So much for the Catholic Church being on board with the evolution peeps. According to the Associated Press, His Holiness dissed Darwinism in his Easter Vigil talk last night:
Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn’t a random product of evolution.
Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point “in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it.”
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”
Church teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds: A Christian can, for example, accept the theory of evolution to help explain developments, but is taught to believe that God, not random chance, is the origin of the world. The Vatican, however, warns against creationism, or the overly literal interpretation of the Bibilical account of creation.
Hey, Pope! Haven’t you heard about natural selection? Human evolution isn’t all mutation and genetic drift, you know. And do you really want to undo the minimal acceptance of evolution (granted, theistic evolution involving injection of a soul into australopithecines) offered to Catholics by Pope John Paul?
There’s so much fail in the above that it’s not worth dissecting, except to say that the Pope continues to steer the Catholic Church away from evolution and toward creationism. Perhaps this is a reflexive stance from reading the New Atheists, but what he should have read was The Selfish Gene—or any textbook on evolution.
But let the Clergy Letter Project ponder Random Ratzi’s statement before they start telling Catholics that their Church is totally down with evolution.
h/t: Hempenstein
Also, water is wet; your parents are Santa Claus; and the Pope is Catholic.
Cheers,
b&
Yes, Ben, but the jury is still out on bears and where they may (or may not) answer the call of nature.
When they hibernate they don’t! I expect there is a big sigh of relief on the first day of spring!
😉
Since we’re commenting on the title… it’s actually sound advice for atheists:
1. If you hear this statement: “Catholics are okay with evolution.”
2. Respond with: The damn Pope doesn’t UNDERSTAND evolution.
Or, alternatively (and preferably IMHO) you may employ Richard Dawkins’ sweet advice:
Well, the next time anybody dares to tell you sophisticated theologians have no problem with evolution, thrust Benedict XVI in their face.
Ah, such restraint.
😉
I agree with you 100 percent.
Try to parse the extended message from the Pope. It includes this gibberish:
The Pope’s mind is confused. It is the Pope’s existence which is meaningless. The rest of us make our own purpose for life.
Perhaps we need to cut the Pope a little slack. How can one expect him to grasp the subtle point that natural selection is fundamentally non-random when he has had to spend so much time covering up the heinous acts of child molesters?
Indeed – and perhaps he sees the hand of his god in the non-random nature of the child rapists he has sheltered and protected to keep the “good” name of the Church clean?
lol. Reason. Anybody that’s read the entire bible knows there’s is little ‘reason’ and a lot of ‘wtfbbq stupidity’ on the part of this ‘God’ fellow.
I wouldn’t let him lead a raid in an MMO, never mind create the universe.
Like any citations out of context, these few words present somewhat of a problem. While it may be a fair assumption, that evolution is discredited here (or disavowed), that may not be the case.
To parse the first paragraph, including the AP’s added paraphrasing:
• The Biblical account is supported thusly.
• Since we are capable of reasoning and rationality, it is wrong headed to surmise that we evolved randomly.
• We as a species seek finding rationality within creation, or to imbue it with rationality.
Second paragraph:
• What would then follow (undirected evolution), there is no purpose to man’s existence.
• Man’s appearance could conceivably be a chance occurrence.
Final citation:
• I disavow those conclusions, however.
• I attribute the culmination of man to be due to Divine will.
There is somewhat a problem with these summations, however, particularly in the first paragraph, where there was some paraphrasing (emphasis on the Biblical account, and wrong headedness).
In these few words, he does not rule out the possibility of either a pre-loaded creation (TE), or evolution as fully operative, but with intervention events (ID). It will be interesting to see/hear the full homily before we pass judgment.
Could you please summarize your point?
After multiple readings, I am not able to figure out what you’re trying to say.
Simply that we are assuming alot, based on a brief summary by the A/P.
All I’m saying is that we’ll know more regarding the Pope’s position, whether a reversal of a prior Vatican position that evolutionary theory is compatible with Catholicism, or simply a conciliatory word to the flock.
I view it more as fodder for blogging than an official position reversal, but we’ll see.
If it were a true reversal of doctrinal policy, an interview would be more revealing, and judging from the plethora of ireful responses thus far, that may well follow.
