Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[hecd2]

Sunday August 19, 2007. The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“…the response to Behe has been predictable. The editors of the major print media have assigned known enemies of ID to trash the book - Richard Dawkins for the New York Times; Coyne for the New republic; Miller for Nature; Ruse for Toronto’s Globe & Mail. A large part of each review is ad hominem, concerned with Behe’s alleged religious agenda, his minority status among biologists, and other irrelevant matters. In Dawkins’ review, the science is barely touched, and it’s not clear from Ruse’s review that he has even opened the cover of the book. Behe deserves better. The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.”

Cameron Wybrow is a freelance writer with a doctorate from McMaster University. He has published two books on the origin of modern science.

The Phildelphia Inquirer? Aren’t we looking for an important publication?. Cameron Wybrow? Who? Just what science has Cameron ever done? Interesting that Behe’s book has produced one, just one, positive review, and that was by a unknown. C’mon, is that the best you can do?

Basically, Behe has been shredded, left, right and centre, notwithstanding Wybrow’s (whose?) isolated positive review. You are backing an absolute loser.

Did you miss what Sean Carroll had to say about the book in Science:

" “The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.” Those are the words that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s confidant and staunchest ally, purportedly murmured to a colleague as he rose to turn Bishop Samuel Wilberforce’s own words to his advantage and rebut the bishop’s critique of Darwin’s theory at their legendary 1860 Oxford debate. They are also the first words that popped into my head as I read Michael J. Behe’s The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it, Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them… But to arrive at this conclusion, Behe relies on invalid assertions about how genes and proteins evolve and how proteins interact, and he completely ignores a huge amount of experimental data that directly contradicts his faulty premises…" And so it goes on - Carroll’s review is scientifically detailed, fully referenced with empirical data and up-to-date science and utterly devastating. The fact is that Behe is busted. His errors are so gross that no knowledgeable biologist of note takes him seriously.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[bankerdavid]

Sowing confusion. Sad.

In the beginning, they were made male and female, not asexual protozoa.

The Bible is the starting point for all knowledge. God was there and communicated to His people.

If there was no Adam and Eve who sinned, why did Christ appear, a living sacrifice for all?

The Theory of Evolution relies on a totally mathematically unlikely series of events. In breeding horses or dogs, one always ends up with a horse or dog. There may have been slight, limited changes but dogs remained dogs.

Evolution is being used as a deception to distract Christians from key Biblical truths, revealed by God.

I am a Creationist who believes Intelligent Design (not the political kind) is far more sensible, with God as the designer.

Look at an Anteater. This animal was once a fish? A protozoa? Give me a break.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, ask yourself: Why the constant posting about evolution? My answer: to negatively affect you faith. God told the truth in the Bible. Jesus spoke of Noah as an actual person. And miracles from God happen all the time.

Every creature was made by God.

God bless,
Ed

If you’re talking about the theory of evolution where there is no hand of God involved, I’m with you. But the evolution/creation debate is not either/or, it’s both/and. As long as you start with the statement ‘God started it’, that’s good enough for me.

 

[edwest2]

God started it? How do you know that?

God created the Heavens and the earth and nothing was created without Him. So, nothing arose or was created without Him.

Evolution? No. Everything looks designed because it is.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

Sowing confusion. Sad.

who is sowing confusion?

In the beginning, they were made male and female, not asexual protozoa.

Eukaryotes actually. We share a common ancestry with protazoa but no one claims that we ever were protazoa. So you are right there
And since that text refers to humans, you are right.
When the first true humans came about they were male and female.

The Bible is the starting point for all knowledge. God was there and communicated to His people.

Yes, but it is not a science textbook.

If there was no Adam and Eve who sinned, why did Christ appear, a living sacrifice for all?

Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve. It cannot. Evolution deals with populations and not individuals.

The Theory of Evolution relies on a totally mathematically unlikely series of events.

Nonsense. The conception of an individual human is improbable but it happens all the time.

Would you care to share what exactly you think is mathematically unlikely and why?

In breeding horses or dogs, one always ends up with a horse or dog. There may have been slight, limited changes but dogs remained dogs.

You will note of course that horse & dog breeding are unnatural section but that aside, horse and dog breeding by humans have only been around for a few millennium. Evolution doesn’t claim that speciation of such complex animals would occur in such short time frames so holding up its failure to do what it doesn’t claim to do is not the best argument.

