University of Idaho affirms evolution

Martin Le Acadien
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

[There is no scientific reason to believe that you have a soul or that any part of you survives after death.

Just leave behind a hundred extra bucks and see if the family will not try to grab it!

My kids are already hinting about what "they" want!

I am dedicated to spending my children's inheritance as quickly as possible!
I'm surprised to hear Nascar James say that the Catholic Church is neutral on the issue of evolution. To my knowledge, that is not the case. It's true that every issue surrounding evolution has not been worked out from a theological perspective by the Church, but the Church has no quarrel with evolution.

The Catholic Church has long been a bastion of an allegorical reading of the Bible. Catholics distinguish between a literal truth in the Bible, that can be found in some places, and an allegorical one where things may not literally be as described in the Bible, but they do nevertheless teach some moral or explain some aspect of God.

Catholics are not the proponents of Intelligent Design, nor do they rail against evolution in the classrooms. This conflict is confined to Protestants, and largely evangelical Protestants at that.

For a clearer view of the Catholic church's view on evolution, refer to this (external - login to view) Catholic website, and see the following (an excerpt, though I must point out that the position is more developed in the full article):


Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manís body developed from previous biological forms, under Godís guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matteró[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Dexter Sinister
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien

I am dedicated to spending my children's inheritance as quickly as possible!

Yeah, way to go Martin. The purpose of life, whatever it is, certainly should not be to enrich your children, they have to make their own way or they'll be useless human beings. Paris Hilton comes to mind...

I like Errol Flynn's dictum. For those of you under 40, Errol Flynn was a 20th century American actor who lived hard and fast and died young. He said that anyone who dies with more than $1000 left is a failure.
Reverend Blair
Of course Errol Flynn's son died working as a photojournalist in Asia...I think he lived through Vietnam and died in Cambodia.

Your purpose in life should not be to create little Paris Hilton's though. Spend their inheritance, just keep them from volunteering to go to war zones.

I'm not a Hilton or a Getty but I see nothing wrong with leaving my offspring a little better off. I don't believe in creating Paris Hiltons who never have to work a day in their lives but if I can help my kids retire a bit earlier I will.

Similar Threads

by scratch | Jun 3rd, 2008
Idaho Potatoes Banned
by FiveParadox | Apr 24th, 2006
no new posts