Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[PhilVaz]

dc << I am sensing that for many reasons the theory of evolution in fact takes a lot of faith to believe. Do you find this to be true? >>

I don’t. Not that I understand ALL the science, but I have read enough to see the various lines of evidence, it doesn’t require faith to believe it. For a short article with lots of detail, see my Cliffs Notes of Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. This is from the Nov 2002 version, he’s updated quite a bit since then.

dc << What more would you have me do? I am reading it. I am sorry I do not read at the speed of light. >>

Hey hey the topic is biology, paleontology, and evolution, not physics. Hee hee.

dc << How can you tell me that these fossils that you have proposed are not in fact individual species of their own? Still puzzeled by the idea of a whale having lungs. >>

That’s one explanation that Hugh Ross (old earth creationist) has used. In one of his radio programs (Reasons To Believe) he has said of the land-mammal to whale transition (specifically Ambulocetus):

“That’s just another kind of whale that God created.”

I kind of lost respect for him after that. Whether God is the Creator ultimately is another question (which I believe), but I don’t see how anyone can’t be impressed by the whale sequence. There are about 15 or 20 additional intermediates from what I understand, also the present idea is they evolved from artiodactyls (cow-like creature), not necessarily mesonychids (wolf-like creature) who are closely related. Alec can fill you in on details.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

Another challenege I seem to be coming up in my own mind with, is a creature like a whale.

Like a whale. What a coincidence that you should bring this up. We have been talking about artiodactyls, right? Artiodactyls are even toed ungulates. Pigs are artiodactyls. Whales (cetaceans) are descended from primitive artiodactyls in the clade of mesonychiana - animals with paraxonic limbs. The evidence from the fossil record and from molecular biology is quite clear - whales and pigs had a common ancestor in early mesonychians.

As I understand the evolution of evolution it goes something like

tiny thing>small things> little fish> big fish> reptiles> birds> and mammals come in there somewhere near the end. However, what on earth would cause an animal after so much work becoming a land creature, with lungs, and live young go back to living underwater?

Your understanding is very very naive. What are tiny things? What are small things? Fish are gnathostomata which are not even near the level phyla. There are 35 phyla: fish and humans are in the phylum chordata, the subphylum vertebrata, the infraphylum gnasthotomata.

Whales are in gnasthotomata, in superclass tetrapoda, in class mammalia. Why did they go back to the water? Because there was a living to be made in the sea, in the niche vacated by the extinct pleiosaurs and icthyosuars (which were also tetrapods, and also air breathers - there are precedents for returning to water you know,as Mary Anning discovered). Of course we can observe both mammals (seals, sea-lions, otters) and birds (penguins) partly evolved back to a water environment.

I realize this is overly simple, but it does seem challenging to explain.

It is immensely over-simple, and not challenging to explain.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

Above, my google was indeed not broken, I copy pasted a bunch that were not to be found on the interweb.

Tell me three that you struck out on and I am 75% certain to find web based data on ALL three. You’re just not trying hard enough. Watch out for the shards.Googles have incredibly sharp fragments when they are broken - you can injure yourself seriously on broken or misused googles.

However, I would like some clarity on your stance here. Are you proposing theistic evolution, or atheistic evolution?

I am not ‘proposing’ anything. I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I am offended by those who reject scientific evidence on religious grounds and I am motivated to show the absurdity of their position. I do not recognise any distinction between theistic and atheistic evolution - evolutionary biology is science and has no interest or any authoritative opinion on whether it is or is not initiated by a supernatural act. It’s all one to me and to scientists doing science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Intelligent%20Design.htm

 

[PhilVaz]

dc " tiny thing>small things> little fish> big fish> reptiles> birds> and mammals come in there somewhere near the end "

Well of course I was being funny, but a slightly more detailed path is actually:

invertebrates > vertebrates > primitive fish > sharks, skates, rays, and bony fish > tetrapods (amphibians) > reptiles > mammals and birds > primates and man

with something like this at the end:

http://www.bringyou.to/EvolutionMan.jpg

or the Devolution to Artiodactyls version:

http://www.bringyou.to/Devolution.jpg

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Alec, I remember this article! PhilVaz ( Phil Porvaznik) and several other members here helped you with it. The article states*,"Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, recognised this when he wrote in the July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution: "But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” In this statement, Ratzinger seems to get successfully and smoothly to the very nub of the issue that Schönborn struggles with.*

I found on the Vatican website INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God* CHAPTER THREE
IN THE IMAGE OF GOD: STEWARDS OF VISIBLE CREATION,

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge the above quoted exerpt in 69. “…But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation…”

However, at the bottom of the page, “As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Perhaps PhilVaz could give me a website to that quote until that time I’m left wondering if Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the above mentioned quote you have in your article, though I do think he “endorsed” it.

