Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[Monkey1976]

As long as the Pope didn’t embrace neo-darwinism (microbe-to-man evolution), then it’s ok to believe in evolution, variation, genetics and big bang under the theistic umberella.

That isn’t neo-darwinism. Protip: If it ends in “-ism”, then it’s not science, it’s philosophy. Genetics, evolutionary biology and physical anthropology are sciences, not philosophies.

 

[anthony022071]

False.

Just like atheists, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

No,I’m pointing out that MN really is a naturalistic view. Naturalism is simply a view that excludes the supernatural. That way of viewing the world does not amount to a philosophy. It doesn’t matter that science does not claim that only nature exists. The manner of explanation proceeds from the naturalistic view and leads people to a naturalistic understanding of how nature works,even if they believe in God and the doctrine of creation.

Misconceptions:

1. Methodological naturalism is a godless invention.

False. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of the scientific method, and was invented by the first scientists who were all believers. They did so because they wanted to study the laws of nature that they believed God had given (the term law of nature itself has religious connotations, implying a lawgiver) and which, according to them, governed the secondary causes created by the First Cause, God.

It doesn’t matter that the early scientists were believers. The exclusion of knowledge of divine causation leads scientists to attribute creative powers to nature that it doesn’t have.
It leads to explanations that portray nature as self-sufficient. The scientific study of nature does not require the total exclusion of divine causation. People can do honest scientific research without the excluding knowledge of God’s power in nature. Methodological naturalism came about as a rejection of the Catholic,scholastic view of causation.

1. Science would do better if it would abandon methodological naturalism.

False. Science is successful precisely because it adheres to methodological naturalism. What if it would say at every step, “God did it”, instead of investigating natural causes? It would go nowhere.

I practice science every day, and I practice methodological naturalism every day. I do this as a believer, continuing a tradition initiated by the first scientists who were all believers. Without methodological naturalism I could not do my work as a scientist.

Scientific research does not require pretending that only natural causes are real. The success of science has to do with the increased interest in the study of nature since the 1500’s,and the monetary support for scientific research that comes from schools,governments and businesses. NM is a false view of nature and manner of explanation. It leads to false assessments of natural causation,with regard to the origins of matter,order,life,species and human thought.

Before MN,people did not simply say “God did it” about all natural phenomena to the exclusion of natural causes. No-one thinks that way. The natural philosophers and scholastic philosophers and theologians acknowledged natural causes in themselves as well as divine causation.

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. If atheists want to promote that confusion, then fine, they know nothing about philosophy, and they know nothing about the boundaries between science and philosophy. You should not be so stupid to follow in their footsteps.

I’m not following them. But methodological naturalism really is a naturalistic view of nature. Hence the name.

You are influenced into a silly re-definition of science as promoted by creationist websites. Get over it. They are wrong.

You just suggested that I was influenced by atheists.

Science is not defined by MN,it is defined by research and experimental methods.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Methodological naturalism came about as a rejection of the Catholic,scholastic view of causation.

Nonsense. And, you are still confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, just like atheists do (shrug).

 

[anthony022071]

It sounds like we agree almost 100%. The way I see it is that even if the scientific notion that the universe comes from nothing is naturalistic in origin that does not mean that they aren’t on to some piece of the truth anyway. In fact they have come upon a really big piece of the truth-- they are just missing the most important part which is God. There are still similarities there to appreciate.

If scientists were saying that the universe came from nothing but left it at that,and did not attribute energy to nothingness and claim that the universe was produced by nothingness,then they would be near to the truth. But methodological naturalism and reductionism leads them to the absurdity of seeking natural causation even in nothing and to invent hypothetical mechanisms where none can be found.

Thanks for understanding what I’m saying.

 

[anthony022071]

Nonsense. And, you are still confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, just like atheists do (shrug).

You can read for yourself about the attitude of Galileo,Francis Bacon,Descartes towards scholastic philosophy.

Naturalism is simply the view that only nature exists. MN is the assumption of that view for scientific purposes. Do you at least agree with that? What is the difference in perspective between the scientific assumption that only nature exists and the belief that only nature exists? There is no difference in perspective,only a difference of context. If you pretend in your scientific work that only natural causes are real,then you are thinking along the lines of naturalism. The naturalistic view is false in the context of science just as it is false apart from science.

Since MN excludes knowledge of divine causation,it makes natural causes the ultimate causes. So MN is practically a metaphysical view,even though it does not deal with questions about metaphysics.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You can read for yourself about the attitude of Galileo Francis Bacon,Descartes towards scholastic philosophy.

