I mean, okay, let’s be realistic: Young Earth creationism and ID — at least of the Michael Behe sort — are patent falsehoods, so it makes sense that the Vatican wants nothing to do with them at the congress on the evolution “debate” that it is sponsoring. At the end of the day, must strive to seek after the truth, and the discussion would become cluttered by the presence of those false viewpoints.

The , ’s and the in are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of ’s “.”

Jesuit Father , a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed rational and along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being , or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of [Young Earth] and .

Archbishop , president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.

So atheistic evolutionists, such as , are also not invited. Which is consistent, to be sure.

Note: I’m not entirely sure I agree with the decision…I’m usually of the opinion that we shouldn’t block any particular viewpoint from being expressed. Having said that, I can understand the desire not to have a shouting match erupt, and I can understand the desire not to clutter discussions with useless and false viewpoints. Because ultimately, that’s what the ID movement and Young Earth creationism reduce to: falsehood. Oh, I can’t deny that the proponents of these viewpoints are people of good faith, whose first desire is to serve the Lord as they understand Him and His Word. But that’s just the problem: they don’t understand the Word of God as well as they should. And as a result, it might not be constructive, nor conducive to forward progress in terms of promulgating a cohesive theology which contradicts neither the Bible nor science, to invite the other groups.

Because, as Archbishop Ravasi notes later in the article, the theory of “is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or ’s message.”

Truth cannot contradict truth. Evolution, despite the controversy it has been associated with, is strongly supported by good evidence; it is, for all intents and purposes, true, in that it is a reasonably accurate description of the physical processes by which human life, and all other forms of life, emerged on . At the same time, Scripture is true when it teaches us that God is creator of all things. We need to look past the ancient “history of the day” accounts as presented in Genesis, and not get caught up on the precise details of events related therein. What we need to take away from Genesis is not a message of history, but a message of faith: God is the creator of the Universe, the world, and all that live upon it. All of creation is “very good.” God made humanity in His own image. Humanity rebelled and, in sin, fell away from God.

Truth cannot contradict truth. These two truths — evolution of creatures and the creatorship of God — can be reconciled. They must be reconciled. And that, I think, is the main goal of this congress. At least, it can be so hoped.

My only question is: who the hell suggested we needed to apologize to Darwin in the first place?

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of was compatible with but planned no posthumous apology to for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop , the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s ““.

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. , said the owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in .

described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and [] reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

The apology to , I can see some justification for. I’m becoming less convinced, as time rolls on, that it was really necessary — a simple admission that “those who came before us were in error” would have sufficed, I think — but I can understand the intent behind it. The reaction of to Galileo was not just cold, but actively hostile.

Darwin’s theories did receive a colder reception…but I suspect that was as much because the Church wanted time to evaluate his theories in order to see if there was anything in them which was not compatible with the extant theology concerning creation as it was because the theories themselves were new and somewhat controversial. Never in my experience of have I discerned anything other than general acceptance of the theory of evolution — most Catholics that I have known have no problem reconciling their with the discoveries of the scientific community.

The Church herself has no fixed opinion or doctrines concerning evolutionary theory, however. It is left to each Catholic to decide, for him/herself, what to believe and accept about human origins.

Also, and on another topic, I like how Archbishop Ravasi thinks. More like him, please:

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”.

Amen!

in-soviet-russia.png