Creation vs Evolution

[hecd2]

continuation

Let’s take inflationary theory. Inflation is a fundamental component of the concordance model of cosmology. Inflation is the only viable solution to the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. But inflation occurs within a billion billion billionth of a second after Big Bang, long before the epoch where we can make direct visual observations of the universe. The universe was opaque up until decoupling of matter and energy which we observe occurred at 379,000 years after Big Bang. However the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background have the right properties to be explained by an inflationary process which predicts gaussian, adiabatic and scale invariant fluctuations in the CMB, just as we observe. The first peak in the CMB anisotropy occurs at exactly the scale that we would predict if the acoustic (sound) properties of the photon-baryon fluid is as we expect given inflation. So the entire complex history of the universe before 379,000 years after BB is invisible to microscope, telescope and naked eye and yet well understood.

Let me give you another example. The structure of DNA cannot be observed directly under a light microscope. How on earth did Watson and Crick figure it out? Well they put together evidence from the frequency of incidence of the four bases, the organic chmistry of the bases and the sugar-phosphate backbone, and critically, diffraction patterns from DNA that contains chracteristic Fourier transforms of spiral structures. No-one challenges the structure of DNA because the bible doesn’t claim that the molecule that carries the code of life is a body centred cubic or a buckminster-fullerene. If the bible did make claims about DNA’s structure, we’d see all sorts of nonsense about how no-one has ever observed the structure of DNA diirectly.

To conclude, the Theory of Evolution is certainly not unique in its empirical or rational basis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

The fact is that your and others’ knowledge of evolutionary theory is as little developed as your understanding of RNA interference, for example. In fact, I suspect the answer to my question is that those who adopt this approach have decided for philosophical or religious reasons, that evolution cannot have occured. They prefer to deny a caricature of the thing than do the hard work to understand the thing itself.

Concluding evolution as fact is not a matter of science, religion, or philosophy.

Rather it is purely a matter of observation and logic.

Science is a mechanism as to how discoveries in the natural universe are made.

People are the only mechanism to which conclusions are drawn.

Science cannot make conclusions.

People make conclusions.

Science cannot yell “evolution!” (a conclusion)

People are yelling “evolution!” (a conclusion)

We are all around today to observe the sun, but we may not know everything about how it works.

Nobody was around long enough to watch creatures change from monkeys to people (observation), if in fact it actually occured.

Someone must “dream up” the idea of evolution to try to account for the discoveries they have made observing live animals and the fossil record (I will not overcomplicate this and assume that the scientific animal and fossil observations and data are correct)

Would you reccomend I accept **any ** idea, let alone evolution if it contradicts reason?

Science must include direct observation of the thing in question, before it can start asking questions as to how the thing in question works.

The Theory of Evolution started backwards. It is the opinion drawn from the sum of many observations.

Exposing evolution as an opinion is not a matter of defending religion, but a matter of defending science!

 

[SocaliCatholic]

continuation

Let’s take inflationary theory. Inflation is a fundamental component of the concordance model of cosmology. Inflation is the only viable solution to the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. But inflation occurs within a billion billion billionth of a second after Big Bang, long before the epoch where we can make direct visual observations of the universe. The universe was opaque up until decoupling of matter and energy which we observe occurred at 379,000 years after Big Bang. However the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background have the right properties to be explained by an inflationary process which predicts gaussian, adiabatic and scale invariant fluctuations in the CMB, just as we observe. The first peak in the CMB anisotropy occurs at exactly the scale that we would predict if the acoustic (sound) properties of the photon-baryon fluid is as we expect given inflation. So the entire complex history of the universe before 379,000 years after BB is invisible to microscope, telescope and naked eye and yet well understood.

