Cardinal Says Atheist's Theories 'Absurd'

[SedesDomi]

Rome - The Vatican sought Tuesday to show that it isn’t opposed to science and evolutionary theory, hosting a conference on Charles Darwin and trying to debunk the idea that it embraces creationism or intelligent design.

Some of the world’s top biologists, paleontologists and molecular geneticists joined theologians and philosophers for the five-day seminar marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the Catholic Church doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, saying there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said on the sidelines of the conference.

But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cardinal William Levada is quite right. As Chesterton put it:

“If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.”
from Orthodoxy

 

[David_Henry007]

Does the [edited]Cardinal[edited] have a background in philosophy?
One can still be an atheist without believing in evolution.

 

[David_Henry007]

Jean.

Do you think The “Cardinal” is cut or uncut?

 

[atheist1]

Cardinal William Levada is quite right. As Chesterton put it:

“If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.”
from Orthodoxy

I see Chesterton never took biology classes.

 

[Leela]

Does the [edited]Cardinal[edited] have a background in philosophy?
One can still be an atheist without believing in evolution.

If you read the whole article, you’ll see that the Church is trying to distance itself from ID and Creationism, while balancing it out with a critique of a position that Dawkins and other atheists don’t even have–that evolution proves that God does not exist. I don’t know anyone who thinks that we have such proof. Some here seem to be misunderstanding the article as a Catholic criticism of evolutionary theory, which the Church actually acknowledges, and as support of ID, which the Church actually wants to distance itself from.

Best,
Leela

 

[Eucharisted]

Evolution simply means creatures evolved. You’d have to embrace the belief that there is nothing spiritual, miraculous, or supernatural in the world in order to conclude that evolution proves God dose not exist. And even than you’d have to reconcile your belief with the fact that science dose not speak on the supernatural but on natural things.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I see Chesterton never took biology classes.

Sure, his description is faulty, but his basic point is well founded, isn’t it?

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[atheist1]

Sure, his description is faulty, but his basic point is well founded, isn’t it?

Peace,
+AMDG+

What is his basic point?

 

[tuviskazinai]

What is his basic point?

I would say, that there is still a “positive thing” called man (homo sapiens) distinct from all other species; and that no matter if it took us six days or 4.5 billion years to emerge, the point is we’ve gotten here eventually. Orthodoxy has never insisted that human beings were the first life form to be created, so the advances we’ve seen in evolutionary science don’t pose any threat to it.

I don’t know what he’s talking about when he mentions “rationalism” in that passage…that’s the part I have difficulties with.

 

[JDaniel]

I would say, that there is still a “positive thing” called man (homo sapiens) distinct from all other species; and that no matter if it took us six days or 4.5 billion years to emerge, the point is we’ve gotten here eventually. Orthodoxy has never insisted that human beings were the first life form to be created, so the advances we’ve seen in evolutionary science don’t pose any threat to it.

I don’t know what he’s talking about when he mentions “rationalism” in that passage…that’s the part I have difficulties with.

He used rationalism in its other sense. IOW, a non-rational animal evolves into a rational animal thus giving the rationalist movement something to worry about. Rationalists, in those days, probably would not like to think that their brain power evolved from a monkey’s!

jd

 

[tuviskazinai]

He used rationalism in its other sense. IOW, a non-rational animal evolves into a rational animal thus giving the rationalist movement something to worry about. Rationalists, in those days, probably would not like to think that their brain power evolved from a monkey’s!

jd

aha! Right on. That sheds a great deal of light.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheist1

I see Chesterton never took biology classes.

The remark by Chesterton cited above was written sometime before 1925, when “ape” was shortcut language to identify the creature from which man might have descended. You might cut Chesterton some slack here. He was trying to make a subtle point very briefly, and he did. God’s idea of time may be rather different than ours. So the length of time it took for evolution does not mean that it was all random. All may well have come about through Intelligent Design … the teleological argument of Aquinas. Even atheist Antony Flew has admitted as much, stating that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”

 

[atheist1]

atheist1

I see Chesterton never took biology classes.

The remark by Chesterton cited above was written sometime before 1925, when “ape” was shortcut language to identify the creature from which man might have descended. You might cut Chesterton some slack here. He was trying to make a subtle point very briefly, and he did. God’s idea of time may be rather different than ours. So the length of time it took for evolution does not mean that it was all random. All may well have come about through Intelligent Design … the teleological argument of Aquinas. Even atheist Antony Flew has admitted as much, stating that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”

Okay, I can give GK a break.

Do you know specifically what recent scientific discoveries Flew was speaking of?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Do you know specifically what recent scientific discoveries Flew was speaking of?

An interview with Flew may be found here.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

A book by Schroeder largely influenced his thinking on Intelligent Design and also the Cosmological argument.

During the interview he drops the bombshell I have been long suspecting is true of virtually every atheist, though you will hardly find any who admit it. Flew still hopes there is no afterlife. Now there’s a revelation that could be followed up in a hundred different directions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In case that Flew interview website doesn’t work, here is the same interview.

biola.edu/antonyflew/page4.cfm

Flew’s remark about hoping there is no afterlife is at the top of page 4.

 

[RobbyS]

I would say, that there is still a “positive thing” called man (homo sapiens) distinct from all other species; and that no matter if it took us six days or 4.5 billion years to emerge, the point is we’ve gotten here eventually. Orthodoxy has never insisted that human beings were the first life form to be created, so the advances we’ve seen in evolutionary science don’t pose any threat to it.

I don’t know what he’s talking about when he mentions “rationalism” in that passage…that’s the part I have difficulties with.

Rationalism tends to ascribe almost angelic powers ro men. Evolutionism not only denies that, it tends to reduce humans to apes with special gifts. Sort of like in “Planet of the Apes,” That means, of course, that dumb humans are no better than smart apes.