Full text of the homily: http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=481195
Rather than (A/P version):
More later perhaps. Thanx for the link, and you might want to post it at the bottom so it won’t be missed …
Cheers
Could you please summarize your point?
Or was your point just that the words aren’t the same?
Do you want the second statement to be more like the first?
Which statement do you favor? Why?
he does not rule out the possibility of either a pre-loaded creation (TE), or evolution as fully operative, but with intervention events (ID)
one, neither of those actually IS the theory of evolution, though, they are BOTH religious conceptualizations, and NOT science.
two, you need to correct your understanding of category here.
your first example is more correctly described as front-loading, not theistic evolution.
your second is an example of a type of theistic evolution, not ID.
in short, it doesn’t appear you really understand what you’re talking about.
one, neither of those actually IS the theory of evolution, though, they are BOTH religious conceptualizations, and NOT science.”
Correct, but neither rule out evolutionary processes per se. With regard to ID, depends on which definition one embraces (if any). I accept it as predictive, and as an adjunct hypothesis to the currently accepted NDE, but absent any religious precepts.
two, you need to correct your understanding of category here. your first example is more correctly described as front-loading, not theistic evolution.
I would say that theistic evolution entails front-loading, pretty much the consensus view of most TE’s.
your second is an example of a type of theistic evolution, not ID.
Agreed, I retract the ID connotation. But in reality, just what do TE’s believe? Their path is somewhat precarious …
in short, it doesn’t appear you really understand what you’re talking about.
Perhaps, but appearances can be deceiving.
“In these few words, he does not rule out the possibility of either a pre-loaded creation (TE), or evolution as fully operative, but with intervention events (ID). ”
Yes. This would, in fact, be precisely what Coyne is criticizing.
Dare I say it, but I was actually disappointed to read this news article earlier today. Here I was, optimistically thinking that science and rationality were making incremental progress, and here’s just one more step backwards towards a new dark age.
…assuming anyone is listening to him.
It is not science that is in trouble here – evolution by natural selection will still be a good theory in 100 years time, and the catholic church will have fallen apart or still be wrong, or both. Reality is a force to be reckoned with, and Ratzi is not up to it.
The RCC has withstood worse pronouncements than this one.
I actually think that is a lovely poetic passage. We are bits of the universe that have evolved to bring rationality into the world — what a beautiful sentiment! It sounds rather like Sagan.
I’m amused that, for me at least, it had precisely the opposite of its intended effect.
Agreed.
ditto.
Nice!
I see an opportunity here. If legions of creations can quote mine Darwin (re: the passage about the eye), then we ought do the same in turn.
—
Even the Pope is a strong advocate for materialistic, natural, non-theistic evolution. Not only that, he makes his case with beautiful prose. Look, here’s a quote!
(edit: creationists, not creations)
Well, take out a further ‘a’ and an ‘i’ and you’ve got a pretty good description of them too 🙂
I think you meant an “o.”
😉
We are stardust.
Our atoms were forged in the violent hearth of a supernova’s death throes.
We are bound to this small planet which our progenitors made habitable with three billion years of photosynthesis, but atoms just like ours are scattered throughout all the galaxies in the universe.
We are stardust.
Not only that, we are golden, and caught in the Devil’s bargain. And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Just be sure not to take the brown acid…
Watch it! You may have just been placed on the Templeton Prize list with that comment!
😉
That’s something I think about all the time, actually. I was thinking about it just yesterday…probably having started with thinking about the pope’s nonsense (this was on a walk, so I know I wasn’t actually reading the pope’s nonsense at the time) – to me and I assume many other people it’s endlessly fascinating that evolution produced an animal that can create poetry and computer software and music, and can incrementally build understanding of how the cosmos works. To people like the pope it’s not endlessly fascinating, it’s nasty.
@Ophelia
Beautifully said
“it’s endlessly fascinating that evolution produced an animal that can create” an extaraordinarily wrong-headed worldview, involving an omnipotent omniscient intangible humanoid, incarnation and human sacrifice, building a magnificent infrastructure of ritual re-enactment, architecture, art, music, vestment and intellectual sophistry that sustains it for millennia, regardless of its complete intellectual overthrow, in the service of unparalleled power and corruption. Evolution is even more amazing evolution than we thought!
amazing than
Meh. Ratzinger is really offering pretty much the same thing. No theist believes that we are merely a random product of evolution.
