• Catholic Church’s position on evolution Catholic Church’s position on evolution It is heartening to hear the most recent position of the Catholic Church about Evolution. I hope the fundamental Christians who oppose the Theory of Evolution, learn from the
• Catholic Church’s position on evolution
Catholic Church’s position on evolution
It is heartening to hear the most recent position of the Catholic Church about Evolution. I hope the fundamental Christians who oppose the Theory of Evolution, learn from the Catholic Church. The Church learned its lessons from the injustices it did to Galileo for supporting Copernicus’ theory that the earth revolved around the sun.
Today, the Church has come to terms with scientific progress and newly gained knowledge, even though this information may contradict some Biblical verses.
A few days ago, Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the following comments at a news conference: “Evolution is more than a hypothesis because there is proof. We also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism. It’s important for the faithful to know how tant science views things to understand better.” Poupard also said, “The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future.” The Church has also expressed its concerns within the United States for fundamentalism that denounces evolution.
Pope John Paul II had the foresight to set up the Vatican Project in 1992.
This Project studies science and keeps the dialogue between the various disciplines alive, and helps reconcile science with religion.
Kudos to the Catholic Church for its thoughtful position.
“Intelligent design” is a failing campaign to attempt to compromise between those who believe in the Bible between chapter and verse, and those who accept science.
Neither side will accept the compromise.
Respondents missed essence of letter
A letter I recently wrote has been labeled an ad homenem attack by another respondent, the third now. But, it was not a personal attack on Mr. Drew; instead I opined that the ideas and opinions he expressed were inconsistent, perhaps hypocritical. That is, he cited the Bible in his attack on Grove Farm being greedy (a term he did not directly use; he referred to money as the root of all evil) while simultaneously, by derogatory comments about “the rich” vs. he the poor pensioner, exposed himself as perhaps harboring some degree of envy, one of the seven deadly sins—you can read both our letters to verify this. This is a far cry from addressing him with some personal invective.
Pointing out the character of one’s arguments that may undermine its consistency is simply not an ad homenem. You know: Let he without sin cast the first stone.
I would add at this time that Grove Farm’s board of directors and management has both a right and an obligation to maximize the profits of the corporation; to purposefully do otherwise would be irresponsible and subject to legal action.
As the title of my letter indicated, I was defending fundamental property rights—not for some specific entity, but for all of us. It appears that most people fail to fully comprehend or understand the fundamental and critical role that secure property rights play in founding and maintaining a free society. Property rights begin with self-ownership. I think we can all agree that all human beings own themselves; to admit otherwise is to admit that we are born slaves to the state or whomever else is running things. From self ownership, all that we possess, earned by our labors, constitutes our property—land, income, cars etc. etc.—and we have an absolute and exclusive right to these things. Moreover, if we live in a condition of liberty we have the right to use or dispose of our property as we see fit as long as we do no harm to the lives, liberty and property of others. To be deprived of full and secure rights to our secondary level of or earned property places us in a condition of bondage just as if we were directly owned by the state. My opinion is that we do not enjoy full liberty but instead are seen to exist at the pleasure of government. After all, it is hard to deny that governments —federal, state and local—have a firm grasp of virtually every aspect of our lives. It is difficult to think of what we can do with our lives and property without getting a permission slip from the government and then having it all taxed to the hilt.
The original letter to which I responded implied subversion of Grove Farm’s absolute property rights and by extension those of all property owners. The deed to one’s property, contrary to that view, does not convey any power over how others use or should use their property; it does not convey the right to a permanent view, no traffic, value, etc. This was the essence of my attack—the immoral notion that dissidents and government somehow have rights to other people’s property. This is a widespread opinion however, and it is held irrationally because it even places the opinion holders’ property in jeopardy. This same perverted notion is what led to such a ghastly decision in Kelo vs. New London.
None of the respondents has cared to address the essence of my argument.
What about wind power?
My husband and I have both served on several different boards during the course of our long careers and still do as early retirees. We can sympathize with others who do as well. At the same time we are members of 2 community associations.
One solves problems with good communication and consensus between its members and another does not. It is exasperating to belong to the latter and encourages frustration and many times legal action.
I don’t know how much truth is being shared between the KIUC board and The Garden Island newspaper but what I would like to contribute is “my part of the island,” in Prince Albert Park, for wind turbines. My property borders on Prince Albert Park in Princeville where the wind blows heartily almost everyday. I have seen and heard fields of wind turbines and read extensively about their success. I think they are artistic to look at and would certainly be more attractive than individual solar panels of all kinds as we see in other areas of the island. Their quiet whirring would also mask sirens and other sounds of constant traffic traversing the park both day and night.
I realize this is a very controversial issue but I wanted you to know that not all residents of Kauai object to wind power “in their backyard”.
- Caroline McKee
Princeville
