Wednesday, September 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

by News Daily

Thanks to Stephen Grundy for the link.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/lg626722-vatican-evolution/

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters) — The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned."

Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools.

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science."

Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution.

"In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said.

"Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly," he said.

Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.

(Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan in Paris and Patsy Wilson in Washington; editing by Robert Hart)

Posted: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 87 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #249139 by thewhitepearl on September 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Well, meh no big deal-It's not like Darwin is around to hear them say "I'm sorry, you were right-we were wrong".

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

2. Comment #249140 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:23 pm

The apologies keep coming:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/09/15/richard_dawkins_infected_with_satanic_virus_of_mind_christian_group_claims

Other Comments by Brian English

3. Comment #249144 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Evening Brian-

Christian Voice are a bunch of pillocks.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

4. Comment #249146 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Pillocks, fine word that Quetz. I shall add that to my Quetzicon
1. Scrofulous
2. Pillocks.
3. (can't remember, there have been so many)

Example: I find the tendentious attitudes of these asinine pillocks scrofulous.

How'd I do?

Other Comments by Brian English

5. Comment #249148 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Brian English-

I use a lot of obscure words. Like mellifluous. And succubi- there's a word that doesn't get used enough.

Your statement is exemplary.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

6. Comment #249154 by thewhitepearl on September 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Quetz,

I use "succubus" a lot.

For example I might tell one of my good guy friends "I think you should dump the bitch-she's a succubus. She just sucks all the life and fun out of you"

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

7. Comment #249155 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Incubi et succubi in foro ambulaverunt et narraverunt.

The scrofulous Christian voice thought their words mellifluous and in truth they were to the succubi who awaited them that night. Such is the fate of pillocks.

Other Comments by Brian English

8. Comment #249157 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

You've got the give the medieval folk credit. Jeebus was born of a virgin, inseminated by an angel.

That wasn't good enough for a medieval lass. No. A succubus stole semen from an innocent sleeping lad. The succubus then turned into an incubus who inseminated the innocent sleeping lass and voila, pregnancy.

Other Comments by Brian English

9. Comment #249159 by Apathy personified on September 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

As Darwin was non-catholic, i'm not sure he'd care too much.

Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session

Just as well, as the catholic church are going to have a large backlog of apologies to make due to their evil policies in Africa.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

10. Comment #249160 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Brian-

Your eloquence verges upon the numinous. You know this to be true since I am not munificent in bestowing praise: but your words are nigh-transcendent.

thewhitepearl-

Excellent. You gain a brownie point.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

11. Comment #249162 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I'm really going to have to leave now- sleep beckons. Ongoing discussions here and elsewhere will be resumed at a later date.

Fare thee well.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

12. Comment #249163 by dochmbi on September 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Succubi, that's the plural of Succubus?
Or is it an adjective as in like a Succubus?
I know the word Succubus very well. It is a common creature in D&D and computer RPGs and World of Warcraft. It's also a ship in the game Aquanox.

Other Comments by dochmbi

13. Comment #249164 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Have my locutions mollified your strict attitude?

Other Comments by Brian English

14. Comment #249167 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Succubi is plural so long as succubus is a 2nd declension noun

(singular)
succubus - (a/the) succubus
Succubus te amat - The Succubus loves you

succubi - of (a/the) succubus
Puer succubi me dicit - The succubus' boy talks to me

succubo - to (a/the) succubus
Succubo crustulum do - I give the succubus a cookie

succubum - (a/the) succubus (direct object)
Succubum video - I see the succubus

succubo - (by/with/through) (a/the) succubus
Cum succubo ambulo - I'm walking with a succubus

succube - O succubus
Succube, cur me narras? - O succubus, why are you talking to me?

(plural)
succubi - (the) succubi
Succubi puellis rosas non dant - The succubi don't give the girls roses

succuborum - of (the) succubi
Crustula succuborom non video - I don't see the succubi's cookies (cookies of the succubi)

succubis - to (the) succubi
Crustula succubis do - I give the succubi cookies

succubos - (the) succubi (direct object)
succubis - (by/with/through) (the) succubi
succubi - O succubi

Cartomancer will correct and ridicule the above. :)

I need a life. Night Quetz....

Other Comments by Brian English

15. Comment #249168 by Border Collie on September 17, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Like this is a controversy or something? Did someone actually expect the Vatican to apologize? And Sarah Palin is going to apologize to the polar bears ...

And, in reference to Brian English's link ... Run, Richard run!!!

Other Comments by Border Collie

16. Comment #249171 by thewhitepearl on September 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm

I bid thee a nights good rest Quetz.