I cant help but notice that he mentioned, “some tiny corner of the cosmos” and “some place on the margins of the universe” in his rejection of reality. He seems to be hinting pretty strongly that our location in the universe might be, oh, the exact center? How many times did Galileo turn over in his grave at that?
“How many times did Galileo turn over in his grave at that?”
Exactly zero, mon ami. Our hero Galileo is dead by many centuries, and can alas no longer turn neither in his grave nor at all. And if his soul could have moved his mortal remains, the statement at hand might then have been correct, and thus he wouldn’t feel the need to turn his bleached bones.
Surely this is only a 1/2 fail, as the pope is right that it is not merely random? He just failed in the explanation of the other 1/2 (the natural selection bit).
As I told people working with me on some failed testing in a project, “Well, half-arsed is better than no-arsed.”
Still, I would like to hear the evidence of the “creative, divine reasoning at the beginning.” Not holding my breath for it though, as it has not appeared in the last few thousand years. Maybe that evidence got lost along the divine recipe for soap?
By “random” they mean “nobody wanted it.” Pointing out that the selective process of evolution isn’t technically random in a scientific sense means nothing to them if they’re concerned about the first sense of the word. They want reality to care what happens, like a person. If the process is impersonal all the way down, it’s just too “random.”
And too scary. That’s why a magic sky-parent must exist. Can you imagine all the terrifying shit that would go down if there wasn’t one stepping in to take control of all the awful randomness?!
Except that there isn’t one, and terrifying shit goes down all the time. Hello, cognitive dissonance!
Thumb-suckers.
It was no random fail. 😀
So no, not a 1/2 fail but a deliberate fail, inserting creationism and its ludicrous idea of “random” processes.
“then his life would make no sense”
But if you accept Ratzi’s God, how much more sense would it make? Are we really any further forward if his deity exists? Does an ant-farm make more sense if there is a petulant child to look at it?
Interesting that the one way that complex, rational life could have arisen without a creator IS the way that it happened. I challenge the Catholic Church to come up with one way other than natural selection that it could have possibly happened otherwise. Until they can it just looks like a big load of BS to try to say that a god set evolution in motion, when it is the one way we know of that it could have happened without a god. Unless you want to suppose there are platonic forms. I don’t and neither do they!
The pope doesn’t believe man is a “random product of evolution” because he thinks evolution is not a “random product” of the universe. Reason comes from reason; life comes from life; complexity comes from complexity.
Evolution is supposed to look just like a random process because it was carefully and cunningly planned to look exactly like a random process leading to random products when in reality it’s a random process designed to give a particular special product: us humble humans.
But you won’t catch that unless you read a super-secret de-coder book or have a special revelation or just go along with what your heart and instincts tell you as a humble human.
The sort of doublethink involved here reminds me of the old imponderable dilemma beloved of adolescents everywhere: what if person X is an undetectable robot? Not an undetected one, mind you, but a robot that, even in principle, can’t ever be distinguished from human people? You would never know. Scary.
The unguided process of evolution is like an undetectable master plan. That is, if you limit yourself to science. But there’s not just science.
There’s art and ethics and poetry and preferences and music and magicalmeansofknowingthroughfaith and ideals and the love of fluffy kittehs. You can’t limit yourself to science.
You took the blue pill….
I don’t want to be contrary, but Ratzi is not really saying anything different from the established Catholic line. Check the scope of the “not”: it’s aimed at “randomly” not at “there evolved…”. That is, he is saying that God is “there at the beginning: creative, divine reason” i.e. God created the Big Bang and with it the process of evolution. So evolution isn’t random because it was designed by god to lead inevitably to Man. Just like Giberson and that lot say. And just like JP2 said (as well as reserving the soul to God, he also reserved the ultimate beginning to God i.e. cause of the Big Bang).
So in sum; the modern Catholic position on evolution: It’s bullshit, but not inconsistent bullshit.
Good luck trying to figure out what the pope was saying, folks. He’ll tell you straight up he thinks it’s a mystery. (So in other words, even he himself will admit even he doesn’t know what the hell he was talking about.)