Speciation has been observed in both the lab and in the field.

Evolution is being used as a deception to distract Christians from key Biblical truths, revealed by God.

Since this thread is about comments that the Pope made regarding evolution what exactly are you suggesting?

I am a Creationist who believes Intelligent Design (not the political kind) is far more sensible, with God as the designer.

And how does this conflict with evolution?

Look at an Anteater. This animal was once a fish?

No, but its distant ancestors were. A close examination of the extant class Sarcopterygii gives excellent examples a transitional species.

A protozoa?

Eukaryote

Give me a break.

Incredulity is also not the best argument.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, ask yourself: Why the constant posting about evolution?

I’m thinking either fundamentalist lurkers or poor science education in the schools. Maybe both.

My answer: to negatively affect you faith.

A science experiment can affect your faith?

I don’t subscribe to some God of the gaps theology where learning about the world can somehow diminish Him.
I’m sticking with the CCC which states that science can lead to a greater appreciation and wonder of the glory of creation.

God told the truth in the Bible. Jesus spoke of Noah as an actual person. And miracles from God happen all the time.

Yes they do.
But miracles are … miraculous. They are not in the province of science.

Every creature was made by God.

Agreed. And He appears to use a gradual process we call evolution to do it.

God bless,
Ed

Thank you,
You too

 

[edwest2]

Nope. I disagree with all of your points, and my incredulity stems from the fact that at one time, science included God. By strictly limiting itself to a non-God worldview, science (as you define it) ignores the reality of Jesus Christ.

Man was created as he is now by God. Period. In the mid-1800s, an idea was needed to eliminate God, evolution was that idea. Millions of years and “poof” man. Don’t buy it. Natural selection, genetic drift, environmental pressures, etc. Not even feasible.

Any creature, or population of creatures, waiting around for even a thousand years for a particular mutation while the environment changed around them, would be dead. All that science knows about evolution is from currently living organisms. Same planet, same design template.

Evolution is an idea designed to keep God away from man. That’s not why Jesus Christ came to earth to die for you and me.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Nope. I disagree with all of your points, and my incredulity stems from the fact that at one time, science included God. By strictly limiting itself to a non-God worldview, science (as you define it) ignores the reality of Jesus Christ.

And by doing so becomes an amazingly effective means of discovering the way the natural world works. Godidit explanations, are universally, utterly useless at providing any insight into natural phenomena.

Man was created as he is now by God. Period.

Great argument. That’s bound to convince all thoughtful people.

In the mid-1800s, an idea was needed to eliminate God, evolution was that idea. Millions of years and “poof” man.

Aren’t you at all embarrassed by this strawman?

Don’t buy it. Natural selection, genetic drift, environmental pressures, etc. Not even feasible.

And your argument rests on what theoretical or empirical basis? You do realise that your personal and ignorant incredulity does not constitute contrary evidence?

Any creature, or population of creatures, waiting around for even a thousand years for a particular mutation while the environment changed around them, would be dead.

Indeed - it’s called “extinction” and it happens all the time - it’s rather depressingly common at the moment.

Evolution is an idea designed to keep God away from man.

No. evolution is an idea designed to explain our observations of the natural world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The fact is that Behe is busted. His errors are so gross that no knowledgeable biologist of note takes him seriously.

Oh, and just to add a little more to Behe’s embarrassment, this is what the website of his own university department has to say:
“The faculty in the department of biological sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

This is from HIS OWN department at Lehigh University who are so embarrassed by Behe’s silliness that they feel bound to disclaim him in this almost unique way.

Here is Jerry Coyne (who, unlike Whybrow - who? - has a raft of very impressive biological research under his belt):

" The overweening strategy of IDers, and their creationist forebears, is to say that everything that we do not understand is evidence of the existence of God. I can imagine IDers of two centuries ago claiming that God made the sun shine, because until 1938 we had no idea where all that energy came from. It was not until quantum mechanics arrived out of left field that the physicist Hans Bethe was able to surmise, correctly, that the sun is a giant fusion reactor, converting hydrogen atoms into helium and energy. Who knew?

One of the great joys of science is that we never know what will happen next. Who could have guessed twenty years ago that dinosaurs probably became extinct after a giant meteorite collided with Earth and produced a “nuclear winter”? IDers would deprive us of this essential excitement, urging us to stop working when we come up against the hard problems and to ascribe our difficulties to God. They would have us join the herd of the benighted who proclaim so confidently that they have descried the bounds of our knowledge."

