I had said that I would find proof that Pope John Paul II (Karol Josef Wojtyla) accepted the Theory of Evolution, and here is why:

====================================================================== (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/10-96/es10-24-96.html) Verbatim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

REUTER INFORMATION SERVICE - Thursday 24 October 1996

Pope accepts theory of evolution

Copyright ) 1996 Nando.net Copyright ) 1996 Reuter Information Service

VATICAN CITY (Oct 24, 1996 09:31 a.m. EDT) - Pope John Paul has lent his support to the theory of evolution, proclaming it compatible with Christian faith in a step welcomed by scientists but likely to raise howls from the religious right.

The Pope's recognition that evolution is "more than just a theory" came in a written message he sent on Wednesday to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body of experts that advises the Roman Catholic Church on scientific issues.

It broke new ground by acknowledging that the theory of the physical evolution of man and other species through natural selection and hereditary adaptation appeared to be valid.

Though the Pope made clear he regarded the human soul as of immediate divine creation, and so not subject to the process, his remarks brought banner headlines in the Italian press.

"Pope says we may descend from monkeys," the conservative newspaper Il Giornale said on its front page. La Repubblica said the Pope had "made peace with Darwin".

The theory of evolution, most notably expounded by the 19th century English naturalist Charles Darwin, had until now been viewed by the Catholic Church as serious and worthy of discussion but still an open question.

"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken roots in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge," the Pope said.

"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

The theories of Darwin and other evolutionists about man's origins were for long anethema to theologians, who saw a conflict with the biblical account of creation in the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Most theologians no longer believe that the doctrine that God created the world and made man in his own image and the theory of evolution stand in each other's way.

Fundamentalist Christians who take a literal approach to Genesis, known as "creationists," have however recently reopened the controversy, especially in the southern United States.

In Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes was famously fined $100 by a court in 1925 for teaching evolution in his classroom in what became known as the Monkey Trial, a bill that would have banned teaching evolution as fact was narrowly voted down in the state of legislature earlier this year.

The Vatican's first substantive response to the theories of evolution was contained in the encyclical, Humani Generis, written in 1950 by the late Pope Pius XII.

It cited no objection to discussing evolution while cautioning that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to cut God out of the equation.

Pope John Paul has previously endorsed the 1950 document. He said on Wednesday that its essential point was that "if the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."

But he also said: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."

The Pope's acknowledgement was welcomed as a significant advance by scientists, even though some said it had come late.

"It will allow many Catholic scientists, who have been engaged for some time in research on human evolution, to continue their work without any censure or difficulty," said Francesco Barone, a leading Italian scientific philosopher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know the pope's fate has thus been sealed in his believing in a theory proven false years and years ago (see Dr Kent Hovind's VERY excellent Web Site: http://drdino.com/). If the pope is to be the "Vicar" of Christ, then he should be speaking exactly what Christ would be speaking, and NO! Christ would not be accepting evolution. I shake my head. Only prayers can do good. Please visit that Web Site, for everyone on this forum will find it very interesting, and I do indeed suggest that you download that 56 minute seminar for RealPlayer, for he gives key points on pointing evolution incorrect, and much more.

May God bless you all, and my prayers always to my fellow brethren.

Much love always in the Holy Father in the name of Christ Jesus,

Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), January 28, 2000

Answers

It might be wise to remember, even the considered opinion of the Pope, if not presented ex cathedra is not indicative of a change in the Church's teachings. This is precisely why, given the medieval Pope's (forget his name) erroneous condemnation of Galileo (for instance)-- cannot itself be charged as an erroneous ''teaching'' of the Catholic Church. To tell the truth, I tend to agree with this new point of view of John Paul II's --EVEN THOUGH-- the theory of evolution, as it exists presently-- is far from a proven fact.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 02, 2000.

We have gone over this before. Before believing everything written about what the Pope said, why not actually read what he said. He said Darwinism is not compatible with Catholicism. Darwinism involves natural happenstance selection. BTW, the church teaches that you can believe in creationism, young earth... or evolution that involves an origin with two common parents and God of course. That is it. The church teaching is what you look at. I personally believe in creationism and young earth based on credibility problems with theories of evolution and scientific dating and I am free to do so.

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), April 04, 2000.

It states on page: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/visa5_en.htm#start

...that if you use the VIS (Vatican Information Service), you MUST comply with the following, as it reads:

"In accordance with international regulations on Intellectual Property and Author's Rights, VIS information - except in the case of electronic re-transmission - may be used in part or in its entirety, but ONLY IF THE SOURCE (VIS - Vatican Information Service ) IS QUOTED. In the case of electronic re-transmission (Internet, telematic networks, fax, etc.), prior authorization is ALWAYS required. To obtain this permission, as well as to make comments or suggestions, you may write to: vis@pressva-vis.va. Thank you for your cooperation."

(emphasis in caps, mine)

--------------------------

The ONLY news source available in close to "real time" DIRECT from the Vatican is called the VIS (Vatican Information Network). You must pay for this service and it MUST be cited anywhere you post it, for any purpose.

If you see anything posted on any "unofficial site", that is, any site that is not WWW.VATICAN.VA, proceed with caution. No matter how much you love them:) The webmasters may not be at fault, but their sources may and they may unwittingly defer tainted information to you. Not that I can say the above article is tainted, but it can happen.

The above mentioned article about the Pope acknowledging EVOLUTION, is cited as follows on page http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/10- 96/es10-24-96.html

Copyright ) 1996 Nando.net Copyright ) 1996 Reuter Information Service

Nando.net is no longer such and is known as Nandotimes.com, affiliated with Nandomedia.com

AND

Nandotimes.com gets it information from:

Deja.com, who in turn uses several online resources.

