a catholic view of evolution

6 views
Skip to first unread message

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Dec 24, 2000, 10:56:47 PM12/24/00
to
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
american christians. and it must be opposed BY christians.

Schlafly

unread,
Dec 24, 2000, 11:44:36 PM12/24/00
to
<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?

> 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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 12:11:37 AM12/25/00
to
On 24 Dec 2000 23:44:36 -0500, "Schlafly" <roger...@deja.com>
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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 12:38:36 AM12/25/00
to


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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 8:21:03 AM12/25/00
to
On 25 Dec 2000 00:38:36 -0500, ZenI...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (ZenIsWhen)
wrote:

yeah i forgot about that...

forget everything i wrote...sorry tony...

Schlafly

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 1:29:22 PM12/25/00
to
<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, and not everyone even means the same thing by
those terms.

Bigdakine

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 2:24:23 PM12/25/00
to
>Subject: Re: a catholic view of evolution
>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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 6:11:11 PM12/25/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 6:22:08 PM12/25/00
to
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:3a46c2d1...@news.ptdprolog.net...
>
> 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.

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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 6:58:31 PM12/25/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 7:42:40 PM12/25/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 7:47:55 PM12/25/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 7:55:09 PM12/25/00
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 8:01:10 PM12/25/00
to
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. 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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 8:16:51 PM12/25/00
to
In article <slrn94fqmo...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>,
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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 10:28:29 PM12/25/00
to
On 25 Dec 2000 13:29:22 -0500, "Schlafly" <roger...@deja.com>
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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 10:31:35 PM12/25/00
to
On 25 Dec 2000 19:42:40 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 10:32:41 PM12/25/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 11:27:44 PM12/25/00
to
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 11:46:30 PM12/25/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 25, 2000, 11:50:31 PM12/25/00
to
On 25 Dec 2000 19:55:09 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 12:22:30 AM12/26/00
to

<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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 12:29:59 AM12/26/00
to
On 25 Dec 2000 20:16:51 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 12:45:25 AM12/26/00
to
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, 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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 1:07:02 AM12/26/00
to
"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.

> 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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 8:12:16 AM12/26/00
to
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

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 8:45:50 AM12/26/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 8:51:50 AM12/26/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 9:05:00 AM12/26/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 9:05:51 AM12/26/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 9:39:04 AM12/26/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 10:14:34 AM12/26/00
to
"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"?

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 10:42:09 AM12/26/00
to
On 26 Dec 2000 10:14:34 -0500, "Schlafly" <roger...@deja.com>
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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 11:12:42 AM12/26/00
to
In article <3A46D389...@lib.drury.edu>,

Emm Foster <efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 25 Dec 2000 19:55:09 -0500, and...@my-deja.com <andysch@my-

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 11:39:15 AM12/26/00
to
On 26 Dec 2000 11:12:42 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 11:56:49 AM12/26/00
to
In article <92ag1j$h6b$1...@nnrp1.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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 12:45:31 PM12/26/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 12:52:26 PM12/26/00
to
In article <92aikc$j9l$1...@nnrp1.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

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 1:18:58 PM12/26/00
to

Merci beaucoup.

B.O'Neill

unread,
Dec 26, 2000, 1:32:46 PM12/26/00