quote:

---

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday,

---

http://tinyurl.com/8pzcd

quote:

---

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

---

Here we have some theologian telling scientists what science "is".

Scientists may have concluded about 100 years ago that Darwin was correct about the manner in which species evolved.

But this guy is going to explain science to them.

I can see why. The RC Church is becoming more and more laughable and irrelevant to anyone who can think for themselves. Like any vestigal organ that no longer serves a useful purpose, it will soon wither away to nothingness.

quote:

---

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.

---

quote:

---

always assumed that the Catholic Church rejected the idea of evolution as "unguided and unplanned", because to accept that idea would be to rule out the existence of God.

---

Possibly, though one could have a God who did not plan or guide the world. He could just start it up and let it fly.

I think it is more noteworthy that this theologian thinks that examination of nature leads to "evidence" that the world was intelligently designed. And that if scientists looked at the evidence, they would become religious.

quote:

---

One the great distinctions between Roman Catholicism and protestant fundamentalism in recent times has been Catholicism's respect for free scientific inquiry, specifically comfort with evolutionary biology. Reason and faith are not in conflict, the Second Council told us, and the Church has nothing to fear from open scientific inquiry, based on empirical research and peer-reviewed study. Not for us Catholics the know-nothingism of the literalist fundamentalists, who still hold that the world was made in seven literal days, or that Adam and Eve literally existed, or that God somehow directed the random process of natural selection. Well, now we have Benedict in charge and the rush back to the Middle Ages, already seen in fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Protestantism, looks as if it is going to be endorsed in the Vatican.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
always assumed that the Catholic Church rejected the idea of evolution as "unguided and unplanned", because to accept that idea would be to rule out the existence of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly, though one could have a God who did not plan or guide the world. He could just start it up and let it fly.

---

I grew up assuming that a state of atheism or at least faith vague enough not to interfere with rational thought was inevitably on the rise, that it was just a matter of increasing prosperity & education. I believed in Progress, in other words.

Now I'm unsure. Objectively, if you were from Mars, wouldn't you say that it's the secular humanists who are on the decline, along with the sensibly "moderate" forms of religion? Ratzinger as Pope is just a part of it. His competition was a cardinal from Nigeria who by any Canadian standard was "fundamentalist" -- because that's the kind of religion that's growing in Nigeria, and elsewhere, whether it bears a Catholic or Muslim cloak. (Indeed in Nigeria they egg each other on, a kind of arms-race of simplicities.)

Evolution vs creationism should be science fiction by now, or so I would have thought in 1975. But jeez, it's a growing issue...and not just in the States. People in the UK, facing the boards of religious schools, are having to take the time to explain that evolution is a theory the way electrons & atoms are a theory...

quote:

---

I expected reactionary radicalism from Benedict. But this kind of stupidity? I fear there's much more to come. Remember that Ratzinger was an anti-intellectual intellectual. Free thought not controlled by Vatican diktat is anathema to him. And so we return to the nineteenth century. The thinking may also be nakedly political. Benedict - in order to pursue his secular war against freedom for gays, or reproductive freedom - needs an alliance with the Protestant right. This is exactly a way to bolster the new anti-modern Popular Front. It would be depressing if it weren't also infuriating.

---

Gould took a concilliatory tone with religion, and in particular Catholocism, because they were not fundamentalist in thier views. It was his position that religion and science explored two completely different spheres or magesterium.

Dawkins, on the other hand, insisted that a universe with a god was quantifiably different from a universe without a god, and that difference fell within the pervue of science to investigate.

Too bad the current and previous Popes are so out of step with Teilhard de Chardin who saw in evolution the naturalistic reflection of the nature of God.

"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more---it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow---this is what evolution is."

Hard to imagine a self-described Christian saying something like that in public these days, ain't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Then the bet isn't settled yet, surely?

---

I think it's self evident that a universe with a god is quantifiably different from a universe without a god.

Certainly a universe with a God *could* be quite different from a universe without one. I can imagine a universe where every morning a fiery angel rises in the east and gives the world light and warmth. No big likelihood of *that* universe being without a God.
But I don't see why a universe that had no features in it that would involve/require the existence of a God couldn't still have one. It would be impossible to determine that the God was there, and sensible people would conclude that it was likely there was not one, as a God (or gods) would just be an added complication. But unnecessary complications do sometimes exist, and people holding the best hypothesis given the available information can be wrong. I don't think it's the case, but I don't see anything impossible about it.

[ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

I think it's self evident that a universe with a god is quantifiably different from a universe without a god.

---

quote:

---

His/her alleged ability to part the Red Sea, for one, would be a dead giveaway, I should think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
His/her alleged ability to part the Red Sea, for one, would be a dead giveaway, I should think.

---