tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post8235154498527547588..comments2024-03-11T05:58:13.874-04:00Comments on Halbert's Cubicle: Origins of the BloggerHalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-78207299787080464562007-06-06T10:02:00.000-04:002007-06-06T10:02:00.000-04:00I am in a similar situation as you on this. And h...I am in a similar situation as you on this. And honestly, one of the best explanations I've seen on how to mesh evolution and Genesis came in the book The Science of God. I'm not saying I absolutely believe his theories on the matter - but they're darn interesting and may be things you've never thought of before. I know I hadn't. Here's the <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6980283-8790336?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181138197&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">link</A>.Jared and Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02036401417613043517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-77287793048237247702007-06-05T19:41:00.000-04:002007-06-05T19:41:00.000-04:00These two links should be of interest:1996 message...These two links should be of interest:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM" REL="nofollow">1996 message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences</A>.<BR/><BR/>Catholics are not required but permitted to accept evolution, "provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points" of theology. (By the way, this was not some sort of new or changed teaching in 1996.)<BR/><BR/>And also, Catholic blogger Jimmy Akin on five possible interpretations of <A HREF="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/02/genesis_one.html" REL="nofollow">Genesis One</A>, discussed systematically and concisely.<BR/><BR/>His listing, and opinion of each:<BR/><BR/>1. The Framework Interpretation (most plausible from a careful reading of the text) <BR/><BR/>2. The Ordinary Day Interpretation (most plausible from a casual reading of the text)<BR/><BR/>3. The Gap Interpretation (almost completely without foundation) <BR/><BR/>4. The Revelatory Day Interpretation (virtually demonstrably false)<BR/><BR/>5. The Day-Age Interpretation (demonstrably false)<BR/><BR/>-Ryan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-18265271120862624072007-06-04T22:03:00.000-04:002007-06-04T22:03:00.000-04:00Yes. Embrace the dark side. Soon your transforma...Yes. Embrace the dark side. Soon your transformation will be made complete.Halhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-35416211406996728582007-06-04T21:09:00.000-04:002007-06-04T21:09:00.000-04:00"...it doesn't have to be just evolution or God an..."...it doesn't have to be just evolution or God and not both."<BR/><BR/>I think this may be the single point of philosophy/theology on which we actually agree. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com