Yes – what do they mean? I thought they accepted evolution –
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
Thanks for the link. I see they even claim that one of their saints (St. Augustine of Hippo, the patron saint of brewers)had anticipated the theory of evolution:
That bigger fish eat smaller fish is irrelevant and not even generally true, but the last remark sounds intriguing. Well, it seems to refer to this quote from the saint in question:
If this is anticipating Darwin, then my great-great grandfather who said that everything is relative anticipated Einstein.
Religion: it’s all smoke and mirrors, wherever you examine it more closely.
Just came across the A.A.Milne poem ‘Explained’, which starts –
Elizabeth Ann
Said to her Nan
“Please will you tell me how God began?
Somebody must have made Him. So
Who could it be, ‘cos I want to know?”
Yes! Mainly mirrors!
Great line.
Of course, even if that’s anticipating Darwin, it isn’t anticipating Empedocles from c. 900 years earlier, who *should* be regarded as inventing the idea of evolution by natural selection. Too bad he had insufficient evidence for it …
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”
He gets close to making your typical “is and ought” fallacy. It’s close. Almost there. Maybe all the way there. We don’t know if he committed it or not. That’s pretty typical of the pope. We never know what the hell he’s saying. Even about condoms. We still don’t know what the hell. We thought we knew, then we didn’t. Lol.
The reality is that no one really cares what the pope says. Most people are just bobble heads when at mass and nothing more than a drones. Most Catholics don’t follow their own doctrine that well. I’ve known a few in my time. Most are cultural Catholics. They do the Catholic thing when it suits them.
The reality is that they see him nothing more than a figure head who is ‘blessed’ by god. Someone who is special. Nothing else. Of course there are a few who take what he says literally but I think that would be a minority. Not to mention that I think they would say he didn’t ‘literally’ mean what he said, kind of like how they treat the bible.
However saying that I agree with some sentiments that people have already stated. I highly doubt many Catholics understand evolution that well or see themselves as a product of it. In other words, humans are special. I also believe this is true of most Christians.
Yes – as Rees is a cultural C of E… the trouble is that they do not put pressure on the church to ‘evolve’ by walking out.
And their monitary contributions let the church continue its antiscience and antihuman activities around the globe.
Blah, monetary.
In addition to contributing financially to sloppy thinking, by raising their children (if any) in a form of Christianity that pretends much of the Bible and Christian history don’t exist, they are setting their children up to be easy targets for fundamentalist proselytizers.
“You believe in Jesus and the Bible, right?”
“Yes, of course!”
“Did you know Jesus said x, y, and z?”
“I had no idea! My pastor never mentioned that! But if Jesus said that worshiping him is the only path to salvation from burning in hell, I guess I better believe it! Tell me more!”
That is why religious people do not like to teach children critical thinking, because that would educate them to discontent with their dogma.
So much for the story that there is no conflict between religion and science. When you are spinning your story to the folks at the carney you certainly don’t want someone providing a different world view. Keeping the masses belief inline is a requirement for any regime not just in the circus.
My divine Reason tells me the Pope is full of what the bear does in the woods.
I’m not surprised. When you think about it, almost every branch of science is in conflict with his faith. Jebus could walk on water, so the theory of gravity goes out the window. The dead can be brought back to life: there goes the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Water can be turned into wine: bye, bye, Chemistry!
We should be grateful to the Pope: he is an ally in our battle with the accommodationists. It’s offical: science and religion are not compatible.
At least the Pope, unlike certain literalist, temperence-minded Southern Baptists, doesn’t claim that the wine was “not really” wine. (Though the carbon in that fluid, whatever it was, had to come from somewhere. The liquid equivalent of manna?)
This sort of pronouncement illustrates what’s so wrong about the NCSE’s “faith initiative”. Few theists, “liberal” or conservative accept the TOE — what they accept is a modified (gutted) version of it that is not compatible with science. Their supposed acceptance of the TOE is superficial.
And the public just becomes more confused about the TOE and other important scientific theories.
Let’s see, our ancestors lived in caves, raped women to procreate, and believed thunder was proof of an unhappy deity. We no longer live like our ancestors did. Could it be that we have evolved?
Of course the Pope accepts evolution, but only the parts which he cannot deny.
So instead (as expected) there is a magic invisible bit of woo woo driving it behind the scenes which cannot be measured or disproven.
It doesn’t do anything precise like ensure perfect implementation, it just issues edicts such as “make sure Catholics appear.”
