Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy

The conflict at the highest level of the Catholic Church about the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution breaks out publicly today.
Code: 
                                                     Recent comments by a cardinal close to the Pope that random evolution was incompatible with belief in "God the creator" are fiercely assailed in today's edition of The Tablet, Britain's Catholic weekly, by the Vatican astronomer.
In an article with explosive implications for the Church, Father George Coyne, an American Jesuit priest who is a distinguished astronomy professor, attacks head-on the views of Cardinal Christoph Shönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and a long-standing associate of Joseph Ratzinger, the German cardinal who was elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April.

more…
 
buffalo said:
Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy

The conflict at the highest level of the Catholic Church about the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution breaks out publicly today.
Code: 
                                                     Recent comments by a cardinal close to the Pope that random evolution was incompatible with belief in "God the creator" are fiercely assailed in today's edition of The Tablet, Britain's Catholic weekly, by the Vatican astronomer.
In an article with explosive implications for the Church, Father George Coyne, an American Jesuit priest who is a distinguished astronomy professor, attacks head-on the views of Cardinal Christoph Shönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and a long-standing associate of Joseph Ratzinger, the German cardinal who was elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April.

more…
Click to expand...

It figures that it is an American Jesuit professor that is so irate about this. It would be nice if they could turn back to the roots of St. Ignatius rather than get all their glory through “high level” education.
 
First Greeley now this one. Glad I am on the other side.

PF
 
By the way, Fr. Coyne is hardly a threat to split the Catholic hierarchy. What nonsense.

I think the Cardinal was being generous in the assessment, giving in on the possibility for common ancestry when science has been unable to prove it. The fact that he was opposed to a random, non-designed evolutionary process is not only in line with the faith but also with common sense.
 
I have heard Fr Coyne. I have not personally heard him say he supports Darwinism (although he might have). I have heard him say the universe is fertile and that both chance and necessary processes go on.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I have heard Fr Coyne. I have not personally heard him say he supports Darwinism (although he might have). I have heard him say the universe is fertile and that both chance and necessary processes go on.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything wrong with the Cardinal’s comments and see no reason for Fr. Coyne to be upset regarding them.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The conflict at the highest level of the Catholic Church about the truth of Darwin’s theory of evolution breaks out publicly today.
Click to expand...
Am I the only one who sees a discrepancy between these two terms?
 
Yeah, but what about the way that the cardinal just dismissed the statement by JP2 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and also alot of the hard work that JP2 did in trying to establish links towards science?
 
40.png
Libero:
Yeah, but what about the way that the cardinal just dismissed the statement by JP2 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and also alot of the hard work that JP2 did in trying to establish links towards science?
Click to expand...
He really didn’t dismiss the statement. He was trying to put it back into context with the Popes remarks of 1985.

The Catholic Church has always had links with and supported science.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I have heard Fr Coyne. I have not personally heard him say he supports Darwinism (although he might have). I have heard him say the universe is fertile and that both chance and necessary processes go on.
Click to expand...
Hi Buffalo,

Did you read the view of evolution vs. darwinism in the New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia?

It is pretty explicit that the theory of evolution is not going to split the Catholic hierarchy and Darwinism is pretty much rejected by the Church.
 
Kay Cee:
Am I the only one who sees a discrepancy between these two terms?
Click to expand...
I don’t see the discrepancy.

If something is a theory, that does not mean it is not true. It just means it has not been proven true by some very stringent tests, becoming a “law.”

For example, Einstein’s work was all theoretical, but it gave us nuclear power, blew up two cities in Japan, and explains astronomical observations better than Newtonian physics. None of those “theories” were proven, but in fact something designed with those theories has objectively become truth, in that it happened.

[edit]IOW, Einstein’s Theory of relativity is used every day to design things to work properly, so if it isn’t true it does a pretty good job of predicting how things work that are beyond our human grasp to imagine.

Alan
 
The Catholic Church has supported science, and parcipated in scientific research.

It sound like in this case she is planning to dictate scientific conclusions. Why? How does evolution hurt the idea of God, or this generic sounding “intelligent creation” which sound to me like a code word for God?

It sounds like the biggest beef is that darwinian evolution is based on “randomness.” What ever game them that idea? The theory involves random variations that cause slight differences. Their survival rate is a function of which variations do the best job at reproducing. That is not random, that is direct intelligent selection, whether or not you believe it is done from a Higher Power or from the collective mating instincts of the animals.

The fact is, evolution by natural selection is not just “randomly” changing from one thing to the other, as many media myrmidons of anti-evolution crowd have us believe. It is completely directed; that’s the whole point. The word “random” is just a loaded word that means little in this cardinal’s context other than an uninformed or even gratuitous attempt at artificially making the theory appear less reasonable.

We know beyond any reasonable doubt that “microevolution” happens, otherwise germs would never build up resistant strains to antibiotics. The only question up for grabs is whether evolution also gets us from one species to another, or “macroevolution.” It has not been proven, nor has it been disproven except on shaky religious grounds.

