Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PS Giertych is as much a scientific gadfly as Berthault is
Indeed he is. I am looking forward with some glee to what the readers of Nature say about his grotesque proposition that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. It’s a very interesting decision by Nature to publish this letter. I suppose they thought they should give him suffcient rope to hang himself, a chore that he has performed with admirable efficiency. However, his letter, contrary to PoG’s claims, is no support for the idea that the Theory of Evolution is highly contentious. That is wishful thinking on PoG’s part - there is simply no controversy amongst the scientific community. Now, if Giertych could get a paper published in Nature, or indeed in any respectable peer reviewed journal claiming that dinosaurs co-existed with man, now *that *would be something.

I reproduce below the original article that prompted Giertych’s letter:
Fifty leading scientists in Poland have signed an open letter in protest against an aggressive anti-evolution campaign launched by the League of Polish Families (LPR), the ultra-right-wing coalition partner in the conservative Polish government.
“The theory of evolution is a lie,” Miroshttp://www.nature.com/__chars/l/special/stroke/black/med/base/glyph.gifaw Orzechowski, Poland’s deputy education minister, told the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza on 14 October. “It is an error we have legalized as a common truth.”
The LPR entered the ruling coalition in May 2006. Its leader, Roman Giertych, is also known to favour creationist views. These, as well as his openly homophobic, anti-Semitic and nationalistic opinions, have sparked student demonstrations in Warsaw since he took the minister of education job in May.
Giertych’s father, Maciej Giertych, is an LPR member in the European Parliament and is lobbying for obligatory inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula. Maciej, who holds a PhD in tree physiology from the University of Toronto, Canada, claims darwinian evolution is refuted by scientific evidence.
Orzechowski’s comments have rattled Poland’s science community. Researchers are concerned that the LPR campaign could infiltrate biology teaching in schools.
Maciej http://www.nature.com/__chars/_z/special/dot/black/med/base/glyph.gifylicz, a senior researcher at the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw, says he was “shocked” by the remarks. “We really did not expect a creationist movement to emerge in Poland.”
“It is a catastrophe,” adds Bartosz Borczyk, who is completing a PhD in zoology at the University of Wroclaw and wrote to Nature about the issue. “People could easily get the impression that there is a controversy about evolution among scientists.”
Michahttp://www.nature.com/__chars/l/special/stroke/black/med/base/glyph.gif Seweryhttp://www.nature.com/__chars/n/special/acute/black/med/base/glyph.gifski, Poland’s minister of science, has criticized the LPR’s position. “There is no need for a discussion,” he told Nature. “Scientific evidence is clear and the opinion of a minority will not change teaching in schools.”
Members of the Polish Academy of Sciences protested against the LPR campaign in an open letter that was published in several Polish newspapers on 17 and 18 October. http://www.nature.com/__chars/_z/special/dot/black/med/base/glyph.gifylicz, who signed the letter, says he hopes the quick response will avert damage to Polish science and education. “However, the point that really requires further discussion is not evolution, but how a minister can say such stupid things.”
Neither Roman nor Maciej Giertych, nor Orzechowski, responded to Nature’s request for comment.
Alec
 
steveandersen and hecd2,

I sympathise with your predicament. Perhaps you should get together and write a letter rebuking his biological statements, and get it published in Nature.

After all, he’s only a population geneticist and Academian. What does he know about it? 🙂
 
steveandersen and hecd2,

I sympathise with your predicament. Perhaps you should get together and write a letter rebuking his biological statements, and get it published in Nature.

After all, he’s only a population geneticist and Academian. What does he know about it? 🙂
Maciej Giertych comments were not directed to at a research paper that supported evolution (typically published in the Articles and Letters in Nature) and these types of papers are rife in Nature in the News section of Nature. He did not debunk any of the scientific evidence that supported evolution.

I’ll leave the challenge to you to publish scientific evidence against the theory of evolution in Nature.
 
Origen

It is irrelevant what Origen wrote because he was deposed by Bishop Demetrius in 231 A.D., later excommunicated by Bishop Heraclas and then anathematised by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. St. Jerome, who defended using whatever was orthodox in Origens writing stated in his letter to Vigilantius that “Origen is a heretic.” As it happens, Origen, although a great allegorizer, believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old.
I see that you are determined to continue on your strategy of puffing up marginal, dodgy figures and organisations with the open pretence that they are authorities (Berthault, Giertych, Kolbe Center) provided they support your erroneous ideas, and denigrating conventionally accepted authorities (JPII, Origen, the entire scientific community) when they oppose your personal, idiosyncratic theology.