Let me give you another example. The structure of DNA cannot be observed directly under a light microscope. How on earth did Watson and Crick figure it out? Well they put together evidence from the frequency of incidence of the four bases, the organic chmistry of the bases and the sugar-phosphate backbone, and critically, diffraction patterns from DNA that contains chracteristic Fourier transforms of spiral structures. No-one challenges the structure of DNA because the bible doesn’t claim that the molecule that carries the code of life is a body centred cubic or a buckminster-fullerene. If the bible did make claims about DNA’s structure, we’d see all sorts of nonsense about how no-one has ever observed the structure of DNA diirectly.

To conclude, the Theory of Evolution is certainly not unique in its empirical or rational basis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I just read your post, but I have to go eat dinner now so I will try to think of a clever response as soon as I get back.

 

[hecd2]

csr:

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant “Copperopolis” population with plants from the nontolerant “Cerig” population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes

The “observed instances of speciation” are a pretty poor showing:This is a ‘typical’ quote, showing failure and initially bizarre conditions.

My dear chap, there are dozens of different observed instances of speciation of various kinds on this site. It shows pretty poor scholarship if you think you can blow them all away by claiming one shows ‘failure and initially bizarre conditions’. Failure?? I think the problem is that you have read this example and entirely misunderstand it. It seems to me that you think that the evolved species has failed and is dying - SIGH!!. That is not what this report says.

OK let me try to explain the Macnair and Christie work. In the presence of copper a particular strain of copper tolerant yellow monkey flower plants develop. This strain can live in the presence of copper and is successful at breeding and propagation amongst its own kind. NO FAILURE! Now the question is whether the mutations that led to the copper tolerance have resulted in the generation of a new species or simply a new breed. Well, when the copper tolerant plants are cross-bred with normal plants, the hybrid progeny die early in life and are basically non-viable. The hybrids cannot propagate viable offspring. So what this analysis concludes is that in the presence of copper, mutations lead to a copper resistant strain that cannot viably breed back to the ancestral strain. We have observed the emergence of a new species, which, being reproductively isolated from the ancestral strain is free to diverge genetically. The interesting finding is that this reproductive isolation results from one or a very few mutations.

Many of the other ‘observed instances of speciation’ emiprically confirm mechanisms for speciation and divergence. Your claim that they are a ‘poor showing’ is based more on misinterpretation and misunderstanding than a valid challenge to the science.

In beak-of-the-finch cases no information is created in any case.

If you could define what scientists mean by information and explain why we expect information to increase in insular finch evolution then you might have a case worth responding to.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

The age of the universe and the age of the earth is not a scientific parallel to evolution.

The age of the universe and the age of the earth are a numeric approximation.

Certain groups are not claiming evolution as numeric approximation but as a literal fact

The early history of the universe and the early history of the solar system are exact parallels to evolution - no-one was around to observe them, but they left marks on the universe that we can read today to conclude how and when they happened. Scientists have shown that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years to a close approximation - they claim this as a fct.

The following sciences use the same logical tools as evolutionary biology:

• Cosmology: origin of the universe
• Cosmology: formation of the home galaxy - Milky Way
• Cosmology: formation of the solar system
• Cosmology: formation of the earth
• Astronomy: Stellar evolution
• Geology: science iof the earth herself
• Palaeo-tectonics: science of the migration of continental plates
• Palaeo-magnetism: science of the history of the ear4th’s magnetic field
• Palaeo-ecology and palaeo-climatology - the environment of the ancient world
• Palaeontology - science of prehistoric life on earth
• Archaeology: science of prehistorioc or unreorded human endeavours
• Fundamental particle physics (relies on indirect observation - look up cloud chamber)

So evolution is not unique - any quarrell you have with the methods of Evolutionary biology applies to a wide range of scientific endeavour.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Would you reccomend I accept **any **idea, let alone evolution if it contradicts reason?

Absolutely not - on the contrary…

Science must include direct observation of the thing in question, before it can start asking questions as to how the thing in question works.

Abolutely not as my reference to a wide range of historic scio
entific disciplines shows. Your idea about what constitutes science is flawed.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

The early history of the universe and the early history of the solar system are exact parallels to evolution - no-one was around to observe them, but they left marks on the universe that we can read today to conclude how and when they happened. Scientists have shown that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years to a close approximation - they claim this as a fct.

