Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Montalban]

mont << Unfortunately the very process of evolution doesn’t require God >>

I assume again you mean M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N?

If you have that much trouble typing out my name, then our conversation’s at an end. (familiarity breeds contempt)

The scientific process of biological evolution (descent with modification by natural selection) might not REQUIRE God, but it does not metaphysically or philosophically EXCLUDE God since science studies the natural world and doesn’t deal in philosophy or metaphysics (except that imposed or brought in by the scientist).

The Pope and myself agree:

It has never been my contention that God might not be at work behind a process of natural development. If you want to believe God is at work, behind the scenes, so be it. However you can’t contend (as some here have done) that God wants us to know him through it as it doesn’t point to God at all. Further, as noted aspects of it blatantly contradict the Bible account, including Jesus’ own words that there was a beginning with a male and a female, and the ECFs also believe that we were created.

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In The Beginning commentary on Genesis by Cardinal Ratzinger)

No. It DOES explain how we came into being; miraculously.

Evolution doesn’t say this at all.

 

[Renton405]

I wonder what is Benedicts view on the 7 days of creation…it seems the CC dosen’t have a definitive answer on the 7 days or “peroids” of creation. Some people say that since God is outside human time and reality that 24 hour days don’t apply because God dosen’t operate in the confines of human time…

I myself lean towards more a creationism. I don’t believe we came from monkeys, i think that is absolutly ridiculous…

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I’ve already stated this.

The theory of evolution - as it’s actually taught by scientists and not how people here might like to imagine it, is a process of explaining the rise of species by purely naturalistic means.

There is NO PLACE FOR GOD in that system.

Good point, and it has always been that way. Darwin wanted nothing to do with God, this evolution system he latched onto fit his need perfectly.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< I assume again you mean M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N? If you have that much trouble typing out my name, then our conversation’s at an end. (familiarity breeds contempt) >>

Montalban, I use the << >> as a habit from the Internet type quoting. Call me PV for short, thanks. OK your quotes:

<< However you can’t contend (as some here have done) that God wants us to know him through it as it doesn’t point to God at all. >>

SAYS WHO? The very fact there is a world and universe points to God. (First Cause arguments). The fact that the world and universe is finely-tuned for life points to God (Design-type arguments). The fact there is an objective morality in this world points to God (axiological arguments for God). Miracles (verified ones by the Church) point to God. I know skeptics and atheists have problems with the conclusion, but these are things that point to God for the theist.

Science (forming hypotheses, making observations, testing them against the natural world, etc) doesn’t point to God, philosophy does. There is a difference between the scientific method and philosophy. As for Jesus and the early Church Fathers, they weren’t giving us science lessons. Genesis in particular describes the world in the cosmology in use at the time. So says John Paul II:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

So says Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (a pre-Vatican II book), see pages 92-93 especially.

FURTHERMORE, evolution (descent with modification by natural selection) was not atheistic as proposed by Darwin:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, from 2nd to last edition, chapter 14, last sentence)

The word “Creator” appears at least seven times, and the word “creation” dozens of times.

<< No. It DOES explain how we came into being; miraculously. Evolution doesn’t say this at all. >>

Well of course not since science isn’t about miracles. Science measures, observes, and tests things in the natural world using natural methods and means. One more quote from biologist Darrel Falk, a theistic evolutionist (or “gradual creationist” since he uses the term “gradual creation” throughout the book):

“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)

The Falk book is a good one to get. Others are slightly more sophisticated: Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, and Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (no relation).

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

RR << Darwin wanted nothing to do with God, this evolution system he latched onto fit his need perfectly. >>

Darwin was an agnostic near the end of his life, but in 1859 he believed in God. As pointed out above, Origin of Species uses the word “Creator” (in a positive sense) at least seven times, and refers to “creation” dozens of times. A good article to check out is Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design by Denis Lamoureux (a theistic evolutionist or “evolutionary creationist” as he calls himself).

Darwin was to be an Anglican minister early in life, certainly believed in a God when he rode the H.M.S. Beagle (1830s) and at the time he wrote the Origin (1859), but it is true he moved away from that (probably due to the death of his daughter) later in life. An informative audio program (MP3) is with Charles Darwin biographer, James Moore interviewed by Krista Tippet (on my site).