Origen is a Church Father, and widely recognised as one of the most, if not the most, influential Christian systematic theologians in the first 400 years of Christianity. Here, here, here, here. The fact that he supported the idea, now widely accepted amongst all serious theologians, that parts of the Bible should be read allegorically, is in opposition to your ideas, rooted as they are in the Seventh Day Adventist prophetess Ellen White, and the evangelical engineer Henry Morris; this sets you against him and leads you to attempt to discredit his opinions out of hand.

However, he was a Church Father, and a highly respected one: here, here, and here.

It is appallingly disingenuous for you to write as you have done, and not to acknowledge that Origen’s anathematisation is disputed, and that in any case, he is regarded by the Church as a Church Father and therefore his opinion (as well as others that I have listed) disproves your contention that the Fathers unanimously believed in creation within (or in - with regard to the evidence they are the same) six natural days.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
steveandersen and hecd2,

I sympathise with your predicament. Perhaps you should get together and write a letter rebuking his biological statements, and get it published in Nature.

After all, he’s only a population geneticist and Academian. What does he know about it? 🙂
Apparently nothing whatsoever. He seems to think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. As I said, if he ever gets a paper published in Nature or any respectable journal then that would be something.

I think you fail to understand the status of letters to Nature which carry no scientific weight whatsoever. They are not peer reviewed and do not form part of the formal reporting of scientific matters. In other words, Giertych’s peculiar creationist ideas do not constitute a scientific controversy.

I am sorry to disappoint you about this, but I am afraid your ignorance about the way science is reported has led you into yet more error.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Apparently nothing whatsoever. He seems to think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. As I said, if he ever gets a paper published in Nature or any respectable journal then that would be something.

I think you fail to understand the status of letters to Nature which carry no scientific weight whatsoever. They are not peer reviewed and do not form part of the formal reporting of scientific matters. In other words, Giertych’s peculiar creationist ideas do not constitute a scientific controversy.

I am sorry to disappoint you about this, but I am afraid your ignorance about the way science is reported has led you into yet more error.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Actually, I think the editors of Nature need to be admonished by Richard Dawkins because they published Giertych’s response.

See: pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

Some original research papers in Nature are referered to as “letters” and they have scientific value.
 
Hecd << However, he was a Church Father, and a highly respected one >>

Origen like Tertullian are not “technically” Church Fathers since they are not “saints” (not St. Origen or St. Tertullian, etc). But they are important early Church writers (sometimes called “Fathers”). That Origen supported an allegorical understanding of “days” is important evidence that the early Church was not “unanimous” on the meaning of the “creation week.”

It is with Origen (c. 220 AD) that we have the first explicit reference by an early Church writer to infant baptism and the perpetual virginity of Mary as being true apostolic tradition. He is frequently cited on these two doctrines, so Origen is not irrelevant. He had some views that were later considered heretical. Fr. William Jurgens (The Faith of the Early Fathers, a standard apologetics source) on Origen agrees with Alec:

“The disputes known as the Origenist controversies, in respect to the orthodoxy of his doctrine, arose never during his life, but three times after his death: c. A.D. 300, c. A.D. 400, and c. A.D. 550. He was a great scholar and a great theologian, and strove always to be Catholic in his faith. Yet, he came finally to be regarded as a heretic, which accounts largely for the fact that so many of his writings have perished entirely…It is generally stated that Origen’s heresies are nowhere clearer than in his work on ‘The Fundamental Doctrines’ [De principiis]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that he is generally very careful to distinguish between Catholic doctrine and his own speculations, which latter he presents as no more than possibilities which would have to stand the test of acceptance or rejection in the teaching Church. The work undoubtedly suffers from an overly active Platonic influence, and from allegorical interpretation of Scripture; yet, it stands firmly and immovably and without pretence as neither more nor less than a theological monument of absolutely epic proportions.” (Jurgens, volume 1, p. 189-190)

Phil P
 
It is well known that Popes don’t personally write every communication they make, especially for less important matters like greeting the PAS. That is why they have secretaries and advisors. If you don’t want to consider the possibility that H.H. John Paul II didn’t write the PAS letter in question then you are forced to explain the following error contained in that letter:

Why was it wrongly inferred that H.H. Pope Pius XII held an erroneous philosophical notion - evolutionism - in equal measure to Catholic Truth? Do you really think that a trained philosopher such as H.H. John Paul II would mix up a condemned set of philosophical ideas with the study of biological evolution? Why would he call “evolutionism”, which is philosophical, a “hypothesis”, a word that has a connotation to the natural sciences? It is clear that what was meant was the sudy of biological evolution, not evolutionism.