Reuter Information Services, I've never heard of outside the agricultural or health industries and I know it's not listed as a source from the Vatican.

FURTHER, the article is not cited from the VIS???

I don't think the webmaster is necessarily to blame, but if anyone is going to quote the Vatican, they must: a) be confident that it has not been altered from it's original release, and b) confirm that by making sure your source is cited from the ONLY Vatican news service, the VIS by receiving it from the VIS.

Personally, if it doesn't have "Copyright ) VIS" next to it, I forget it. There's too much on the net floating around---that with a little rewording, someone can pass it off as "authoritative".

And we all know that you can trust everything you read on the internet, right?

Beware and God Bless!

Yours in Christ, Christina

-- Christina Triana (RomeChurch@aol.com), April 04, 2000.

As a good Irish Catholic I was brought up believing that God created the Earth and everything on it as said in Genesis. However, the more i learned about macro-mechanical evolution the more sense it made. I have a one word question for the rest of you. Dinosaurs? Really old rocks (4.3 BILLION YEARS). Explain it. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of a prankster God who runs around trying to test my faith and mess with my head by PUTTING the fossils and rocks all over the place. I think some Creationists were put here to test MY faith. Maybe God created some people in 1 day, but it looks like He rushed it. Before you condemn evolution theory, read a book on it. After all, God gave us the ability to read and the freedom to understand. You don't have to agree, but at least understand what you're talking about. I am a church-going Catholic, but i like the Holy See and the Holy Father a whole lot more now that they recognise the Genesis story for what it is: a story.

-- (brian570@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

Dear Brian,

The Church doesn't condemn the theory of biological evolution. The Pope has made that clear. The Church does condemn atheistic evolution, the same as it would condemn any other atheistic theory. It also condemns the evolution of the supernatural - including the spirit and immortal soul which is an intrinsic part of every human being. Human beings therefore could not have come into existence by biological evolution alone. Beyond that, we are free to accept the scientific evidence for whatever we think it is worth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

Blessings in our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ, Allow me to say the following, such a seed of acquiescence to the scientific community concerning theories impacting on christian faith from the Catholic Church bodes ill for the future. This carries much more then most people seem to think. The implications are staggering and the feeble semantic defenses are just that, feeble.There are a number of well-respected if not eminent scientists who advocate creationism.Christians who reject that are usually a)not competent or informed enough scientificaly to refute others or b) weak in their faith and knowledge of God. Forget not my friends that we were also told to accept the Word of God as children. Some people underestimate the power of God, or forget the powers inherent in the definition. Scientific squabbling only hurts us, forget not also that we are children of a Faith, "based not on the principles of this world" as Paul said.But i will indulge myself.....first, some of you apparently never heard of the gap theory between genesis 1 verse 1 and 2...millions of years could potentially be there, second, the biblical time line, as even Augustine argues, is one day for a thousand years,,so those 7 days couldve been any lenght of time,,im not saying thats the case,,just pointing to the theories,,,3 has no one considered the possibility that God, omni-potent, can create a cake,,,and when we scientificasly analyse it, the layers, the time for yeast to distend, the chemical reactions etc,,we conclude empiricaly that its 3 hours old,,,,but God just created it now with those characteristics marking upon it such a time..... so earth may very well be billions of years old and yet the existence of man only in the thousands. God isnt a deceiver,,,the devil is. those fossiles are subject to human interpretation and i dare say that it is ur own not so complete faith in the spirit of the Word of God that causes u to trip. Science hasnt caught up yet,,so be not fearfull and bend to ppl who hire others to "tell them what their itching ears want to hear" as the Bible says. the Holy Spirit and the Bible tell us in more then one way theres no compatibilty with any kind of evolution and christian faith,if you do not acknowledge the Bible as soul source of teaching then thats another story, and at risking a circular argument,God tells us theres no other source,,,"the temple of God" didnt physicaly come from apes my friends.....monkeys are here to remind man what he would be like without Jesus.... the bible in so many ways refuses and curses such teachings i cant pick what to quote...be not feeble of faith,,,yes some out there are smarter then us scientificaly,, but that doesnt mean theyre right,,: "for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Imagine Jesus acquiescing to evolution IN ANY DEFINITION,,,please,,we are the very children of God! have we forgotten that He knew us "before the foundations of this world"? desicrate not ur divine heritage i beseech thee in the name of Jesus,,,dont polish and assuage such teachings... Corinthians 17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. [22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

If this causes u to recoil from the christian Faith, which is to be lived not merely accepted, then keep ur evolutionary views,,i wish not this to be a stumbling block to christians that live "on milk" Forgive any boisterous tone and may the Holy Spirit show us all the truth.

-- Georges Antonios (MAMASS@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

The "Theory of Intelligent Design" is a combo of Creationism and Evolution.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Evolution and creation are mutually interdependent, if we want to have as complete an understanding of the natural world as possible. Evolution tells us how biological changes take place over time in nature, resulting in the gradual appearance of new forms. But it cannot begin to tell us how everything came into existence - nor does it attempt to do so. Revelation tells us how everything came into existence. All was created by God, from nothing. There is no other viable explanation for the original appearance of matter and energy. The Word of God reveals this. But it does not reveal anything about how created things change over time, nor is there any reason why it should. It isn't a book of biology. Science explores this gap in our knowledge. Science and Religion are the two great seekers of truth; and the truths of one can never be in conflict with the truths of the other, for truth cannot conflict with truth. When there is an apparent conflict, either something being presented is not true, or more likely, some unqualified person's personal interpretation of either the scientific data or divine revelation, or both, is seriously flawed. It does seem significant that those who are most vocal in condemning scientific findings on scriptural grounds are almost invariably those who (1) have no scientific background, AND (2) have no authoritative source of scriptural interpretation.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 07, 2003.