Phil P

 

[Reformed_Rob]

RR << Darwin wanted nothing to do with God, this evolution system he latched onto fit his need perfectly. >>

Darwin was an agnostic near the end of his life, but in 1859 he believed in God.

Darwin was to be an Anglican minister early in life, certainly believed in a God when he rode the H.M.S. Beagle (1830s) and at the time he wrote the Origin (1859), but it is true he moved away from that (probably due to the death of his daughter) later in life.
Phil P

So was death the result of sin, or was it in the world long before sin?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

RR << Darwin wanted nothing to do with God, this evolution system he latched onto fit his need perfectly. >>

Darwin was an agnostic near the end of his life, but in 1859 he believed in God. As pointed out above, Origin of Species uses the word “Creator” (in a positive sense) at least seven times, and refers to “creation” dozens of times.
Phil P

Funny, so do Masons and most Baptist preachers, who happen to be Masons. It helps to be ambiguous, because then you can appeal to lots of people. Some of the people all of the time.

 

[PhilVaz]

Rent << I myself lean towards more a creationism. I don’t believe we came from monkeys, i think that is absolutly ridiculous… >>

Of course monkeys, the great apes, and us all had a common ancestor. We didn’t come from modern monkeys. And the evidence is at your local bookstore or public or university library:

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (Randon House paperback, 2004)
Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

I’ve checked these out from U.S.F. (Tampa). Two TalkOrigins sources provide all the evidence you need:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

RR << Funny, so do Masons and most Baptist preachers, who happen to be Masons. >>

The claim was that Darwin was an atheist. That claim is wrong. He was not an atheist at the time he wrote Origin. He was not an atheist at the end of his life. By his own words, he was agnostic at the end of his life:

“…at the time of writing the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause…[at the end of his life] he was always insistent that he was agnostic and had ‘never been an atheist’…” (from Charles Darwin’s views on religion)

The theory of evolution was not developed because of someone “who wanted nothing to do with God” but someone who believed in God and gathered evidence for his scientific theory for 30 years and published that evidence. Since Darwin’s time, the evidence has only become stronger. Read that Lamoureux article, and listen to the program with James Moore as well. Thanks.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

<< I assume again you mean M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N? If you have that much trouble typing out my name, then our conversation’s at an end. (familiarity breeds contempt) >>

Montalban, I use the << >> as a habit from the Internet type quoting. Call me PV for short, thanks.

I’d rather not. My name means a lot to me.

OK your quotes:

<< However you can’t contend (as some here have done) that God wants us to know him through it as it doesn’t point to God at all. >>

SAYS WHO? The very fact there is a world and universe points to God. (First Cause arguments).

Firstly it doesn’t point to God, necessarily. Many gods may have been at work, if one believes in many gods. Secondly, we don’t need to contemplate arguments for such when God himself says he is the cause. It’s like saying “Sure, I believe in God, but I’d also like to sit down and work out some nice little mind-puzzles that might prove him also”.

The fact that the world and universe is finely-tuned for life points to God (Design-type arguments).

Same as above; or some race of hyper-dimensional beings.

Miracles (verified ones by the Church) point to God.

And here’s where your argument falls down. Your church investigates these micarcles with panesl of scientists. When they find someone has been cured when they should have died, it points to something super-natural. Evolution does not. There’s no need to believe in a super-natural if you accept evolution

I know skeptics and atheists have problems with the conclusion, but these are things that point to God for the theist.

But evolution DOES NOT

Science (forming hypotheses, making observations, testing them against the natural world, etc) doesn’t point to God, philosophy does. There is a difference between the scientific method and philosophy.

See above re: Catholic testing for miracles

As for Jesus and the early Church Fathers, they weren’t giving us science lessons.

But as with the above tests, if I saw Jesus turning water into wine, then I have ‘observed it’, and I can put it to the test by trying it myself, getting my friends to do so, and testing this against any known cases of such things hapening.

Genesis in particular describes the world in the cosmology in use at the time. So says John Paul II:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

Genesis tells us God created man. Evolution says man came into being through natural means.