Dochmbi, I believe succubi is the plural of succubus.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

17. Comment #249172 by windweaver on September 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Anyone who believes that the Catholic church hierarchy is "fine" with evolution should think again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Other Comments by windweaver

18. Comment #249173 by Apathy personified on September 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Ha - i've just seen Brian's link.
Although it would be totally out of character and not good PR, i hope that one of these days RD will say to Christian Voice or any of those other muppets,
'Fuck off, no one is listening to you, go home and learn to read, then read a book'

Other Comments by Apathy personified

19. Comment #249175 by and7barton on September 17, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Ref : -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Upon reading the above, it seems like the RC think that blind chance is part of evolution, their ignorance about Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is on a par with all the rest of the xtians. Result ? - Their argument immediately collapses.

Other Comments by and7barton

20. Comment #249177 by thewhitepearl on September 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I'm reading the article from the link Brian sent us right now.

Perhaps they need to understand what the "god particle" is before they go and make smart ass comments about it. grrr

"Above all, we now realise, that contrary to being a complete waste of space and a descendant of apes, you are actually made in the image of God.

"We realise that although you are still stupid, that is simply because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that your eyes are blinded and your ears will not hear any contrary view. In short, we now see you are a sinner in need of the saving, life-transforming grace of God in Jesus Christ."

Ummm someone please tell me that this group is indeed a wolf in sheeps clothing and this "apology" was a satire? Surely no real christian group would make an apology that began with "we realise that although you are still stupid"

Apathy

I agree. Fuck off, no one is listening to you, go home and learn to read, then read a book.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

21. Comment #249178 by Apathy personified on September 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm

whitepearl,
When you say, 'Fuck Off, etc.' - Was that aimed at me?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

22. Comment #249182 by Dhamma on September 17, 2008 at 4:26 pm

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

WHY?

I hate 'theistic evolution'. Why would you add another factor (god), when the explanation is already there? It's SO pointless to add a god to something that clearly works without it.

But as always, we are the narrow-minded god-haters. Evidence is sooo boring.

Other Comments by Dhamma

23. Comment #249183 by thewhitepearl on September 17, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Apathy,

Of course not!! Why would you even think that??

Dhamma,

According to dear Davey R. we are also the "gadhatingfags".

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

24. Comment #249184 by theinquisitor on September 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Ah theistic evolution, the idea that the all loving all powerful god couldn't be bothered to do the designing himself, so he chose to use suffering and pain and death as his method of showing his love to the world. An animal is the way it is because it has been sculpted into that shape by the death of all it's ancestors' siblings for millions of generations.

This outstrips even the cruelty in the bible itself. I'd like to see an explanation of the death of trillions of animals by starvation, disease and injury that uses the free will of humans that haven't even evolved yet as an excuse. The only consolation of the fact that there was and is so much suffering is that there ISN'T an overmind.

Other Comments by theinquisitor

25. Comment #249187 by Apathy personified on September 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm

whitepearl,
Ha - I'm sorry, i read it too quickly, then posted.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

26. Comment #249189 by Dhamma on September 17, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Pearl:

And that's why we love little Davey, isn't it? Hard not to like his persistence... I find it 'cute'!

Inquisitor:

Exactly. I wonder if they've ever contemplated WHY god would use the, in all honesty, very cruel evolution to ultimately create us humans. Never heard anyone comment on it specifically.

God's a twat.

Other Comments by Dhamma

27. Comment #249191 by Don_Quix on September 17, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Well you see, God is very mysterious. It is the height of sinful human arrogance for us to think we, with our dirty little sinful minds, can second guess His Divine Plan or understand the mind of God.

Oh, and by the way, I *know* God loves me and intends marriage to be between a man and a woman only and that abortion is the biggest concern God has and anyone who disagrees is going to hell to burn in eternal agony forever and ever and ever blah blah blah blah blah.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

28. Comment #249192 by Dhamma on September 17, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Not necessarily, because I'm starting to think jehovah is an atheist to an even greater god that made him.. He's just not aware of him. That god knows why Jehovah is such a nasty god.. I think.

Other Comments by Dhamma

29. Comment #249193 by T4Baxter on September 17, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I believe moments like this have long term consequences, beyond the dis-satisfyingly lenient beating the church allowed to be leveled at itself, by 'personally convening the court'.

Just think what a step down from the public scrutiny this really was historically. The day the church begrudgingly nodded evolution, into the hearts and minds of loyal Christians!

Sweet nuts mmm

(that means 'very very good indeed', no reference to testicles).

Other Comments by T4Baxter

30. Comment #249194 by KiwiInOz on September 17, 2008 at 5:19 pm

whitepearl,
When you say, 'Fuck Off, etc.' - Was that aimed at me?

I have to ask, Apathy Personified, whether you actually care if it was aimed at you?

Other Comments by KiwiInOz

31. Comment #249199 by decius on September 17, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Well you see, God is very mysterious

As a matter of fact, the mere discussion of his exceedingly high imperscrutability may lead to utter floccinaucinihilipilification.