The following sciences use the same logical tools as evolutionary biology:

• Cosmology: origin of the universe
• Cosmology: formation of the home galaxy - Milky Way
• Cosmology: formation of the solar system
• Cosmology: formation of the earth
• Astronomy: Stellar evolution
• Geology: science iof the earth herself
• Palaeo-tectonics: science of the migration of continental plates
• Palaeo-magnetism: science of the history of the ear4th’s magnetic field
• Palaeo-ecology and palaeo-climatology - the environment of the ancient world
• Palaeontology - science of prehistoric life on earth
• Archaeology: science of prehistorioc or unreorded human endeavours
• Fundamental particle physics (relies on indirect observation - look up cloud chamber)

So evolution is not unique - any quarrell you have with the methods of Evolutionary biology applies to a wide range of scientific endeavour.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Ironic…every single discipline you named proves my point: they cannot make direct observations of the thing in question!!! they offer educated guesses of the bigger picture using secondary data sources. Those educated guesses are dynamic and always changing as different data is presented.

My basis for what enables science to be possible in the first place should be common sense:

Science is limited to what we can observe through our senses whether or not they are aided by tools such as a microscope or telescope.

There must be an observable phenomena in the natural universe before scientific experiments can be performed: You cannot perform experiments without a starting point!

Starting point for experiments = what we can observe with or without the aid of tools

The actual thousands or millions or years it supposedly took the evolution of monkeys to become man was never observed firsthand: no one has lived that long to make that observation.

The best we can do is observe and put back together the fossils in the ground, and use sophisticated dating techniques to make an educated guess about the date of their origin.

Evolution is the **opinion ** or an **educated guess ** drawn from the assimilation of data from various scientific experiments!

Scientists have correctly played the evidence card numerous times to defend against creationists when they talk about things that they are ignorant of… I am playing that same evidence card against evolutionists: all evidence of evolution is indirect… and educated guess…nobody has actually lived thousands or millions of years to watch it happen!!!

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Ironic…every single discipline you named proves my point: they cannot make direct observations of the thing in question!!!

The real irony is that you started this particular line of discussion by implying that evolutionary biology is unique in science because it reaches conclusions about events that cannot be ‘directly observed’ to occur at the time when they occurred. In the original post you said:

It appears that with evolution alone, **we work up to the conclusion **that it actually happened, versus other discoveries of science

It seems that you were working up to a condemnation of evolutionary biology as some sort of pseudoscience.

However, having had a host of other scientific disciplines that follow exactly the same approach pointed out to you (and I can think of many others, by the way), you have changed tack in this post to claim that *all *these scientific disciplines, are, well, as you put it: '**opinion **or an educated guess’. In other words, you would claim that those disciplines that do not conduct ‘experiments’ in a laboratory are not science. However, your attempt to limit the scope of science in this way is idiosyncratically yours - you will not find many scientists, philosopers of science or historians of science to agree with you. You will find that geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, palaeontology, climatology, ocean science, palaeo-ecology, cosmology, astrophysics and so on all take their place at the high table of natural science and their papers litter the pages of the leading journals of science. Your suggestion that evolutionary biology, alone amongst scientific disciplines, follows unique processes is not a rewarding vein to mine.

Science is limited to what we can observe through our senses whether or not they are aided by tools such as a microscope or telescope.

Indeed this is so, but what we observe is not limited to what we can observe in a laboratory. In fact any observations that we can make using either our unaided senses or our senses with the help of instrumenation of various kinds is admissible. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Sloane Digital Sky Survey are both very complex observational programmes that observe different things but which together lead to very firm conclusions about early galactic formation and a wide range of fundamental cosmological parameters.

It is a fallacy to think that science cannot reach strong conclusions about phenomena that occurred in the past, via observations of evidence that those phenomena left for us to discover. In the case of evolution, the evidence comes from multiple sources - as I have pointed out in this thread, the fossil evidence is by no means the only or even the best evidence - and is so strong that evolution is regarded as a fact by the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

It seems that you were working up to a condemnation of evolutionary biology as some sort of pseudoscience.