Aloec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

You’ve invoked the magic word “ignorant” as if I only had the missing knowledge I would see. I see alright.

What you are not addressing is the use the interpretation of the alleged evidence for evolution is being put to. A look through the internet will reveal the following:

You and I are animals.

There is no afterlife.

God who? Surely, you’re joking.

Rational means no medieval religions, like, you know, Christianity.

Science is god, no religion allowed. By the way, that is not the science I know or was raised on. This artificial barrier was raised by people like Sam Harris who talks about “the alien hiss” of religion and his disdain for those who look like scientists but still talk about religion. A very sad turn of events.

So you and I are not referring to science but to a belief system based on a Theory (go to any reputable scientific web site and it’s always the Theory of Evolution). A theory designed to raise man above God and finally, to eliminate Him. The Pope knows what he’s talking about, having heard, no doubt, from many scientists. He also talks about “those fooled by atheism.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

To repeat,

Tipler (2007:130):
“Physics says exactly the same: there is nothing in reality that is outside unitary (i.e. deterministic) time evolution: Final Cause.”

I am absolutely certain that you don’t have the faintest notion what unitary time evolution is. And I have to say that I have no idea why Tipler wants to introduce the Hilbert set to this discussion.

General Editor Catechism Catholic Church (CCC):
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of Divine Providence - simply cannot exist.”

General Editor CCC:
“Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but as John Paul put, an abdication of human intelligence.”

Grouping the the two CCC quotes - the General Editor of the CCC, Christoph Schoenborn, is not a scientist, never was and never will be, and his views on evolutionary processes and on what is and is not a scientific theory carry no authority and are, basically, worthless. He is unqualified to tell scientists what constitutes good science. He is also terribly confused about several scientific concepts including that of randomness and the theory of evolution itself. I explain all this in detail here, but, in summary, he can be safely ignored on this topic:

evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Alec

 

[antonyluby]

Grouping the the two CCC quotes - the General Editor of the CCC, Christoph Schoenborn, is not a scientist, never was and never will be, and his views on evolutionary processes and on what is and is not a scientific theory carry no authority and are, basically, worthless. He is unqualified to tell scientists what constitutes good science. He is also terribly confused about several scientific concepts including that of randomness and the theory of evolution itself. I explain all this in detail here, but, in summary, he can be safely ignored on this topic:

Dear Alec,

Cardinal Schonborn is an eminent representative of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches quite firmly that there is no unguided evolution outwith Divine Providence. Quite simply, with repect to the creation of human beings - ‘Goddidit.’ Therefore, you can safely be ignored on this topic.

 

[Steve40]

Oh, and just to add a little more to Behe’s embarrassment, this is what the website of his own university department has to say:
“The faculty in the department of biological sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
evolutionpages.com

It’s an interesting tactic to try to discredit inteligent design by showing your own stupidity. Scratch Lehigh University off the list, they stink.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

What you are not addressing is the use the interpretation of the alleged evidence for evolution is being put to.

I don’t see how the misuse of a theory or its evidence is the refutation of said theory or evidence.

If I misuse the biological process of procreation via in-vitro fertilization, does that refute how new human beings are created?

If I misinterpret a passage in the Bible, does that refute the validity of its Truth?

If I misinterpret the tracks on the ground for a cat, does that mean a dog never came through my deck?

I also read somewhere along this thread that evolution cannot be true because why would God put in place a process that doesn’t require Him? That’s like saying the biological process of procreation cannot be true because, on its face, it doesn’t require God to create a human being. The biological process of procreation says nothing about the soul, just as the theory of evolution says nothing about God as the creator of all.

 

[steveandersen]

…What you are not addressing is the use the interpretation of the alleged evidence for evolution is being put to. …

Just because something may be put to uses that you don’t like doesn’t mean that it is wrong.

Dynamite may be used to build tunnels or blow up cities. That doesn’t make Chemistry wrong.

Religion can be used to motivate people to great works of charity or to make folks drink the poisoned kool-aid. That doesn’t make God wrong.

Evolution can be used to make industrial waste-eating bacteria to clean the planet or drug resistant diseases. That doesn’t make biology wrong.

And to my mind a rejection of evolution is bad for the faith because it may turn away those we may wish to convert or force believers into a false yes or no position.