 

[Montalban]

Rent << I myself lean towards more a creationism. I don’t believe we came from monkeys, i think that is absolutly ridiculous… >>

Of course monkeys, the great apes, and us all had a common ancestor. We didn’t come from modern monkeys.
Phil P

By what means did we arise? If you check your local library, actually if you checked it back when I did Prehistory our textbook was Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”,

As to the ascent of man (though it says ‘descent’; itself a loaded term), there were many different theories then that had currency. Each followed scientific method, and each had its fair share of evidences to support it.

My textbook stated that each of the following;
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School’
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
were all valid possibilities to the pathway our ancestors took. This seemed ludicrous to me (then, and still), that each mutually conflicting theory would be accepted (as long as it doesn’t involve God). And yet people can say that the evidence points to a conclusion… that is a Godless process took place. Then these people have the hide to laugh at religious people as if they have ‘truth’. What ‘truth’? It’s all up in the air.

Now however we have discarded these mutually exclusive theories and come up with two more (also mutually exclusive)

What good is evidence that points to completely different findings? Well, it says much about the interpreters. One theory is championed by Wolpoff, here’s what he has to say…
“The current controversy is largely a reflection of different scientific philosophies, linked to ideas about race through their treatment of variation. But there is more to it. Even if they have no conscious social agenda, scientists are bound by the same preconceptions as everyone else - their social, religious, and educational backgrounds influence their choices of theories and, perhaps more important, their philosophies of science. Karl Popper noted more than once that it doesn’t matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, wether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to enthusiastic attempts to disprove them. This philosophy forms the basis of deductive science. But hypothesis do come from somewhere, often the underlying assumptions of society. Moreover, not only the differences in sources of ideas, but also different premises scientists have held about evolution, human nature, God, and how science should be done, have always underscored the controversies about human evolution.”
Wolpoff, M & Caspari, R, (1997) “Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction”, p12.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

"Fame and honours brought a stream of enquiries about Darwin’s religious views, leading him to comment “Half the fools throughout Europe write to ask me the stupidest questions.” He sometimes retorted sharply, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God”, and at other times was more guarded, telling a young count studying with Haeckel that he "did not believe that there ever has been any Revelation. From Wikipedia

Maybe Darwin was right on his religious views as well. He did a lot of study on the topic. And he approached it from a natural, scientific means. Beginning as a Christian, he tried earnestly to hold to his Christian faith, but it could not hold up in light of the scientific evidence he discovered. Also, his philosophy, which points some to God, in his case pointed him away from God even more.

Interesting.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

My point being simply, that evolution without Catholicism is a cultural A-Bomb.

I say “Catholicism” because apparently the Orthodox don’t want anything to do with evolution, so I won’t bother troubling them (ie. Montalban) since they don’t want it to begin with.

 

[PhilVaz]

RR << So was death the result of sin, or was it in the world long before sin? >>

Oh no not that discussion again! But I’ll agree it is a theological objection to evolution or an old earth that needs answering (but has nothing to do with the science which still stands). I’ve tried to answer in past threads that cell death, plant death, and animal death has always been here. Human death is what Romans 5:12 is talking about, and specifically spiritual death (the death of the soul or a separation from God). Romans 6:23 is spiritual death as well. Adam/Eve did not physically die the moment they sinned. They experienced a separation from God or death of the soul. The articles that explain this and answer some objections (I know I need to come up with one of my own) are:

Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?
Animal Death Before Human Sin
Death Before the Fall and Cell Death by Glenn Morton (former young-earther and oil geologist)
No Physical Death Before the Fall by Glen Kuban (the “man and dinosaur footprint” debunker guy who is also a Christian)

Some are old earth creationists, some are theistic evolutionists.

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

I say “Catholicism” because apparently the Orthodox don’t want anything to do with evolution, so I won’t bother troubling them (ie. Montalban) since they don’t want it to begin with.

Au contraire:

Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution – as some people may view it – eliminating the need for God as Creator of All.

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, Darwin was right about descent with modification since the evidence is there, but he was wrong about God. Yes, scientists and philosophers do disagree about these things (e.g. the details concerning evolution and its mechanism, and the existence of God, the validity of Christianity, miracles, etc).

I think Montalban keeps bringing up things that have already been answered. But I see he doesn’t want to accept evolution. That’s fine. Just examine the evidence fairly for yourself.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

Au contraire:

You missed a bit…
“In short, then, Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology.”