I never claimed evolutionary biology is some sort of pseudoscience, but now that you mention it…

However, having had a host of other scientific disciplines that follow exactly the same approach pointed out to you (and I can think of many others, by the way), you have changed tack in this post to claim that *all *these scientific disciplines, are, well, as you put it: '**opinion **or an educated guess’.

Yes - they offer approximate dates of certain events that change as more evidence is discovered, such as the approximate date of the beginning of the universe, or approximations of dates and positions of continental drift…

In other words, you would claim that those disciplines that do not conduct ‘experiments’ in a laboratory are not science.

Your putting words into my posts and missing my point entirely. I would never claim that science only exists in lab experiments. As a college internship, I was very blessed to work on the Chandra X-ray observatory, and that billion dollar sattelite was making observations from space, and sending telemetry data back to earth to scientists.

However, your attempt to limit the scope of science in this way is idiosyncratically yours - you will not find many scientists, philosopers of science or historians of science to agree with you.

On the contrary, it is becuase of my friends and family that are scientists that I have a love and understanding of science. My Dad is an life-long engineer. My best friend is a physicist and has worked on many high-energy lasers, and for five years working in aerospace I learned a great deal asking philosophical questions during lunch breaks to physicists, aerospace engineers, electric engineers, and computer scientists.

You will find that geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, palaeontology, climatology, ocean science, palaeo-ecology, cosmology, astrophysics and so on all take their place at the high table of natural science and their papers litter the pages of the leading journals of science.

I grew up reading many of those great scientific journals.

Your suggestion that evolutionary biology, alone amongst scientific disciplines, follows unique processes is not a rewarding vein to mine.
Indeed this is so, but what we observe is not limited to what we can observe in a laboratory. In fact any observations that we can make using either our unaided senses or our senses with the help of instrumenation of various kinds is admissible. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Sloane Digital Sky Survey are both very complex observational programmes that observe different things but which together lead to very firm conclusions about early galactic formation and a wide range of fundamental cosmological parameters.

And I have great respect for the science done by those instruments, but any conclusion reached is a time approximation and subject to change as new observational instruments are created.

Numerical time approximations for certain events vs. evolution theory as a static fact are two entirely different claims!

Continued…

 

[SocaliCatholic]

It is a fallacy to think that science cannot reach strong conclusions about phenomena that occurred in the past, via observations of evidence that those phenomena left for us to discover. In the case of evolution, the evidence comes from multiple sources - as I have pointed out in this thread, the fossil evidence is by no means the only or even the best evidence - and is so strong that evolution is regarded as a fact by the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists.

Ok look the reason the theory of evolution has even gotten this popular in the first place is becuase sadly not enough people know enough about science to know that science is, and what isn’t.

Science is based on observations: if you can’t observe something aided or unaided, you can’t do science.

You can dig all the fossils you want, run all the geologic time dating methods you want, observe the redshifting of light in the universe you want, but in the end its common sense that its a detective gumshoe story as to what actually happened millions of years ago becuase nobody lived long enough to watch evolution happen.

Scientific discoveries are the friend of religion.

The theory of evolution has attempted to hijack science and claim its part of science: its just like a trojan horse virus.

Observations and Logic are what made science possible in the first place, and Observations and Logic are whats gonna save real science from the attack of the theory of evolution.

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Ok look the reason the theory of evolution has even gotten this popular in the first place is becuase sadly not enough people know enough about science to know that science is, and what isn’t.

Yep, all the professional scientists who undertake research and write papers for the dozens of journals of general and evolutionary biology are deluded about what science is and what it isn’t? Hmmm. You, of course, know the difference and if all the professors of biology really understood science like you do, evolutionary biology would be a busted flush and they would all be enthusiastic promoters of ‘creation biology’? Tell you what - since you have such a limpid and burning vision of what science is, why don’t you draft a letter along these lines to Nature or Science and become famous for changing the course of scientific history?