The article needs to be updated. I noted a few items but need to review my notes and am without time right now.

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << Perhaps PhilVaz could give me a website to that quote until that time I’m left wondering if Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the above mentioned quote you have in your article, though I do think he “endorsed” it. >>

Ratzinger might not have actually penned the ITC statement, but as president of this theological Commission he had to “OK” the document. At the bottom it says “the present text was approved in forma specifica” which means (I had to look this up)

“An act approved by the pope in forma specifica becomes an act of the pontiff. It cannot be attacked before an administrative jurisdiction, for there is no appeal or recourse possible against a sentence or a decree emanating from the Roman Pontiff…” (SOURCE: The Papacy: An Encyclopedia under “Papal Abbrobations” by Philippe Levillain, page 96)

“The decrees of a national council may not be promulgated until they have received the approval of the pope. The decrees of a provincial synod have no force until they have been approved by Rome. This approval is twofold: ordinary (in formâ communi), and specific (in formâ specificâ). The former means that there is nothing which needs correction in the decrees of the synod, and they thereby have force in the province. This is the approval generally given to such decrees. If approval is given in formâ specificâ the decrees have the same force as if they emanated from the Apostolic See, though they are binding only in the province for which they are made.” (SOURCE: Catholic Encyclopedia under “Decree” volume 4, page 670)

Sounds pretty authoritative to me, although the ITC document may not have been approved “in forma specifica” by the Pope himself (JPII at the time). It says by the ITC, then by Cardinal Ratzinger. Another version is on my site without the fancy background.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

Phil P

There’s in fact great leaps between these creatures, but because they look similar, one can easily conceptualise that this is an evolutionary path. This is more a product of imagination, finding patterns there.

Check out this link

 

[Montalban]

If you get your science from the Answers in Genesis website then you will be sadly deceived.

That’s simply based on an a priori about whether evolution took place or not.

If you think evolution did happen, then you’re likely to think those who don’t to be unscientific.

I do note however a lot of people here championing evolution AND God are plainly not up to scratch with what evolution is - it is a materialistic event. No need for God at all.

I also note some here fail to realise that this ‘science’ is simply dominated by the philosophy of science (materialism/naturalism) and that there’s more than one scientific method.

My reasons for not believing in it is that the Early Church Fathers say were were created. Jesus says so too.

Further, I find it funny when evolutionists propose several mutually exclusive theories at the same time and we’re supposed to find that more convincing than belief in Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

God did not decieve us; we assumed that God put us at the centre. I do not believe that such ideas where driven by proper scienctific reseach.

God did put us at the centre. Check out Adam’s relationship to the Garden of Eden in Genesis.

I believe that proper science should not assume that God did it as presented by the bible.

I believe that there’s a heirarchy of truths and I put God first.

It appears that animals developed over time. “Science” as a study of nature", should start with the senses

The senses can be deceived.
There are areas of science that offer no predictions too. There’s many shades of science. In maths Turing’s Stopping Machine experiments offer only experiment, not prediction - other than one can’t predict the outcome until the experiment has taken place. Further, you can repeat experiment and be continually wrong, without realising it…Take for example, you’re working in a lab, and you want to describe a newly discovered bacteria. You look into the microscope, you see the little bugs moving around in an ‘agitated’ manner. You publish your findings. Months later other labs around the world read your work. There is some doubt. Other scientists have samples of the bug. Each conducts their own observations under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your paper then enters the main-stream of thought as a ‘truth’ concerning an aspect of this bug.

BUT WAIT… it’s not as simple as that. To observe the bacteria, you used a microscope. You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!