As the CCC says the natural sciences just prove the greatness of Creation.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

It’s an interesting tactic to try to discredit inteligent design by showing your own stupidity. Scratch Lehigh University off the list, they stink.

I guess you ran out of reasoned arguments.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Tim writes:

Bringing up Berthault will require you to explain his erroneous conclusions. His experiments were valid, his conclusions were not. Even his associate, Pierre Julien, disagrees with his conclusions. They are not rational, but they are certainly in line with his goal of reconciling his belief in a literal reading of Genesis with science. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t get the science right.

If you believe Berthault’s conclusions are erroneous and irrational, and his science wrong you should in all justice give reasons. As the Russian Academy of Sciences Geological Institute has published his work and invited him as a guest speaker to their National conference in November 2006 and are collaborating with his current experimental research programme, they obviously do not share your belief.

He continues:

By the way, when one speaks of “higher” and “underlying”, what do you think the average person thinks of? A vertical orientation or a horizontal orientation?

It would be more appropriate to refer to the “average sedimentologist” rather than the “average person”. The answer can be found from his website: www.sedimentology.fr

 

[Orogeny]

If you believe Berthault’s conclusions are erroneous and irrational, and his science wrong you should in all justice give reasons. As the Russian Academy of Sciences Geological Institute has published his work and invited him as a guest speaker to their National conference in November 2006 and are collaborating with his current experimental research programme, they obviously do not share your belief.

They are wrong if they share his opinion. Throwing out names like that is a great way to confuse those who don’t know anything about sedimentation, but anyone who has had physical geology (freshman in college) has been taught about cross-bedding and rapid deposition. It is very telling that Dr. Pierre Julien, one of Berthault’s co-authors, disagrees with Berthault’s conclusions.

By the way, when is Berthault going to address a major sedimentological convention here in the US?

It would be more appropriate to refer to the “average sedimentologist” rather than the “average person”. The answer can be found from his website: www.sedimentology.fr

I have studied sedimentology. Have you? I don’t recall ever being taught that lateral equals higher or underlying. If you were taught that, you probably need to ask for your money back from the institution you attended, because it is wrong.

Linking to Berthault’s webpage to justify Berthault’s opinions is a bit silly, isn’t it?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

When I took chemistry in college, the amount of evolution required was zero, zip, none.

Evolution is not the whole of science.

A conversion experience requires the supernatural work of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son. And science fits into this where? I appreciate the work scientists have done, but I cannot and will not use evolution to witness to someone about the supernatural and human Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Any comments on this article?

Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution
Article from: Reuters
By Philip Pullella in Loranzago di Cadore, Italy
July 26, 2007 07:49am

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory
of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” 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.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question ‘where does everything come from?’“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

etc…

As a scientist and a man of faith, I found the Holy Father’s statements very easy to relate to. While I would like to believe that the Bible’s story of creation is accurate, it conflicts with the fossil record. This doesn’t mean that humans being created in one day is not possible(since all things are possible through God), it just seems improbable.

Personally, I don’t think it really matters if the Bible’s version is accurate or not - most people’s faith would be unshaken either way. Who’s to say the “creation” of man was a physical one, and not a point at which we humans gained the ability to reason? Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first homosapiens to receive enlightment from God, thereby creating humankind as it currently exists? Luckily, unlike our Fundamentalist brothers, we don’t have to cling to the Biblical version of events like a Captain going down with his ship!

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,

Cardinal Schonborn is an eminent representative of the Catholic Church.

Of course he is, and by taking an uneducated stance against neo-Darwinism, a stance that is fuelled by his deep misconceptions of the science and the concepts of randomness, he brings the church into disrepute amongst knowledgeable people.

The Church teaches quite firmly that there is no unguided evolution outwith Divine Providence.

In just the same way, the Church teaches that there is no unguided procreation of humans, in spite of the all the very random processes that go into the procreation of a new human being. If the Church can reconcile randomness and divine providence in procreation (which it has no choice but to do), why can It and you not accept it in neo-Darwinism?

Quite simply, with repect to the creation of human beings - ‘Goddidit.’ Therefore, you can safely be ignored on this topic.

Ignore me if you like. No skin off my nose.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

Scratch Lehigh University off the list, they stink.

They will be desolated by the fact that you do not have them on your list. That’ll teach them to stick up for science. Never mind - you can go to MIT or Harvard or Oxford or Imperial College instead.

Alec
evolutionpages.com