Can’t have god’s work obvious, faith is a virtue you know. With proof we’d have no choice but to believe, and then we’d have no free will.
🙂
Jerry: Please don’t ask the pope to read “The selfish gene”.
He’ll never get past the title (they never do for some strange reason) and we’ll never hear the end of it.
Consider the fine tuning argument. It’s a shiny object to physicists, who, mindful of Einstein wondering whether God had any choice in creating the world. It can be entertaining to speculate exactly why the universe is the way it is, but in the case of this argument it’s beside the point.
This universe allows intelligent life to exist. This is only an argument for God if a different universe would not be. God didn’t dial in the parameters just because He enjoys watching supernovas. It’s all about us.
Humans exist, therefore God exists. God’s purpose is to create us. He created the universe for our sake.
Isn’t it obvious?
Sorry about the second sentence. I blame the tempranillo even as I sip another glass.
It’s a common theme that our lives are meaningless unless we are God’s special creation, as though we wouldn’t matter otherwise, mere dumb beasts without that divine spark.
The dinosaurs that flit about my yard seem pretty blithe, and the crows are nearly fearless, calmly calculating, raucous in caucus. They defer to me, since I feed them, and surely they don’t remember the millions of years when, presumably with God’s favor, their lumbering ancestors lorded over ours, tiny scurrying things.
Lovely last paragraph. :- )
Ah come on. Ratzinger is saying what he has to say every year, to keep the flock interested, its not chance, its not random, no, POOF is the much better explanation, and therefore the Trinity. Or whatever. Just a snakeoil salesman trying to keep his sales up. Ratzinger’s most pressing issue is not the accurate representation of the Theory of Evolution.
I think you misconstrue what what a theist means by “random”…he means “non-teleological.” Natural Selection is certainly random in this sense.
Well, as bad Jim notes above, if everything is to have a purpose, obviously the purpose of “God” is to create humans.
All science is saying then is that natural laws have proven themselves to have the same purpose.
So out goes “random”, if that was the concern.
[Also, ironically, out goes the purpose for a “God”. Who needs that?]
I feel that comments needs a lot of 😀 😀 :-D. So there.
What the ‘holy father’ does not appreciate is that NOTHING [in biology] makes sense – ‘except in the light of evolution’, to quote mine Simpson.
Why do people need a reason?
Why not just ‘Be’!?
Doh! Dobzhansky,I meant. Sorry….
As in Homer Simpsom?
🙂 was thinking of Gaylord!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson
In fact the Wikipedia entry has a good quote from him –
“Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
Take that & stuff it in your papal pipe Benny!
Mmmm, ‘Be’…
I don’t know what the margins are supposed to be. That’s not how I understand the Big Bang and Cosmic inflation. There is no center, there are no margins, there is just Universe.
But I never held out much hope for this pope understanding nor caring to understand science.
Perhaps the Pope and Martin Amis should get together & discuss physics…
Hahaha listen to yourselfs! The pope says that we were created out of love and for a reason instead of just being a meaningless, random coincidence and you get offended! Is he hurting you in some way by sayng that you exist because you are loved and precious. How sad mustn’t your life be if you spend your time hating someone who sees more value in you than you yourselves!
Some people think it is not a good idea to live a life based on illusions and to deny scientific facts to keep the illusions alive.
Feel free to stick your head in the sand, but realize that this only exposes your ass to the rest of us.
“How sad mustn’t your life be if you spend your time hating someone who sees more value in you than you yourselves!”
This makes several assumptions about how Dr. Coyne. Measures ‘self-worth’ and what self worth even is. It sounds like your understanding of it comes from more of a religious mandate then actual appreciation of the person you are speaking to and that may be one of the reasons it sounds so hollow; you only see me as worthwhile because someone is telling you to. Sort of like with abortion; you only care about my well being so I can produce a child.
The disdain you are seeing is just a rejection of that and in no way reflects how anyone here feels about themselves or their ‘worth.’
How sad your life must be if you need a Pope to tell you that your life only has meaning because an imaginary being created you. Do you have a family? Do you have friends? The Pope says those things are meaningless.
By the way, Mateja, why are you so filled with hate for those who live without believing in gods, who believe that life has more value and meaning because it’s the only one we get?
+1
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother…he cannot be my disciple.”
“The pope says that we were created out of love and for a reason instead of just being a meaningless, random coincidence and you get offended!”