Science is based on observations: if you can’t observe something aided or unaided, you can’t do science.

In general true. Where this is wong is that you can create hypotheses without observations, but of course you can’t confirm them.

The theory of evolution has attempted to hijack science and claim its part of science: its just like a trojan horse virus.

Well at last, your full prejudice about evolutionary biology is no longer hidden and is displayed in all its rich lace graments woven from special pleading. You hate evolutionary biology to the extent that you are willing to claim that its methods are unique in science. They are far from unique, as we have pointed out and that you have ignored. The metods of evolutionary biology are shared by many of these highly respectable scientific disciplines. No-one, sincere about wrestling with the angels of truth to uncover the truth, ignores key considerations

Observations and Logic are what made science possible in the first place, and Observations and Logic are whats gonna save real science from the attack of the theory of evolution.

Really! You don’t say. That’s news to me!!! (Heavy Irony) Don’t you think that you display a degree of hubris in claiming that you, who have not challenged the science with a single well attested reference, are in a position to declaim on what is and is not real science’. Don’t be surprised if all professional scientists actually and positively ignore you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Don’t be surprised if all professional scientists actually and positively ignore you.

Yeah your right. I guess I was imagining things during my college internship when I made all those friends who worked on billion dollar space science instruments.

Poor me. My brain has not evolved enough to understand what your talking about.

May I have your permission to blame evolution for my stupidity? Can I blame my free-will?

Darn… can’t blame free will either.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262731622/qid=1095754942/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8917450-9415913?v=glance&s=books

 

[csr]

We can be quite sure that “evolution” did not occur, because God made the creatures, and he made us even separately from them, in His own image. Shortly after that, He rested. This means that He is not creating new species.

So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: *

Evolution is inherently opposed to the Word of God, which clearly emphasizes that the work of creation is finished.

---

“These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.” ST, I, Q 68, a 2.

 

[wanerious]

csr:

Evolution is inherently opposed to the Word of God, which clearly emphasizes that the work of creation is finished.

When it snows, do you consider that all the snowflakes were made by God at some point during the 6 days of creation and called forth when needed, or do you suppose that they form out of already existing water vapor according to physical laws?

I’m not trying to be glib. How are these new snowflakes different, in the context of creation, from beings who differ genetically from their parents?

 

[ISABUS]

On October 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he endorsed evolution as being “more than just a theory” and thereby biblical fundamentalism as so-called scientific reationism was dealt yet another blow to its vacuous claims about the origin of this universe and the appearance of life forms on planet earth.

---

---

**In ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

---

**“Pope John Paul II again reiterated the Catholic Church’s directive on science and theology, ****specifically evolution, in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Pope is ****consistent with evolving church teaching on faith and reason. The pope contends that faith and ****reason are reconcilable since truth cannot contradict truth. His approach of sustained dialogue **allows scientists and theologians to determine which truths are reconcilable.

“WHAT IS MAN? The Psalmist asked this of Yahweh, as

did St. Augustine. It is the question every thoughtful

person of faith, or no faith, has asked at some time and

many times. It is the question no evolutionary biologist can

avoid. It is the question that no human can avoid as long

as the search continues to learn the origins, meanings and

destiny of human life and how best to live it.

“In the Ancient and Medieval worlds, this question was

largely in the domains of philosophy and theology, which

depended upon observation, reason and scriptural

interpretation to provide an answer. In the modern world,

however, science has also claimed the question, but its

reliance is on observation and experiment. Both methods

make truth claims that, on the surface at least, appear

contradictory and even irreconcilable: one holds humans

as essentially different from all other animals, spiritually if

not physically, and the other takes man to be a more

completely organized animal that emerged from earlier,

simpler forms of matter.