Naturalism is simply the view that only nature exists. MN is the assumption of that view for scientific purposes. Do you agree with that? What is the difference in perspective between the scientific assumption that only nature exists and the belief that only nature exists? There is no difference in perspective,only a difference of context. If you pretend in your scientific work that only natural causes are real,then you are thinking along the lines of naturalism. The naturalistic view is false in the context of science just as it is false apart from science.

Since MN excludes knowledge of divine causation,it makes natural causes the ultimate causes. So MN is practically a metaphysical view,even though it does not deal with questions about metaphysics.

Every single reply of yours on this issue continues to show that you are still confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, just like atheists do.

And by the way, scholastic philosophy has been out of favor with, and misunderstood by, many theists since centuries. That is nothing specific to the persons that you cited. And yes, methodological naturalism fits perfectly into scholastic philosophy. You are wrong that it is the scientific assumption that only nature exists. The scientific assumption is that for every natural effect a natural cause can be found, which is very different. If these natural causes are the secondary causes that God creates (perfectly fitting with scholastic ideas), or atheistic ‘godless’ causes, is a philosophical question about which science has nothing to say.

In a 1998 statement titled Teaching about Evolution and Science, the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said:

“At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world …] Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

Science is not defined by MN,it is defined by research and experimental methods.

…which are defined by MN.

 

[rossum]

The classification could be subject to change then. I believe we will see a new classification system soon based on genetics. It will be quite different then the current one.

You believe incorrectly. The current classification system was developed by-and-large before the discovery of DNA sequencing. It was based on the appearance and anatomy of living organisms and fossils.

When DNA sequencing was discovered, the Linnaean (as adjusted) tree was cross-checked with the DNA tree. The two trees, independently derived, agree to within 12 decimal places of accuracy. As a contrast, the current theory of gravity is accurate to about 8 decimal places.

The Linnaean tree and the DNA tree are in very substantial agreement. Humans are Hominidae, and are most closely related to the Chimpanzees, with the Gorillas coming next closest.

While changes are still possible, they are more on the level of one obscure marine invertebrate being moved from one twig of the tree to a nearby twig on the tree. The placement of Homo sapiens is very unlikely to change, less than 0.0000000000001 probability.

rossum

 

[truetofaith]

I wonder if any of us have evolved after reading the debates in this thread ?

Jim

I’m evolving into a Fundamentalist!

 

[franklinstower]

If scientists were saying that the universe came from nothing but left it at that,and did not attribute energy to nothingness and claim that the universe was produced by nothingness,then they would be near to the truth. But methodological naturalism and reductionism leads them to the absurdity of seeking natural causation even in nothing and to invent hypothetical mechanisms where none can be found.

Thanks for understanding what I’m saying.

I do understand what you are saying and I think we agree. I think that scientists are our allies and they can come as close to accurate conclusions about the origins of the universe as you can come without acknowledging a creator. They must be careful not to attribute things to God because that can sometimes lead one to stop filling in the gaps in our knowledge of physics.

I am with you though and I think that some scientists are now beginning to language and therefore “think” with a bias to exclude a creator-- or at least the language of those theories and explanations does seem to be almost born of this need.

What I hope for is the scientific discovery of certain “energies” perceived throughout history by the mystics, to be detected in some verifiable way. I am not saying Gods energy will be detected necessarily – just the wind blowing off of it. I think once we detect these energies and are able to measure the influence of these energies on physical reality we will find the influence of them in every area of life and wonder just how it is that we missed it for so long.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When DNA sequencing was discovered, the Linnaean (as adjusted) tree was cross-checked with the DNA tree. The two trees, independently derived, agree to within 12 decimal places of accuracy.

What does this even mean? How does one compare two classification trees with a numerical value? If there is a numerical way of comparing them, you would think 12 decimal places of accuracy must mean there were at least 1,000,000,000,000 different comparisons that could be made. But are there even that many points in the current classification tree? Really? One trillion different life forms classified? I don’t think so. Therefore I’ve got to believe this 12 decimal places of accuracy nonsense is just mathematical jargon with no real meaning behind it.

While changes are still possible, they are more on the level of one obscure marine invertebrate being moved from one twig of the tree to a nearby twig on the tree.

How does this conclusion follow from the close agreement between Linnaean and DNA classification? It looks like a non-sequitur to me.

The placement of Homo sapiens is very unlikely to change, less than 0.0000000000001 probability.

Another unsubstantiated guess.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If scientists were saying that the universe came from nothing but left it at that,and did not attribute energy to nothingness and claim that the universe was produced by nothingness,then they would be near to the truth. But methodological naturalism and reductionism leads them to the absurdity of seeking natural causation even in nothing

False. This has nothing to do with methodological naturalism but with the ignorance of some scientists regarding philosophy. They do not understand the difference between real nothing (the philosophical nothing) and the ‘physical nothing’ of the quantum vacuum, which of course is not nothing, but a field.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think that some scientists are now beginning to language and therefore “think” with a bias to exclude a creator-- or at least the language of those theories and explanations does seem to be almost born of this need.