(a paraphrasing of an example from “Chaos” by Gleick)

It is more reasonable that God, who is timeless, made one timeless act which produced the unraveling of the universe which eventually lead to evolution.

It’s perfectly reasonable that God chose to use what ever means he chose to use. However once he’s told you, you should believe him.
Here’s what he says…
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

God coming and going at every step of the way, is possible, but is the least reasonable of the two.

The problem with this, however is that he’s using a means in which he’s unecessary (at all the stages), at least insofar as evolution is actually taught - not as most people here believe it to be. Evolution, as proposed by the actual scientists who believe in it note that it is a wholly naturalistic process.

The world is not flat.

It is in parts.

 

[Montalban]

Flawed research, which got better and more precise over time.

So when scientists were wrong, and said “We’ve got evidence the earth is millions of years” and people like you championed this over the Bible, it doesn’t matter. A few decades later they pushed it back further and people like you still stepped up to say you don’t believe the Bible, but believe man. This is simply the result of the very first sin; pride. Adam thought that he could be a god by using his own limited resources.

This is the prevelant belief now - we’re so smart. I have reason to accept the limits of my own sense of reason. I therefore have faith.

God would never decieve human beings; he knew that there would be a problem with evolution and faith, yet there is know evidence that the world was created in 6 days. What do you think that means?

The evidence is in the Bible! You missed it.

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying that St Ephraim the Syrian is infallible?

You put fallible scientists ahead of him.

He was God-inspired. They were motivated by what?

 

[Montalban]

If you go along the lines, for example, of interpreting heaven as a “place” rather then a state of being, then i can understand your confuesion, when it comes to reconciling Christian theology with evolution.

We fall spiritually, not physically. The fall was spiritual.

Heaven must also be a place because we’ll have bodies there.

 

[Montalban]

Don’t you think that there would be a problem with over crowding, if what you are saying is in fact true?

What problem with over-crowding? Man didn’t start to have babies until after the fall. There was over-crowding of two? (Adam

• Eve) ?

 

[Montalban]

We are primates. We have all the distinguishing characteristics of primates:You are a primate.

You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your
toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have
only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your
abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis
and a well-devoloped ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although
your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some
varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and
relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced
to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive
print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic
to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia, (which is deadly to
all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you’d be better
beware of these spiders.). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all
the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it
supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one
of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is
almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions
separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you,
and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

Source: You are an Ape

rossum

This is circular logic. I’m a primate, because you call me that! Wow! Someone classifies me in an animal group, therefore I am one.

I have a soul. I was created to be with God.

 

[Montalban]

Then allow me to rephrase:

God created man with a purpose, but that creation took millions of years of evolution before the first proto-humans arrived, and yet more time before homo sapiens arrived on the scene - of which Adam and Eve were the first.

Why cannot God use evolution to create man in His image? Why, if I assume that evolutionary theories are correct, can I not also believe that death is a consequence of sin and that God instilled souls in the first homo sapiens to walk the planet?

God could have, but he told us he created us in his image. Not ‘we evolved into his image’. Or that he just arbitarily picked a primate and made it man.

Why must we insist that it’s either God or science? All wisdom – scientific,philosophical, or artistic – comes from God, and enables us to better understand the grandeur of creation, which gives us a slightly better understanding of His majesty.

Peace,
Dante

EDIT: Anything can be explained without God

That’s false.
Explain God, by your premise.

– that doesn’t mean the explanations are true, or that the thing itself is invalid. Physics, biology, chemistry – all the sciences – can be undertaken from the starting point that There Is No God without altering the facts that are observed and the theories that are based on those facts.

The problem here is that the Bible doesn’t say
“We believe 2 + 2 = 4”
In the case of evolution -v- creation there are competing claims.

 

[Montalban]

"abu kamoon:

Post Modern thought is predicated on Evolutionism, including Marxism, Nazism and of course, racism. The world has come to believe a lie. Well, not the whole world.

Science is not normative it is descriptive. If someone wants to misuse science for political ends it is not the fault of the science.

Firstly, I don’t believe he said science was normative. Secondly what constitutes a miss-use of science?

There were oppressive governments and racism long before there was evolution or science.

If science is truly ‘descriptive’ then it is very old.