Who says we’re offended?
We’re mocking the pope for saying something so obviously contrary to reality, and mocking the faithful who believe it.
And another … +1.
I hate it when I’m one-upped … and even more when I’m two-upped.
Moving along, nothing to see here but the flayed corpse of a bad argument.
It’s not a contest, but thanks for complimenting my comment.
But you know, hic et nunc.
[Not that I’m suggesting you are hic-upped or anything.]
Value is a meaningless concept. It seems to me that you really do not get it because you are unable to throw off the shackles of religious dogma.
I do not hate the pope. I think he is probably an intelligent & interesting person, but he is a victim of the belief system he was brought up in & I seriously doubt he has ever properly questioned church ‘teachings’ in the light of actual EVIDENCE about the world that we have from OBSERVATION!
I hate him. In addition to spreading vile ideas about sex, homosexuality, and abortion, he personally helped protect child molesters.
Well said. I generally don’t use the term hate, especially when referring to someone I do not personally know.
However, if I were acquainted with someone who spread such despicable nonsense while shielding pedophiles, I would surely use the word hate.
Consider my policy against such invective from afar hereby revoked.
It is possibly true that if you wreck a childhood you probably wreck a life, so in as far as he is the head of his organisation & responsible for the appalling activities of his followers being covered up or not being punished, he is hateful, but I do not hate him personally at present. I detest Tony Blair on the other hand because he has had a major effect on my life in a way that the pope never could.
I don’t know, I think popes & the RCC in general have a major effect on all our lives…political regimes come and go; the pernicious policies of the Catholic Church, not so much.
Indeed. I find the Pope to be an absolutely vile individual who’s somehow wrapped himself in a cloak of pleasant lies and illusions to the point that a good percentage of the world somehow finds him heroic.
I’m sorry, where is Martin Rees? Telling everyone that “science and religion are not incompat…. Oh shit te Pope spoke again!…”
The Pope isn’t burning scientists at the stake; therefore, science and religion are compatible.
At the moment…
How poor Ken Miller will square this with his opinion about materialistic evolution?
You could throw a blanket over both positions and not have a bit of the two arguments spill out.
For those who have access to BBC4 or BBC iPlayer, there is the 2nd of two programmes on tonight by Dr Adam Rutherford. The Gene Code gives us the full story so far of the journey we’re on.
Brilliant.
Anybody know the Pope’s email address?
benedictxvi@vatican.va
I feel a bit depressed about it, really.
There’s a post up at rd.net about an English Bishop who, in his annual happyholyjesusisrisen blessing, had enough time left over to curse the spread of “aggressive secularism”, and to share his fear that “aggressive secularists” were marginalizing the poor, poor Christians.
After which, of course, the Prime Minister invited him to tea.
Along with a bunch of other ‘persons of faith’ – because of course none of them would disagree that they are all going to heaven together, would they?
I’m in error. It isn’t a Bishop, it’s a Cardinal in my post above, so that’s better then.
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,”
His if/then seems fine to me. I do agree with earlier posts that “making sense” is overrated and unnecessary.
The disagreement doesn’t appear to be about the big bang or the idea and nature of evolution. It is “merely” a disagreement about complete randomness versus some level (unlcear how much)unseen guidance. So while people disagree on that point (a disagreement that can never, unfortunately, be proven), there is much more agreement with Catholics about the cosmos and evolution than so many other groups. That is, they shouldn’t be found in the 55% or so of Americans who don’t believe in evolution.
The Pope said that
At the very least, poorly expressed as it is, this seems to imply that our ability to reason did not came about through evolution by natural selection. The Pope is clearly peddling Intelligent Design here, which puts him squarely in the camp of those who do not accept evolution.
Not verification “proven” of course, but theories that suggest “unseen guidance” are thrown out as having untestable superfluous elements.
More generally, natural processes have none of that, indeed they can’t have or we wouldn’t be able to pose them in the first place. Magic destroys experiments, not observation.
That is why Coyne is berating Ratzinger, he is indeed misrepresenting the nature of evolution. Moreover he makes a claim that is testably nonfactual, eliminated by its inability to form a useful theory.
And all that is even before we start to consider that to our knowledge processes, not “guidance” is _all_ that is observed. What makes a theologian a biologist?