Agreed.

But this of course is due to the personal view of metaphysical naturalism of these scientists, not due to the methodological naturalism of science itself. There is nothing in science itself that would provoke naming a quantum vacuum*) ‘nothing’. On the contrary, the strictly scientific description of a quantum vacuum is that it is a field.

*) from which hypothetically (very hypothetically, that is) a universe might arise

 

[buffalo]

You believe incorrectly. The current classification system was developed by-and-large before the discovery of DNA sequencing. It was based on the appearance and anatomy of living organisms and fossils.

When DNA sequencing was discovered, the Linnaean (as adjusted) tree was cross-checked with the DNA tree. The two trees, independently derived, agree to within 12 decimal places of accuracy. As a contrast, the current theory of gravity is accurate to about 8 decimal places.

The Linnaean tree and the DNA tree are in very substantial agreement. Humans are Hominidae, and are most closely related to the Chimpanzees, with the Gorillas coming next closest.

While changes are still possible, they are more on the level of one obscure marine invertebrate being moved from one twig of the tree to a nearby twig on the tree. The placement of Homo sapiens is very unlikely to change, less than 0.0000000000001 probability.

rossum

The programming rossum, the programming.

 

[buffalo]

Better translation was recently released.

“God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

 

[NeedsMercy]

I suppose scientism is better in our secular culture.

I don’t believe anyone on this thread was arguing in favor of scientism.

 

[clem456]

Better translation was recently released.

“God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Can it be assumed that you accept this as a legitimate Catholic point of view?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Seems the Pope might agree

In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium, for example, Pope Francis reminded us that: Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio), the Church . . . calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence (Evangelii gaudium, 242).

First, I have to assume that you cannot support your argument against chromosome 2 fusion, which is strange because (1) you brought the topic up in the first place; and (2) you insisted that we discuss the points made by Tomkins.

Second, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. When you say that His Holiness “might agree”, what or who are you saying he is agreeing with?

Third, you left out a very important part of paragraph 242 of Evangelii Gaudium. Let’s print the entireties of paragraphs 242 and 243:

Dialogue between faith, reason and science

1. Dialogue between science and faith also belongs to the work of evangelization at the service of peace. [189] Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences”, [190] the Church proposes another path, which calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence. Faith is not fearful of reason; on the contrary, it seeks and trusts reason, since “the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God” [191] and cannot contradict each other. Evangelization is attentive to scientific advances and wishes to shed on them the light of faith and the natural law so that they will remain respectful of the centrality and supreme value of the human person at every stage of life. All of society can be enriched thanks to this dialogue, which opens up new horizons for thought and expands the possibilities of reason. This too is a path of harmony and peace.

1. The Church has no wish to hold back the marvelous progress of science. On the contrary, she rejoices and even delights in acknowledging the enormous potential that God has given to the human mind. Whenever the sciences – rigorously focused on their specific field of inquiry – arrive at a conclusion which reason cannot refute, faith does not contradict it. Neither can believers claim that a scientific opinion which is attractive but not sufficiently verified has the same weight as a dogma of faith. At times some scientists have exceeded the limits of their scientific competence by making certain statements or claims. But here the problem is not with reason itself, but with the promotion of a particular ideology which blocks the path to authentic, serene and productive dialogue.

[189] Cf. *Propositio *54.

[190] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Fides et Ratio *(14 September 1998), 88: AAS 91 (1999), 74.

[191] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, I, 7; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Fides et Ratio *(14 September 1998), 43: AAS 91 (1999), 39.

(emphasis mine)

 

[NeedsMercy]

To criticize design one must know the purpose of the design. The designer must be asked.

I was merely highlighting the point of the QUEST article.

But to address your comment. So, what you’re saying is that, since God cannot be asked the purpose for creation, we are not allowed to criticize the use of intelligent design to explain it? Even when we have reason which is beginning to explain it differently?

 

[RGCheek]

Agreed.

But this of course is due to the personal view of metaphysical naturalism of these scientists, not due to the methodological naturalism of science itself. There is nothing in science itself that would provoke naming a quantum vacuum*) ‘nothing’. On the contrary, the strictly scientific description of a quantum vacuum is that it is a field.

*) from which hypothetically (very hypothetically, that is) a universe might arise

You are totally right, but removing decades of secular media mishmashing of the two is a hefty load.

I have no time for it. If they don’t get it the third time and bid them good luck.

You have the patience of Job.