Blaming science for Nazis is like blaming Christianity for the KKK.

Nazism is scientific-racism. Whilst racism did pre-date evolution, evolution made it respectable… even in a ‘moderate’ form, such as the eugenics envisioned by left-wingers, such as Fabian socialists.

You statements indicate you have a poor understanding of what evolution actually states

Another point you seem to have missed. Much of the ‘evidence’ of fossils is simply lining them up in a speculative order to describe a possible path of evolution - based on a startling number of assumptions - including that species become more complex.

Things do not “morph” (metamorphosis is an entirely different process) and if you can’t clearly discern the difference between a designed/fabricated object like a car and an evolved organism then I’m not sure where to begin.

Many palaeontologists can’t discern between fabricated and natural things.

Modern cars have components in them (such as electronic ignition) that bare no relation to the parts that preformed similar functions in older models. Whole new systems were put in. Not so with living things. We share designs (including the faults in those designs) with our remote ancestors

That’s simply false and indeed shows how little you know about evolution. I suggest you start with looking at Darwin himself and how he speculated a complex eye might have evolved, all the way back from a photo-sensitive ‘spot’.

If cars evolved they would still come with a horse.

So we still have gills?

Proof is for liquor and math not science

Maths is a science, as well as a tool of science, such as English is studied as a liberal art, as well as used as a tool in liberal arts (et al).

Tell me what kind of proofs they have for the whole body of theoretical sciences?

 

[Steve40]

My comment is that the Pope is wrong. He is human and subject to personal error. What I don’t understand is why he feels compelled to show his ignorance. If he thinks it doesn’t matter then just shut up. What the Pope doesn’t understand is that how we view the meaning of being human is related to what we believe about the process that brings humanity about.

A lot of Catholics see the culture of death we live in as being rooted in the way humanity views pro-creation. This is true but this lie of Satan (old flat head) is accompanied by another lie and that lie is evolution. Our bodies coming from the bodies of the animals is equivalent to having sex with animals. When a woman bears a child within her womb it is another type of one flesh union. Mary, the New Eve and Jesus the New Adam shared this one flesh union. Did Adam share a one flesh union with an animal? There is no evidence of it, contrary to what the Pope may think. Evolution is a distortion of what it means to be human and being gift of self.

 

[Montalban]

My comment is that the Pope is wrong. He is human and subject to personal error. What I don’t understand is why he feels compelled to show his ignorance. If he thinks it doesn’t matter then just shut up. What the Pope doesn’t understand is that how we view the meaning of being human is related to what we believe about the process that brings humanity about.

A lot of Catholics see the culture of death we live in as being rooted in the way humanity views pro-creation. This is true but this lie of Satan (old flat head) is accompanied by another lie and that lie is evolution. Our bodies coming from the bodies of the animals is equivalent to having sex with animals. When a woman bears a child within her womb it is another type of one flesh union. Mary, the New Eve and Jesus the New Adam shared this one flesh union. Did Adam share a one flesh union with an animal? There is no evidence of it, contrary to what the Pope may think. Evolution is a distortion of what it means to be human and being gift of self.

I think he’s wrong too.

I post evidence from Church Fathers. Several posters have pointed out that these Fathers are fallible. True. So is the Pope. So are the scientists. But for some reason they choose the scientists. Obviously those fallible people are better than the fallible Church Fathers

 

[Steve40]

I think he’s wrong too.

But for some reason they choose the scientists. Obviously those fallible people are better than the fallible Church Fathers

The scientists they choose to believe are out of date and don’t have the most current information. With genetics there is less to believe about evolution then ever before. I think it is great to look to the Church Fathers, but God is revealing the truth just in Creation itself for those who have eyes to see it.

Unfortunately, in the past I couldn’t just take the Church and the Word of God at face value and it is my weakness. God has seen my weakness and in this case has offered proof. I pray in the future I can believe without seeing. The Pope needs to understand that for many scientists and engineers this issue makes a difference in their faith.

 

[Montalban]

The scientists they choose to believe are out of date and don’t have the most current information. With genetics there is less to believe about evolution then ever before. I think it is great to look to the Church Fathers, but God is revealing the truth just in Creation itself for those who have eyes to see it.

A good book for them would be “Darwin’s Black Box”