Alan
 
This eye catching title is enough for me. I don’t have to read any further. It’s just another ‘sensationalized’ artice to get the uniformed populas to throw more stones at the Catholic Church. It’s could be seen as ANOTHER move for those who want ‘an American Catholic Church’ as opposed to the One we already have.

No thank you, I like the One Church we already have!
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
It sounds like the biggest beef is that darwinian evolution is based on “randomness.” What ever game them that idea? The theory involves random variations that cause slight differences. Their survival rate is a function of which variations do the best job at reproducing. That is not random, that is direct intelligent selection, whether or not you believe it is done from a Higher Power or from the collective mating instincts of the animals.

The fact is, evolution by natural selection is not just “randomly” changing from one thing to the other, as many media myrmidons of anti-evolution crowd have us believe. It is completely directed; that’s the whole point. The word “random” is just a loaded word that means little in this cardinal’s context other than an uninformed or even gratuitous attempt at artificially making the theory appear less reasonable.
Click to expand...
Alan,

I believe the “randomness” comes in two forms. One, the specific mutations that arise in the first place (before they can be selected or rejected by the environment) appear to arise with a large degree of randomness. Second, even if a group of animals possess mutations that would theoretically help them to survive more so than another group of animals (and both of these groups live in the same environment), there is still the chance that an asteroid hits the earth, killing the animals with the improved mutations. In this case, a radical, unexpected, and (I would suggest) random change in the environment selects against those organisms who (in a stable environment) would have thrived.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I don’t see the discrepancy.

If something is a theory, that does not mean it is not true.
Click to expand...
It also doesn’t mean it is true. I said discrepancy, not contradiction.
It just means it has not been proven true by some very stringent tests, becoming a “law.”
Click to expand...
And until such time it should not be treated as a law. That was my point.
For example, Einstein’s work was all theoretical, but it gave us nuclear power, blew up two cities in Japan, and explains astronomical observations better than Newtonian physics. None of those “theories” were proven, but in fact something designed with those theories has objectively become truth, in that it happened.

[edit]IOW, Einstein’s Theory of relativity is used every day to design things to work properly, so if it isn’t true it does a pretty good job of predicting how things work that are beyond our human grasp to imagine.

Alan
Click to expand...
Just because it may be true for relativity doesn’t mean it’s true for evolution. There’s a lot evolution cannot explain. It cannot explain how mankind supposedly made such a cognitive leap from animal to human. As G.K. Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man the one thing we know with absolute certainty about early man is that he created art. We know because his art can still be viewed.

I’ve never heard of an animal creating art. I’ve never heard of an animal drawing a recognizable picture.

We differ from animals not only in a matter of degree but in a matter of kind.

And that’s something evolution cannot explain.
 
40.png
Edwin1961:
This eye catching title is enough for me. I don’t have to read any further. It’s just another ‘sensationalized’ artice to get the uniformed populas to throw more stones at the Catholic Church. It’s could be seen as ANOTHER move for those who want ‘an American Catholic Church’ as opposed to the One we already have.

No thank you, I like the One Church we already have!
Click to expand...
Here in Kansas, we are not only at the abortion epicenter of the nation, but I believe the evolution debate silliness capital.

It seems the most important thing on the planet is to argue about creation v evolution. Small minds think they are contradictory, and know no other solution than to try to destroy dissent, and that is most simply accomplished by trying to destroy the dissenters. Six out of seven days there is an editorial or letter to the editor in our newspaper arguing this issue.

:yawn:

Alan
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Alan,

I believe the “randomness” comes in two forms. One, the specific mutations that arise in the first place (before they can be selected or rejected by the environment) appear to arise with a large degree of randomness. Second, even if a group of animals possess mutations that would theoretically help them to survive more so than another group of animals (and both of these groups live in the same environment), there is still the chance that an asteroid hits the earth, killing the animals with the improved mutations. In this case, a radical, unexpected, and (I would suggest) random change in the environment selects against those organisms who (in a stable environment) would have thrived.
Click to expand...
I think I understand your model. Mechanically, would you say that what you have described can be considered outside the issue of intelligent design? In other words, do you see this model as valid, but neither confirming or disproving that some of these variations (such as the “large” ones for example) may actually be orchestrated by intelligence that simply appears random to our best efforts to decode?

That may not completely satisfy what the ID people want to get to, but it still prevents them from a sincere claim that ID and natural selection are necessarily contradictory.

Alan
 
Kay Cee:
It also doesn’t mean it is true. I said discrepancy, not contradiction.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Ummm, I mean, …

:confused:

I suppose is there is a discrepancy because they are pronounced differently, or spelled differently, or have different meaning since after all they are different words, but I fail to see how there is any “discrepancy” in the context given between the two, in that their juxtaposition somehow makes one of them less meaningful.

Whatever word games you’re playing, I don’t know the rules. Sorry. :whacky:
And until such time it should not be treated as a law. That was my point.
Click to expand...
Oops. My bad. :o I thought you had asked whether you were the only one who sees a discrepancy between these two terms, and I didn’t so between the answer is that yes, you are, between the two of us. Technically I suppose I was only invited to respond in the affirmative, by having responded in the negative a reader may inadvertently infer that I am also responding for others. I’ll try to be more careful in my explanations.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top