Do you really think that a Pope, a trained philosopher, would have made such a serious and elementary blunder? I await your reply with interest, hecd2.
My reply is simple. JPII put his name to this address and therefore it should be regarded as JPII’s opinion. In order to discount it you are willing to suggest that he was incompetent between 1992 and his death in 2005. If we accept that then we should discount everything that he put his name to in that period (because once we admit that he was duped into putting his name to one thing that he didn’t agree with through incompetence, we are unable to support anything at all that he signed or said with confidence).

Yours is, of course, a grotesque and insupportable position. Politicians and popes do have speeches and letters written by others throughout their careers - that in no way excuses them for taking responsibility for what they put their names to - what is said by JPII or signed by JPII is his.

Let us be quite clear. Your claim is that JPII was so incompetent in 1996 that he let himself be duped by a anti-magisterial secular organisation into saying things that are heretical. How many on this list will support that view?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Hecd << However, he was a Church Father, and a highly respected one >>

Origen like Tertullian are not “technically” Church Fathers since they are not “saints” (not St. Origen or St. Tertullian, etc). But they are important early Church writers (sometimes called “Fathers”). That Origen supported an allegorical understanding of “days” is important evidence that the early Church was not “unanimous” on the meaning of the “creation week.”

Phil P
Phil, thank you for this, but where did you get your definition that Church Fathers must be saints? Origen is listed as a Church Father by the New Advent Encyclopaedia here, and in every other list of Fathers of the Church that I have seen. In all lists, there are many who are not saints.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Some original research papers in Nature are referered to as “letters” and they have scientific value.
Indeed so, and I regret any confusion I might have caused.

In Nature, refereed papers that form part of the body of science are called ‘Brief Communications’ (soon to be dropped and much lamented), ‘Articles’ (long papers) and ‘Letters’ (briefer papers that form the bulk of Nature’s science reporting).

Letters to the editor that are basically opinion pieces and that do not form part of the body of science are in a one-page section called Correspondence. Giertych’s communication is here. It requires no scientific refutation.

(Nature also publishes highly referencing and learned papers called Reviews that do not report any new science, but formally summarise and integrate research findings in some imporatant scientific field.)

Alec
evolutonpages.com
 
My reply is simple. JPII put his name to this address and therefore it should be regarded as JPII’s opinion. In order to discount it you are willing to suggest that he was incompetent between 1992 and his death in 2005. If we accept that then we should discount everything that he put his name to in that period (because once we admit that he was duped into putting his name to one thing that he didn’t agree with through incompetence, we are unable to support anything at all that he signed or said with confidence).

Yours is, of course, a grotesque and insupportable position. Politicians and popes do have speeches and letters written by others throughout their careers - that in no way excuses them for taking responsibility for what they put their names to - what is said by JPII or signed by JPII is his.

Let us be quite clear. Your claim is that JPII was so incompetent in 1996 that he let himself be duped by a anti-magisterial secular organisation into saying things that are heretical. How many on this list will support that view?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Alec MacAndrew (son of St Andrew), God bless you for coming to the defense of Pope John Paul whom I dearly love. I agree with what you have written Alec and I don’t support the view that “JPII was so incompetent in 1996 that he let himself be duped by a anti-magisterial secular organisation into saying things that are heretical.”

Tearfully, may we rejoice in thanksgiving~

Wildleafblower
 
steveandersen and hecd2,

I sympathise with your predicament. Perhaps you should get together and write a letter rebuking his biological statements, and get it published in Nature.

After all, he’s only a population geneticist and Academian. What does he know about it? 🙂
Don’t temp me because the words “sod all” come to mind
But I won’t say that

To be charitable, he knows less then the 50 scientists who are protesting his work. He is a politician with a constituency to please.

Do you have any technical papers he has published that support his views?

PS he is not a population geneticist he works with trees.
 