Darwinism *is *evolution as it is taught; wholly naturalistic.

 

[Montalban]

BTW, Darwin was right about descent with modification since the evidence is there, but he was wrong about God. Yes, scientists and philosophers do disagree about these things (e.g. the details concerning evolution and its mechanism, and the existence of God, the validity of Christianity, miracles, etc).

I think Montalban keeps bringing up things that have already been answered. But I see he doesn’t want to accept evolution. That’s fine. Just examine the evidence fairly for yourself.

Phil P

I’ve discussed ‘the evidence’. You’ve not countered this at all. All you’ve done is to see fit to declare that I should go research it for you - for you offer no argument on this.

I have displayed a knowledge of several theories of man’s ascent, and the problems that they pose. You can address this if you want.

Getting back to my OP, the Pope said…
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
How are we ‘enriched’ by a theory not involving God?

 

[PhilVaz]

Montalban << I’ve discussed ‘the evidence’. You’ve not countered this at all. All you’ve done is to see fit to declare that I should go research it for you - for you offer no argument on this. >>

I’m not sure what you accept. I guess I should go back and read all your posts to others on this subject. Questions I have:

Do you accept the universe is billions of years old? (13 to 15 is the current figure)

Do you accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old (or at least billions, the exact number is not important) ?

Do you accept that dinosaurs lived and died (went extinct) before homo sapiens came on the scene?

Do you allow for macroevolution of animals? (invertebrates to vertebrates to fish to tetrapods to reptiles to birds and mammals to primates)

Do you allow for evolution of the human body? (i.e. that we and the “great apes” have a common ancestor millions of years ago)

You have answered those questions in previous posts? You have presented strong evidence against macroevolution in previous posts? You have presented evidence for a 6000-10000 year old earth in previous posts? I’m not sure what your position is other than you don’t like macroevolution for bad reasons (all dug up from AnswersInGenesis or such sites).

My position is simple: I accept ALL well-established science which includes a 15 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old earth, macroevolution of plants, animals, and man. We’ve known the earth is very old for at least 200 years, we’ve known evolution is true before Darwin, and Darwin gave us a mechanism that is well tested in field and laboratory:

“…there has been a confusion, partly deliberate, of the fact that organisms have evolved with theories about the detailed mechanics of the process. The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker. The universe is over 11 billion years old, and the earth, in particular, is over 4 billion. That is a fact. Life on earth is at least 2.5 billion years old, and, as new evidence accumulates, the best estimate of the origin of life gets pushed further and further into the past. That too is a fact. It is also a fact that there were no mammals or birds 200 million years ago and no vertebrates 600 million years ago, while there are no dinosaurs now. Finally, it is a fact that under conditions that have existed on earth for the last billion years, at least, all living organisms arise from previously living organisms. So, the present complex living forms have evolved by an unbroken and continuous process from the simplest living forms of the pre-Cambrian era. To assert, on the contrary, that the earth and life on it are a paltry ten or hundred thousand years old and that the complex forms living today arose in an instant from unorganized matter is in contradiction not simply with the corpus of biological knowledge but with all scientific knowledge of the physical world. To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Richard Lewontin of Harvard, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983], republished 2007 with revisions and additions on Intelligent Design)

I don’t argue for God from science, but do from philosophy. My position is that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the Catechism from what I see as their view of science, evolution, and God. If you are Orthodox, I missed that. I don’t read the board all that much, but I try to catch all the creation-evolution and James R. White threads when they crop up.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

Montalban << I’ve discussed ‘the evidence’. You’ve not countered this at all. All you’ve done is to see fit to declare that I should go research it for you - for you offer no argument on this. >>

I’m not sure what you accept. I guess I should go back and read all your posts to others on this subject. Questions I have:

I’ve put forward several posts on issues, and rather than deal with them you (arrogantly, I believe) ignore them and present your own questions.

I don’t argue for God from science, but do from philosophy. My position is that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the Catechism from what I see as their view of science, evolution, and God. If you are Orthodox, I missed that. I don’t read the board all that much, but I try to catch all the creation-evolution and James R. White threads when they crop up.

Then you accept that Evolution does not point to God.