[dohtml]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tD1QHO_AVZA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/dohtml]
Cardinal Pell is a fool who denies Catholic doctrine in the presence of Dawkins and a large TV audience.
Despite the cardinal's errors, he still thrashed that half-wit Dawkins - a witch-doctor in a lab coat).
When Dawkins impliedly denied the principle of non-contradiction with his definition of "nothing", he handed the debate to Pell. That was an own goal from which no-one could recover.
As if to underline the above, here's an agnostic's take on it, awarding victory to the cardinal:
A Point to PellA.v.B.
Just listened to the evolutionary section of the above video of the debate between Cardinal Pell and Richard Dawkins. If ever anybody wanted to know the damage done to the Catholic faith since Pius XII's time, here it is. Cardinal Pell takes off where Cartdinal Ratzinger left off in his IN THE BEGINNING. They have faith in nothing. The want their cake and eat it as did all in the Church since 1741. They want their dogmas and they want a science that they can say supports Catholicism.
First of all evolution theory is probably the greatest insult to mankind's intelligence given to us by God. It begins with something from nothing, to more something from nothing in biology. Why Dawkins wasn't laughed out of the building by those lovely young people at the debate shows how brainwashed we have become. 'PHYSICISTS' are the ones Dawkins said are championing the something from nothing science. Now remember what else PHYSICISTS have told the human race since Galileo? They also offer the evolution of a living cell from inorganic matter. Have you ever studied the make-up of the cell? It then proposes the natural evolution of bodies, limbs, heads, brains, hearts, eyes and the systems to make them work in a unit. They actually say flora evolved, with its photosynthesis, structures growth patterns and beauty. Meanwhile it is creating a cosmos and earth wherein all things work together to secure perpetual means of survival.
Given the scientific impossibility of such an evolution, it must be classed as a religion.
In the Catholic Times last week there appeared two letters on evolution. I sent this reply off:
18 May, 2012
Dear Editor.
Given two contradicting letters on creation and evolution were published together (C.T. 22 May) I found Jim Allen’s far more Catholic that Professor John Rooney's. Indeed, once I saw the signature signed ‘Professor’ I knew what was coming. To be a professor these days, one has to comply with the evolutionary theory. What there is ample evidence for is that ‘creationists’ are not tolerated in academia, nor even in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Indeed, I doubt there is a creationist professor, bishop or cardinal left in the Catholic Church today such is the human respect for ‘the theory of evolution.’ The recent debate between Cardinal Pell and Richard Dawkins for example was an eye-opener. The Cardinal said Catholics can believe what they like about evolution. This is not true. The Church’s official stand is that one can suggest what they like in debate that is not already dogma, but the Church reserves the right to state what Catholics will be allowed to believe when it decides to do so. That said it is obvious Cardinal Pell believes in evolution, evolution of man’s body, and the soul as ‘the life-force of a particular creature.’ By inference then, he has to accept the evolution of the human soul. This latter conclusion was totally forbidden by Pope Pius XII. Then the Cardinal dismissed Adam and Eve as representing humankind in general. When Dawkins asked the Cardinal to explain Original Sin in such a context he avoided trying to answer him. The fact is Catholic dogma and evolution cannot be explained properly.
Returning to Professor Rooney’s letter, we see he basis his whole reasoning for an evolutionary theology on the false quip ‘with increasing evidence for evolution, both cosmological and biological.’ Now such a quip does not fool the informed as Jim Allen pointed out. A box full of fossils, mostly fakes, out of the earth’s sediments of countless billions complete fossils is not ‘mounting evidence,’ So too biology. Not one creature in the process of evolution has ever been found. There is no biological explanation as to how one cell, as complex as all the traffic-lights in London, could evolve from inorganic matter. I could go on. Mounting evolutionists is not mounting evidence.
Then the professor suggests a theological fallen Big-Bang creation. This is as theological contradiction to the dogma ‘God has created a good world,’ (de fide). Catholic doctrine teaches Adam and Eve’s Original Sin brought disorder, destruction and death to the world. I could go on.
Finally Professor Rooney rightly points out: As Copernicanism was responsible for a new Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, biological science is now behind a second Copernican Revolution. Here is how Teilhard de Chardin put it:
‘As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other…’
Note it was Copernicanism (defined as heresy in 1616) not evolutionism that corrupted the dogma of Genesis, not evolutionism. Copernicanism however, just like evolutionism, was another metaphysical assumption posing as science. Now assumptions do not falsify the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, nor that the Scriptures truly reveal a geocentric world. When Albert Einstein re-introduced the fact of relative movement in space in 1905, heliocentrism was seen for what it is, no more than a metaphysical assumption, not a proof, not a falsifier of the Church of 1616 and 1633.
We see then not for the first time has scientific fraud been used to undermine Genesis. Dawkins the atheist had nothing to lose. Cardinal Pell on the other hand had Catholicism to defend against evolutionism. He failed miserably. He in fact told the world Catholicism and intellectual absurdity are compatible.