On who is a “Church Father” I think I got this from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers and/or Quasten’s Patrology. Tertullian and Origen are technically not “Church Fathers” but early Church or “ecclesiastical writers.” From that old Cath Ency article: “Early authors, though belonging to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are simply ecclesiastical writers…”

Origen, Tertullian, and others who are not “saints” are often included as “Church Fathers.” Anyway carry on…

Phil P
 
I have not seen any rebuking. If you want to do that then you need to start experimental programmes yourself and get your opposing data published in the scientific literature. All I have seen is sins against the Eighth Commandment being thrown about.
PoG, you should have considered the Eight Commandment when you attacked my dear Pope John Paul in msg. 205:(

Here is a letter that agrees with Pope John Paul:

*July 12, 2005

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Vatican City

Your Holiness:

In his magnificent letter to the Pontifical Academy in 1996 regarding the subject of Evolution, Pope John Paul II affirmed that scientific rationality and the Church’s spiritual commitment to divine purpose and meaning in the Universe were not incompatible. The Pope accepted that biological Evolution had progressed beyond the hypothetical stage as a guiding principle behind the understanding of the evolution of diverse life forms on Earth, including humans. At the same time, he rightly recognized that the spiritual significance that one draws from the scientific observations and theory lie outside of the scientific theories themselves. In this sense, claiming that evolution definitely implies a lack of divinity, and/or divine purpose in nature is as much an affront to science as it is to the Church.

The Holy Father also recognized: “It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.” Since scientific investigations have repeatedly confirmed evolution by natural selection as a guiding principle for understanding the development of the diversity of life on Earth, theologians who are interested in exploring such questions as human dignity and purpose must take this mechanism into account in their considerations. As he put it, quoting from Leo XIII, truth cannot contradict truth.

These principles were reinforced more recently in explicit statements by the International Theological Commission, headed by you before your election as Pope. As the Commission document explicitly states, “God is…the cause of causes.” As a result, “Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.” Finally, referring to evolution as a “radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation”, the commission nevertheless concluded “even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”

Scientists have been pleased to see a convergence between the views of the Catholic Church and the scientific community on these issues, in particular on the compatibility between the results of scientific investigation and Church theology. One of us recently wrote an essay in the New York Times, for example (see attached), praising precisely the Church’s understanding of the compatibility of scientific investigation and religious belief, even when the process being investigated, like Evolution, appears completely contingent.

[snip due to space restraints-- re:Cardinal Christoph Schšnborn, archbishop of Vienna]

It is vitally important, however, that in these difficult and contentious times the Catholic Church not build a new divide, long ago eradicated, between the scientific method and religious belief. We are writing to you today to request that you clarify once again the Church’s position on Evolution and Science, that you reaffirm the remarkable statements of Pope John Paul II and the International Theological Commission, so that it will be clear that Cardinal Schšnborn’s remarks do not reflect the views of the Holy See.

We thank you for your consideration to this request, and wish you continued strength and wisdom as you continue to lead the Catholic Church in these difficult times.

Sincerely,

on behalf of:
Lawrence M. Krauss (Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Director, Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics, Case Western Reserve University)
Prof. Francisco Ayala (University Professor and Donal Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of Calfornia, Irvine)
Prof. Kenneth Miller (Prof of Biology, Brown University)

cc. His Eminence Cardinal Christoph Schšnborn,
His Excellency William J. Levada, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.*

genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/papalletttxt.htm
 
Posted by wildleafblower
You should have considered the Eight Commandment when you attacked my dear Pope John Paul!
I have not attacked His Holiness John Paul II. I have questioned the legitimacy of a certain phrase in a letter to the PAS and doubted whether His Holiness was responsible for it.

You, and some of your colleagues, need to get over your wild emotionalism and deal with the facts at hand. You have all neglected to comment on the difference between biological evolution and 'evolutionism" and why the letter should propose evolutionism. Attempting to stiffle reasoned discussion with emotional bluff and bluster is not at all impressive.

But, at the end of the day, whatever the cause of the misuse of the word “evolutionism” the fact remains that the P.A.S letter does not constitute a Magisterial pronouncement in regard to Creation or Origins.
 
Posted by steveandersen
PS he is not a population geneticist he works with trees.
Yet more ad hominem. He writes that he is a population geneticist. Are you calling him a liar? What proof do you have for your accusation that he is not a population geneticist?
 