Other Comments by decius

32. Comment #249201 by Apathy personified on September 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm

KiwiInOz,
If it were aimed at me, i would have been curious as to what i had said to provoke that statement - If you count that as 'caring' then, the answer is yes.
However, are you asking whether i'm emotionally damaged by thinking, for a few seconds, i may have been told to 'fuck off' on the internet? - If so, thanks for your concern, but i'll make a full recovery.

Why do you care, if I care?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

33. Comment #249202 by Cartomancer on September 17, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Aha, this thread has got on to daemonology, one of my favourite subjects! and Latin nominal declensions. You do spoil me...

Succubi and incubi are indeed the standard accepted plurals for these delightful denizens of the darkness, though I dare say if you wanted to anglicise them as incubuses and succubuses you would be allowed to. As nouns they're late medieval coinages, originally from the verb cubare - to lie down or recline. With simple locational prefixes we get in cubare (to lie on top of) and sub cubare (to lie underneath), which can then be crudely turned into nouns with gendered grammatical inflections. Ironically, by putting the masculine second declension -us, -i ending on to make both nouns, both types of daemon are grammatically masculine. It would probably make more sense to have an incubus and a succuba, unless you wanted a male daemon that seduced men, but daemons are supposed to be notoriously adaptable as far as gender is concerned. Rather like fresher undergraduates once you've plied them with enough drink, but my mind is wandering again...

To be fair to the catholic church most of the daemon lore we have inherited today comes from the infamous Malleus Maleficarum, which was condemned and even put on the Index librorum prohibitorum because its contents diverged in many respects from accepted catholic daemonology. The Malleus was far more sexual and misogynistic than the stuff most clergymen dared pen, though I suspect these were not the reasons the establishment didn't warm to it.

According to Francesco Guazzo's 1608 Compendium Maleficarum, based on the De Operatione Daemonum of the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellus (rumoured to be the inventor of Psellotape) the succubus is a daemon of the waters, which destroys aquatic animals as well as seducing human males. The incubus, by contrast, is a daemon of the earth whose natural lairs are caves and forests. In the Malleus, and the sixteenth-century German witch hunter Peter Binsfield's Classification of Daemons the incubi and succubi are servants of Asmodeus, the daemonic prince who rules over the deadly sin of Lust. Sebastien Michaelis confirmed this in his Histoire Admirable, stating that Asmodeus' chief enemy is the ascetic St. John the Divine, and Asmodeus' ascendant month was November, which is traditionally when his servants were at their most powerful. From the early middle ages Asmodeus became closely identified with the biblical Lilith (or Lamia if you go with the Hieronymus of Cardia / St. Jerome translation), the first wife of Adam, who was sometimes known as the mother of all incubi and succubi.

If you want to summon your own incubi and succubi then instructions for doing so can be found in Johann Weyer's 1563 De Prestigiis Daemonum ac Incantationibus ac Veneficiis and its addendum the 1577 Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. If you want incubae and succubae on the other hand then I've heard that www.gaydargirls.co.uk is much easier.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

34. Comment #249207 by Dhamma on September 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm

I regret saying "I think", because I've come to the conclusion that I KNOW this god exists. The undeniable fact for his existence would be that Stalin was an atheist.

Now, my religious group based around this god should be exempted from tax. I think we deserve something for having realised what you numbnuts couldn't.

Other Comments by Dhamma

35. Comment #249210 by Cartomancer on September 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Hammer of the evil ????

Close. Hammer of Witches. Malefica is a witch (the masculine being maleficus) and the -arum inflection is the usual first declension genitive plural. The early German edition is called Hexenhammer.

Actually, the full and gloriously overblown Latin title is Malleus Maleficarum, qui maleficas et earum haeresim ut phramea potentissima conterens, which means "The hammer of Witches, which destroys witches and their heresies like a most potent lance". Evidently the mixing of weapon metaphors was not frowned on among the late fifteenth-century witch hunting community.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

36. Comment #249214 by alexmzk on September 17, 2008 at 5:57 pm

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible

lucky for the Bible.

Other Comments by alexmzk

37. Comment #249220 by Ed-words on September 17, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Prof. Sloan of Notre Dame says the evolution

debate has "suffered" up to now for its lack

of a strong Catholic theological presence.

(I doubt it.)

Other Comments by Ed-words

38. Comment #249225 by NewEnglandBob on September 17, 2008 at 6:42 pm

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science."

What does this mean? All I can take out of it is that creationism has no value whatsoever!

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

39. Comment #249231 by Ed-words on September 17, 2008 at 7:10 pm

New England Bob - -

To understand this gibberish one has to study

theology (fantasy in search of a rationale).

You foolishly preferred math and science.