Oops. Not “berates”, obviously – I just checked its precise description. Laments his stupidity?
what had you expected when the church say they acknownledge evolution, they can’t accept evolution, it’s impossible.
It’s a lie, it has nothing to do with misunderstanding, it has to do with power. the use of God (who is an idea, not a person) has only one goal : we are his Representatives, and you had to obey us. it’s that simple.
Sorry, i forgot a sentence.
what had you expected when the church say they acknownledge evolution, they can’t accept evolution, it’s impossible.
It’s a lie, it has nothing to do with misunderstanding, it has to do with power. the use of God (who is an idea, not a person) has only one goal : we are his Representatives, and you had to obey us. it’s like an eel floundering in his last struggle against death. They will never give up
because it should be the end of their parasitic existence
Ah – religious lampreys!
The only way life makes sense is if you believe you’re the product of the arbitrary whims of an ineffable superbeing, forced to play in its capricious and incomprehensible morality game, with the threat of eternal torture hanging over you constantly?
Yeah, that’s much more inspiring than “we make our own meaning”.
I think I said something to a similar effect a long time ago; but your nym makes such comments somewhat unintentionally humorous.
“Won’t someone think of the bunnies!?”
Has the NCSE, BCSE or Matzke come up with a list of those religious denominations whose religious dogma meet their criteria for being compatible with science ? And if so, is the RCC on the list ?
Has the NCSE, BCSE or Matzke come up with a list of those religious denominations whose religious dogma meet their criteria for being compatible with science ? And if so, is the RCC on the list?
Of course they are. The RCC is the epitome of liberal, mainstream religion that we can’t risk offending.
But they offend children, us and sensible people everywhere.
What to do, what to do, … NCSE would like to have the cake and eat it too.
“Us” meaning scientists, for once.
“Hey, Pope!”
🙂 🙂 🙂
I was raised as a Catholic young earth creationist (I attended Catholic school from the mid-’80s through 1997). People often doubt me when I say this, claiming that the Church would never teach such things, that they’re so much more sophisticated than the fundamentalists, that I must be remembering it wrong, that I really should re-read the Catechism, etc. These responses, I think, are indicative of the Church’s keen PR skills. Many Catholic leaders (the Jesuits in particular) like to present themselves as intellectually sophisticated theologians. And, of course, they’re certainly not uneducated fundamentalist buffoons. However, make no mistake: they’re no friend of science in general, let alone of evolution, and, at the most, they begrudgingly tolerate a very limited theistic form of evolution. And despite its wishy-washy obfuscatory silliness, JPII’s 1996 statement actually did indicate a tiny bit of progress on the Church’s part, a progress that Benedict is clearly working hard to reverse.
A Jesuit currently heads the church I was raised in. I agree with your assessment of their tactics.
This perception of Jesuits (and Franciscans to a lesser extent) is true and they act aloof because of it. However, the few I met were well-spoken but had a high school understanding of biology, which oddly didn’t seem to bother them.
Well, that’s gotta vary. In the mid-70s, I was teaching in a Catholic high school. For teaching biology, they used, as a textbook, BSCS Blue, one of the more evolution-centered high school biology texts. And the teacher was certainly committed to correcting misunderstandings that the students may have brought from home. The school was run by Salesians, if that makes a difference.
True. I didn’t mean to overgeneralize in my comment. Apologies for that.
It is my information that most Catholic high schools use the textbook by Miller and Levine in beginning biology courses.
See, this is clearly the fault of the gnu atheists and their strident insistence that only reality be taught during science. If only they’d tone down the angry rhetoric and allow the Catholics to claim that their zombie snuff novel was scientifically compatible, none of this would have ever happened.
/sarcasm
What did we expect? His writers are at it again just like they helped Ratzi for 30 odd years to Justify abuse of children and word Canon Law so as to protect the abusing Priests and higher. Since he controlled the protection procedure,he (Ratz) is the #1 abuser as outlined by Geoffrey Robertson, QC in THE CASE OF THE POPE.
He has to tell his FOLLOWERS that the Bible STORY of creation still stands and his writers help him to weasel word it in such a way that they, his HEARERS, (most won’t or are afraid to read anything that smacks of
evolution) won’t know the difference.