I have not attacked His Holiness John Paul II. I have questioned the legitimacy of a certain phrase in a letter to the PAS and doubted whether His Holiness was responsible for it.
BAH! PoG, everyone with a degree of reason and logic that has read your comments on this page knows the truth that you did attack him [Pope John Paul II] by attempting to discredit what he wrote and questioning his mental state of mind! Shame on you.😦 In my opinion, your continued attempt to unraval what Pope John Paul has clearly stated in writing only confirms a deep conficted desire is to eliminate and discredit the brilliant academicians of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences who support evolution and replace them with ‘your’ Kolbe Center’s Advisory Board. That will never happen!
 
Origen’s anathematisation may well be disputed by certain people but the fact remains that the anathema is held in the Synodical Acts held in the Vatican archives. There is also the question of his excommunication. Was this ever revoked? Not as far as I know. PhilVaz is correct to point out that he is not a Church Father. It goes further than that. If the excommunication and/or anathema pronounced against him are valid, and he was not reconciled before his death, he is not a member of the Church full stop. You may as well appeal to the writing of Martin Luther or John Calvin to attempt to find support for your case. Please deal with the facts at hand. I can’t be putting up with more wild emotionalism.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html
(Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 336.)
Halloix, Garnier, Basnage, Walch and others suppose, and Vincenzi maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a later insertion in this anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas, the Origenist, was one of the most influential members of the Synod, and would certainly have prevented a condemnation of Origen; further, (b) because in this anathematism only such heretics would be named as had been condemned by one of the first four Ecumenical Synods, which was not the case with Origen; (c) because this anathematism is identical with the tenth in the omologia of the Emperor, but in the latter the name of Origen is lacking; and, finally, (d) because Origen does not belong to the group of heretics to whom this anathematism refers. His errors were quite different.
All these considerations scent to me of insufficient strength, or mere conjecture, to make an alteration in the text, and arbitrarily to remove the name of Origen. As regards the objection in connection with Theodore Ascidas, it is known that the latter had already pronounced a formal anathema on Origen, and certainly he did the same this time, if the Emperor wished it or if it seemed advisable. The second and fourth objections have little weight. In regard to the third (c) it is quite possible that either the Emperor subsequently went further than in his omologia, or that the bishops at the fifth Synod, of their own accord, added Origen, led on perhaps by one or another anti-Origenist of their number. What, however, chiefly determines us to the retention of the text is: (a) that the copy of the synodal Acts extant in the Roman archives, which has the highest credibility, and was probably prepared for Vigilius himself, contains the name of Origen in the eleventh anathematism; and (b) that the monks of the new Lama in Palestine, who are known to have been zealous Origenists, withdrew Church communion from the bishops of Palestine after these had subscribed the Acts of the fifth Synod. In the anathema on the Three Chapters these Origenists could find as little ground for such a rupture as their friends and former colleague Ascidas; it could only be by the synod attacking their darling Origen. (c) Finally, only on the ground that the name of Origen really stood in the eleventh anathematism, can we explain the widely-circulated ancient rumour that our Synod anathematized Origen and the Origenists.
Excommunication of Origen by Demetrius
newadvent.org/cathen/01300b.htm
With the successors of Julian we have something more than a mere list of names. Demetrius governed the Church of Alexandria for forty-two years, and it was he who deposed and excommunicated Origen, notwithstanding his great work as a catechist.
Excommunication of Origen confirmed by Heraclas
newadvent.org/cathen/07242a.htm
Heraclas was made a priest by the long-lived Bishop Demetrius. When in 231 the latter condemned Origen, who remained at Cæsarea, Heraclas became head of the school. Soon afterwards he succeeded Demetrius as bishop. According to Theophilus of Alexandria (in Gennadius, “De vir. ill.”, xxxiv), when Origen returned to the city, Heraclas deposed him from the priesthood and banished him (cf. the life of St. Pachomius in Acta SS., 14 May, §21, and the probably spurious “Mystagogia” of St. Alexander of Alexandria, in Routh’s “Reliquiæ Sacræ”, IV, 81). This statement is supported by an interesting fragment of Photius (Synag. kai apod.; 9), who probably had good authority. It runs as follows (Döllinger, “Hippol. und Kallist.”, 264, Engl. transl. 245): "in the days of the most holy Heraclas, Origen, called Adamantius, was plainly expounding his own heresy on Wednesdays and Fridays; the said holy Heraclas therefore separated him from the Church and drove him from Alexandria, as a distorter of the wholesome doctrine and a perverter of the orthodox faith. Origen, thus excommunicated, on his way to Syria reached a city called Thmuis…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top