggests that anyone else
accept it as fact.
Brian M. Scott
>and...@my-deja.com wrote:
[...]
>> None of the major published translations have disputed this or agreed
>> with your view of "reconnaitre".
>and that is a very conventional, safe translation. big
>surprise. however, the sense of the message is removed
>from the the rendition. there is not the slightest
>ambiguity in the french, and the language is quite strong.
>the dictionary entry we find for "reconnaitre" supports
>my view of whst it means in this sentence. i agree
>with emm that it should be translated as "acknowledge"
>i invite you to go through all of the other alternate
>definitions _from a francophone dictionary_ and explain
>why they are more relevant to this sentence than the
>entry i view as relevant. i am afraid this may be
>more time consuming than simply picking up an
>english/french dictionary and using the first
>word in the word list, but you are asserting
>proficiency in french, so i am sure this will be
>no trouble to you.
He shouldn't have any trouble finding support for your translation
even in a decent French-English dictionary. (Wonder what Andy would
make of <reconnaître un enfant>!)
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Emm Foster
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3A493164...@lib.drury.edu>,
> Emm Foster <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
> > Hi Sarah,
> >
> > sarah clark wrote:
> > <...>
> > > > Furthermore, no one disputes that "reconnaitre"
> > > from
> > > > the Pope's speech is translated as a variation of "recognize".
> > >
> > > actually, i do dispute that. again, see this entry.
>
> None of the major published translations have disputed this or agreed
> with your view of "reconnaitre".
>
> > <...>
> > > the sense is much stronger than "to recognize" in the
> > > english vernacular. particularly as compared with
> > > paragraph 4 preceding it, in which the pope states that
> > > the previous encyclique states that you can't consider
> > > the competing hypotheses if you are accepting evolution
> > > as certain and demonstrated. The current pope is saying,
> > > in contrast, a half-century later, (my translation)
> > > "new discoveries (or research) compel(s) us to understand
> > > evolution as more than an hypothesis".
>
> This has numerous errors -- both in translation and in the english
> version. It's new "knowledge", not "discoveries" or "research".
The text refers to knowledge acquired through the scientific process.
Sarah's translation is correct, even though it is not word for word.
> Your
> verb "compel" is wishful thinking at best, and an incorrect translation
> of "conduisent à".
Compel might seem a little bit strong, but it actually fits the
"spirit" of the text. New discoveries had led us to admit that...,
"cette théorie se soit progressivement IMPOSEE"
> The "us" has no textual support -- again, wishful
> thinking that the Pope might believe in the theory of evolution. You
> drop the "dans" in translation.
It is in her "evolution as...". As for the "us" it is implied in the
text. Your problem is that you seem to translate word for word. It
sometimes give strange result (try to translate "it's too big a car" in
french for example) - the other day I was reading the French translation
of a scientific communication; it was kind of hilarious because the
English "back legs" was translated in "l'arriere des jambes". I had to
go to the original paper because the whole trnanslation didn't make much
sense (something about the back legs being bigger than the front legs -
in French it became "l'ariere des jambes plus gros que l'avant des
bras"...)
> You completely omit the term "theory",
> rendering the english incoherent. Also, in english it would be "a
> hypothesis", not "an hypothesis". All that in addition to your
> mistranslation of "reconnaitre".
>
> > > any translation
> > > that does not impart how very definite this is in the
> > > french is flawed. what do you think, emmanuelle.
>
> That's funny.
>
> > I'm impressed by your understanding of the French language. You are
> > correct. I would have translated "reconnaitre" by "admit",or
> > "acknowledge"
>
> With all due respect, Emm, I'm surprised you missed all the other
> errors above.
I don't see them as errors. Sarah respects the meaning of the text. On
the other hand, your word for word translation changes the meaning of
the original text.
>
> Perhaps you could comment on how a theory is *always* more than a
> hypothesis,
Depends which definition of "théorie" you consider. If I take this one
"ensemble d'idées, de concepts abstraits, plus ou moins organisés,
appliqués a un domaine particulier, spéculation, conception, dectrine,
opinion, systeme, thèse" the use of the word théorie is not shocking at
all and makes perfect sense after the use of "doctrine" and "opinion" at
the beginning of the paragraph. Théorie, doctrine, opinion are used as
synonyms in this paragraph and the meaning of "théorie" in this text is
not as strong as you think. This wording avoid the ugly repetitions.
> so your interpretation renders the statement
> inconsequential.
which interpretation?
regards
Emmanuelle