Other Comments by Ed-words

40. Comment #249232 by KiwiInOz on September 17, 2008 at 7:15 pm

41. Comment #249250 by utelme on September 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Brian English/Decius are you both speaking in tongues? I need someone here who can decipher the prophecies. lol

Other Comments by utelme

42. Comment #249252 by Rational_Skeptic on September 17, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Carto and Brian, I am very much enjoying the lesson. Thanks! And now for something completely different. We pick up the scene from:

Centurion draws his sword and holds it to Brian's throat

Brian:
Ahh! No, ablative, ablative, sir. No, the, accusative, accusative, ah, DOMUM, sir.
Centurion:
Except that "DOMUS" takes the ...?
Brian:
... the locative, sir!
Centurion:
Which is?
Brian:
"DOMUM".
Centurion:
(satisfied) "DOMUM"...

He strikes out "DOMUS" and writes "DOMUM"

Centurian:
..."-MUM". Understand?
Brian:
Yes sir.
Centurion:
Now write it down a hundred times.
Brian:
Yes sir, thank you sir, hail Caesar, sir.

Good night from Canada's west coast.

Other Comments by Rational_Skeptic

43. Comment #249271 by JemyM on September 17, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Christianity is neither compatible with Evolution nor Intelligent Design.

Both are incompatible with the idea of "original sin" which plays a vital role in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, the idea of being "saved" and Christianity's explanation of suffering.

Other Comments by JemyM

44. Comment #249274 by beanson on September 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Why should the Vatican appologise- they have an infallible spokesman for the highest authority in the universe, whatever they say IS truth, if God is still sulking about Darwin blowing his gaff then he can take his ball home and there's no point any of us crying about it

Other Comments by beanson

45. Comment #249280 by clodhopper on September 17, 2008 at 11:43 pm

I don't suppose there's any chance they're making all this up as they go along, is there?

Other Comments by clodhopper

46. Comment #249281 by helenlibra on September 17, 2008 at 11:44 pm

I was raised a Catholic and taught that Adam and Eve committed Original Sin. In His Goodness, God sent his only Son, Jesus, down from Heaven, so that He could be crucified and so redeem mankind. (How could I have believed this drivel?) Now, the Catholic church is saying that the Genesis story is an allegory. That being the case, there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin - hence no need for JC. Surely, they can't have it both ways?

Other Comments by helenlibra

47. Comment #249283 by infidel_michael on September 17, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Thor - God of the Thunder, is fully compatible with modern theory of electromagnetism and as well as with meteorology. Thor can use natural processes to make thunders and lightnings, there is nothing irrational on this belief.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

48. Comment #249297 by Mrs Gregory on September 18, 2008 at 12:55 am

That's funny; the literal account of Genesis has always been taken as read by the Catholic Church. Now science (not that you need science, all you have to do is read it) has proved that it's all a load of made up crap by prehistoric idiots. This is typical goal post moving tactics that most religious groups are taking on as they are being backed in to a corner by reason and science. To be honest its just lip service from the Catholic Church as usual.

As usual they try to solve one problem but create an even larger one. As has been pointed out if Genesis is not to be taken literally then what in the Bible is. They really aren't the best of educated people are they?

Other Comments by Mrs Gregory

49. Comment #249300 by zecat on September 18, 2008 at 1:00 am

Well, I see this as quite a positive attitude from the Vatican. That shows they are a bit more open-minded and a bit less stupid than other religious freaks. No?.. But I'm wondering, if they're against "biblical literalism", where do they set the border? Do they still believe Mary was a virgin, or is it also an allegory? What about Jesus' miracles and Moses super powers?.. Does anyone know?

Other Comments by zecat

50. Comment #249325 by Mark Barratt on September 18, 2008 at 1:41 am

I have a very good friend who is a right-wing born-again fundamentalist evangelical Christian. He firmly believes that

THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO LIVE;

Conservative Evangelical Protestant Christianity OR BURNING IN HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG!!!!!

However, he does accept evolution and appears to think that acceptance of evolution does not threaten Christianity.

Fair enough, I asked him how he reconciles the idea of a loving omnipotent and omniscient god with the following facts:

1. The fact that life as we know it developed over millions of years of gruesome bloodsport helped along by mass extinctions.

2. The fact that the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct.

3. The fact that the majority of lives including those of most humans have been nasty, brutish and short.

4. The facts that there appears to have been no guarantee that anything like humanity would ever have emerged and that there is no guarantee that we won't become extinct.

Unbelievably, he actually made the Bette Midler gambit: God is watching us from a distance! "You see, what's important to God is that life exists at all!"

This COMPLETELY contradicts the basic idea of Christianity; That there is a God who cares about the intimate details of the lives of every individual human who he monitors and assesses.

This is where theistic evolution leads you: In order to accept evolution you must deny the very foundation of Christianity and yet somehow force yourself to remain a Christian anyway. It can't be fun.

I've read Collins. Give me atheism any day.

Other Comments by Mark Barratt

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last