“Depending upon one’s initial premises, these two views of

human nature may collide or converge, but they cannot

ignore each other. One may reject both science and

theology, reject one in favor of the other, or seek to discern

which of these opposing truth claims are reconcilable and

which are not. This latter is the route of sustained

dialogue. It is the route taken by the Roman Catholic

Church since the first appearance of The Origin of

Species. It is also the route taken by Pope John Paul II in

his recent address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

(John Paul II 1996).

(continued…)

 

[ISABUS]

Part 2 of Continuation of ** ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“Except for Creationists (Morris 1974), on the one hand,
and those discreditors of all religion and theology, on the

other, the Pope’s allocution is of obvious importance. It

does not foreclose the truths science may uncover about

nature, yet it maintains that man’s physical nature does not

encompass the whole of his existence and that theology

and philosophy are competent to grasp those other

dimensions. On the Pope’s view, both faith and reason,

both science and theology, can and should examine each

other’s truth claims without the one capitulating entirely to

the other. This way of dialogue is grounded in the

proposition that truth cannot belie truth. Ultimately and

asymptotically, through both science and theology,

humans may approach a fuller knowledge of who they are,

why they are here, and how they should live their lives.

It is appropriate then that this journal, which is dedicated to

the biological sciences, should examine seriously what

Pope John Paul II said about one of the crucial intellectual

and cultural juxtapositions of our times. What the Pope

said, what he did not say, and the implications of both for

the future relationships between science and religion is

significant for scientists, theologians and the general

public.

“From the first appearance of the idea of evolution, the

Catholic Church has taken a stance of cautious

noncondemnation and, more lately, of carefully qualified

acceptance (Muckerman 1906; Dorlodot 1922; Messenger

1949; Ruffini 1949; Nogar 1963; Rahner 1965; Mynarek

1967; Nemesszeghy 1971; Kramer 1986). This contrasts

sharply with the fears of Samuel Wilberforce, an Anglican

contemporary of Darwin, who insisted that if Darwin’s

theory of evolution was right, then the book of Genesis

must be wrong, Revelation must be a deception, and God

must be the author of a lie. This is also the position of

contemporary Creationists, who see no possibility of

reconciliation between Biblical and scientific truth (Morris

1977).

(continued…)

 

[ISABUS]

Part III of Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘**Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“More than a century later, it is clear that Wilberforce’s dire

predictions have not come true. The idea of evolution both

of the physical universe and of living things is very much

alive. Today both evolution and Biblical religion continue to

grow and to influence human culture and life. This is not to

deny the extremes to which misappropriation either of

evolutionary biology or religion must lead, i.e., to atheism,

materialism and determinism, on the one hand, and the

depreciation of science, the scientific method, and

scientists on the other.

“Criticism of the central issues–the idea of evolution itself,

the role of chance and natural selection, the implications

for ethics generally, and bioethics in particular, and the

integration of the equally powerful concepts of Mendelian

and molecular genetics–continues both inside and outside

of the scientific community, as it should. Theologians,

Biblical scholars, and philosophers must keep abreast of

the course of the biological evidence if they are to define

carefully where there are irreconcilable conflicts and where

accommodation with Scripture is possible. Biologists, for

their part, need to keep abreast of the spiritual and moral

implications of their work, lest they succumb to the

Promethean hubris of scientism, which in the end is

antithetical to good science.

(continued …)

 

[ISABUS]

Part IV of** ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“First, a word is in order about the setting within which the
Pope made his remarks: they were delivered as the

welcoming address for a meeting of the Pontifical

Academy of Sciences. The Academy, which was first

founded in 1603 and refounded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI

(Chagas 1986; Marini-Bettolo 1987), was conceived as an

“academic senate” to inform the Holy See on the state of

modern science. It is made up of distinguished scientists

from all fields, many of whom are Nobel laureates. For its

1996 meeting, the Academy had selected the subjects of

the origins of life and evolution as one of the major themes

for deliberations. It was on a similar occasion, several

years ago, that the Pope vindicated Galileo before the

Pontifical Academy and admitted the Church’s errors in the

way it treated one of the founders of modern science (John

Paul II 1979). By encouraging a continuing dialogue with

science, one hopes the Church will avoid similar errors in

the future and save itself from such a long belated

apology.

