BillB
Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
StephenB: | Quote | 17
StephenB
02/10/2010
12:00 pm
—Allen MacNeil: | Quote | | “Furthermore, I’m not convinced that your reading of Aquinas is consistent with current catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict XVI (and his predecessor, John Paul II) have been very clear on the current position of the Roman church that the human soul is of divine origin, but the human body is the result of evolution, the scientific understanding of which is “more than a hypothesis” (i.e. a “theory”, and therefore as valid as anything ever gets in science).” |
Your ID strawman should take you to court for subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. You know very well that JPII was talking about “evolution” in general and that he was not talking about a neo-Darwinian/naturalistic mechanism that is alleged to be driving it. Further, it makes no sense to “deconstruct” Aquinas’ text or make him say something he didn’t say on the grounds that some modern Catholics disagree with him.
— | Quote | | "That this is the case is further supported by the catholic church’s current position on “mainstream” ID: that it is not legitimate science, and therefore excluded from the most recent conclaves on the subject of religion and the science of origins.” |
The Catholic Church has no position on ID. The Notre Dame/ anti-ID contingent that cooked up that conference does not speak for the Catholic Church. Some Catholic prelates, including bishops, accept intelligent design.(1)
|
Pope Benedict’s 2007 Statement on Evolution (or a part of it):
| Quote | Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God.
This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.
But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. |
And pope John Paul (another extract) | Quote | | Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. 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 favor of the theory. |
Yes Stephen, they were clearly talking about evolution 'in general' and not about the scientific theory of evolution at all... Or perhaps by 'in general' you mean he was talking about only the bits of evolutionary theory that the average ID'er would agree with(2) .
(1) Some accept children in unatural ways but that doesn't make it OK
(2) Which of course keep changing all the time
|