There has been a lot in the papers recently about the impending beatification of the previous pope.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/23/protests-john-paul-beatification
They are certainly in an unholy hurry to turn him into a ‘saint’ on the basis that a nun who supposedly had Parkison’s Disease but probably did not, was ‘cured’. So much for science as far as the RC’s are concerned.
There has been a lot in the papers this weekend about the impending beatification of the previous pope –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/23/protests-john-paul-beatification
He is supposed to have cured a nun of ‘Parkinson’s Disease’ which it was probably not. So much for the RC Church & science.
oops – sorry double comment due to slow USB connection thingy! 🙁
They’re just beatifying him on on Saturday to distract attention from the Royal Wedding!
I always new that the Pope would eventually have to come clean. You can’t say evolution works on everything except what I don’t want it to work on.
I resent the adjective ‘damn’ in front of the Pope’s name. He may be an emporer with no clothes, but he is an emporer. Damn is not essential to the message which is of some merit and its use is adolescent.
to assume our reductionists scientific tools has already provided judgment from both judge and jury regarding the truth of man’s relationship to the universe as a done deal is as arrogant as that of any institutional dogma.
Hey, look. A real tone troll!
Gah. Spelling is not my long suit. However, “emporer” is spelled “emperor”. Easy to get these mixed up, but the red squiggly line under a misspelled word is a good tip that your spelling is askew.
As for punctuation, syntax and usage, only god can sort that out in the comment.
“Damn” is barely a swear word. I would hardly call it adolescent.
And what does his being an emperor (not technically true, but he is a head of state) have to do with it?
The damn president of the United States protects torturers and other war criminals.
The damn queen of England wears ugly hats.
The damn president of Russia is a puppet for the dictator Putin.
The goddamn motherfucking president of Syria is murdering Syrian civilians.
Heads of state deserve negative epithets more than almost anyone else.
Who will protect the powerless Pope? Cleta is on the case!
For religionists it always boils down to: “I don’t want to be dead forever after I died.” The alpha and omega of the whole she-bang.
I am very disappointed after reading the comments here. So many large words wasted when all you needed to do was go youtube and say “the pope is on dope” or “religion be stupid”.
Do people really sit around discussing the fantastical imagination/nightmare?!? of the uneducated populations idea of what sky daddy is/was/will be? When i was 8 i thought “this is bullshit” and now that i am 35 i think “this is bullshit”. Do we really need to waste any more energy on it?
As soon as the major media quit ballyhooing his every pronouncement (and church fathers quit telling people how to vote, whom to demonize, and whom to kill by with-holding condoms and abortions), we can ignore him.
But did his Holiness explain how that “creative, divine reason” came to invent atheists, so that there could be Nazis?
Is evolution of man true? I don’t believe it because if it is true how come that there are still apes today. LOL
His comments were not a total dis of evolution, only as it applied as “random” to man. There are many ways to take that, as well.
What is real is shared, and thus that includes everything. There is nothing that isn’t alive. So the question of inanimate matter would be, to what form of life does it belong? If we consider that all that is real to be states of consciousness, then what is real as being shared is a consciousness into which we all transcend and participate. The universe is the consciousness of the first cause, a pattern into which we all imitate and participate. The idea of object is an illusion, as would the idea of the universe as an externally created object, of and for it. The universe is simultaneously simple and complex, with both ends of the spectrum assessed simultaneously. Experience and free will is only possible by transcendence and as such is a choice. Evolution and regressing is a matter of choice. The only thing that is natural is by choice.
I think you and whatever you’re smoking ought to try being separated for a while.
All of these discussions are mute, of course. The reason is, if you are Catholic, you simply have no choice but to believe as your pope tells you to believe because of his papal authority. You WILL believe as he tells you to believe if you wish to remain Catholic. If he tells you the moon is made of green cheese, you WILL believe it. You have no choice in the matter.
I guess you smart, “all knowing” people would laugh these stupid, narrow-minded, poor religious, incompetent idiots straight in their face:
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
If they would have been as wise and valuable as you are, they would surely have contributed way more to the development of mankind 😉
The first name on that list is Albert Einstein, who was flat out offended by the suggestion that he believed in God. We might not be laughing at those people but we’re certainly laughing at anyone dumb enough to try to use such a poorly researched bit of argument from authority.
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment.” – Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.” also Albert Einstein
Don’t know how much more plainly it can be spelled out than that.