“On any occasion when the Pope addresses the Academy,

it is fitting and even obligatory for him to express his

viewpoint as the spiritual leader of almost a billion human

beings. It is in this role that John Paul II sought to make

clear how the church today regards the Academy’s

deliberations about evolution. This can in no way be

interpreted as an attempt to indoctrinate or influence the

thinking of the Academy. Its members are distinguished

scientists in their own right. They range in personal beliefs

from dedicated Roman Catholics to followers of other

faiths, and some are avowed agnostics and atheists.

Members are chosen for their scientific distinction, not their

fidelity to the Catholic world view. Their value to the

Church rests precisely in their thinking as independent

scientists.

(continued…)

 

[ISABUS]

Part V of ** ****Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“If the occasion was appropriate, so too was the spirit of

genuine dialogue that the Pope sought with contemporary

science. A recurrent theme of John Paul II’s pontificate has

been the need for dialogue between the Church and every

aspect of modern culture (John Paul II 1979, 1995). He

sees this dialogue as particularly relevant to the intellectual

life of Catholic universities, although not necessarily

confined to these institutions (John Paul II 1990). This

notion of dialogue also fulfills one of the four objectives

that Paul VI (1964), following the inspiration of his

predecessor John XXIII, set for the Second Vatican

Council. This became a theme in one of the most

important documents of the Second Vatican Council

(Gaudium et Spes 1965). Catholics are not to see the

world as something to be shunned or rejected. The Church

is in the world. Rather, the Church must find its place in

that world. It must learn from the world, but also contribute

to the world from its own tradition and heritage.

Finally, in this particular setting, John Paul II was not

speaking infallibly (Catechism 1994). He was not

asserting, as some might mistakenly believe, that what he

said to the Academy was to be taken as binding on pain of

excommunication. Rather, this was an authoritative

statement, a guide for Catholics to take seriously in their

thinking, writing and reading about contemporary

evolution. Catholic scientists and nonscientists are invited

to examine the scientific theory and the factual evidence

themselves. John Paul II indicated, however, that Catholic

teaching has reached a new level of understanding of

evolution consistent both with its own past opinions and

also with the current state of scientific understanding since

Darwin’s time.

“In this spirit of dialogue, the Pope said that knowledge of

the evolution of science would enable the Church to better

understand its own obligations, i.e., to provide the criteria

for moral conduct, criteria that are applicable to all human

beings John Paul II 1996) . This also coincides with the

Pope’s consistent teaching that technology and medicine

should be used within ethical constraints so that they do

not violate the dignity of the human person (John Paul II

1995).

(continued…)

 

[ISABUS]

Part VI of **Quarterly Review of Biology Dec 1997 v72 n4, ‘****Theology and evolution in dialogue’, **Edmund D. Pellegrino wrote the following:

“The Pope focused a substantial part of his remarks on the
relationship between revelation and theories of evolution.

He said that evolution was no longer a hypothesis, but had

reached the status of a theory, and that its wide

acceptance as a theory and its consistency with observed

data constitute a “significant argument” in its favor John

Paul II 1996, this issue p 382). In arriving at this

conclusion, John Paul II had recourse to the philosophical

distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. A

hypothesis is a hunch, a speculation, or conjectural

solution to a problem needing further investigation

(Honderich 1995:385). A theory, on the other hand, is a

more systematic, unified explanation of observed or

experimental data that has explanatory and predictive

power (Honderich 1995:870).

“John Paul II thus reaffirmed the position held by the

Church for nearly a century: there is no intrinsic conflict

between the idea of evolution and Church teaching. He

went further than his predecessor, Pius XII, however, who

would admit evolution only as a tentative hypothesis (Pius

XII 1950). John Paul II did not, however, say that evolution

was an established law nor "an effectively proven fact

which sincere Christians must now accept" as Stephen Jay

Gould (1997) seems to think.

(continued…)