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

[edwest2]

The subject is the origination of living species. That has to do with God’s acts of creation by his own power,and with life,which is spirit. The subject is not equivalent to the study of chemistry or mathematics or other disciplines which do not investigate the coming into existence of things or life. That science cannot test the supernatural just means that it cannot have a proper understanding of the origination of species and life. Its naturalistic and mechanistic and reductionist perspective leads to false attributions of creative power to natural causes.

That is the crux of the issue. And that is why I am suspicious of any interest in a non-scientist like Pope Francis being relevant to the scientific method and its conclusions which are limited to natural causes. Pope Benedict has stated in the past that evolution cannot be proven. He did not discount the theory but the critical missing component is God as a direct causal agent in the development of life. Prior to that, Pope John Paul II made a statement that was also widely hailed, but he was referring to theories (plural) of evolution, not just the one most commonly known. This was left out of the praise for the first part of his statement.

Best,
Ed

 

[a_priori]

Atheists claim that an old universe disproves theism. It doesn’t. Creationists claim that an old universe disproves theism. It doesn’t. If you start with a progenitor particle that exploded in the Big Bang, you haven’t explained “the beginning”. I love quantum theory, general relativity and cosmology etc.,etc. It is wonderful to study and consider. But science has described many, many things…yet explained nothing.

 

[rossum]

The subject is the origination of living species.

The origin of the first material living organism is abiogenesis, and that is still a very open question in science.

The origin of more species from that first organism is well understood and is well supported by scientific evidence. It is well enough supported from inclusion in school textbooks.

That has to do with God’s acts of creation

Or by Vishnu’s act of creation, or by Allah’s act of creation, or by Amaterasu’s act of creation etc… There are a great many ideas about the supernatural origin of material life. Do you really want all of them taught in schools?

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

That science cannot test the supernatural just means that it cannot have a proper understanding of the origination of species and life. Its naturalistic and mechanistic and reductionist perspective leads to false attributions of creative power to natural causes.

But you already front-loaded your argument. You believe the supernatural is necessary for the origination of species and life. I don’t believe this is the case (the human rational soul, as immaterial entity, is a different matter). The natural causes, the secondary causes that God created as the First Cause, are doing just fine for this. Even for the origin of life they do, as I am convinced, see my overview article.

leads to false attributions of creative power to natural causes.

It almost seems that you think natural causes are somehow in creative competition with God, as ‘godless causes’. On the contrary, God is the One who created the natural causes through which He continues to create.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Atheists claim that an old universe disproves theism. It doesn’t. Creationists claim that an old universe disproves theism. It doesn’t. If you start with a progenitor particle that exploded in the Big Bang, you haven’t explained “the beginning”. I love quantum theory, general relativity and cosmology etc.,etc. It is wonderful to study and consider. But science has described many, many things…yet explained nothing.

 

[rossum]

#2: The energy he speaks of creating things is itself a physical entity, and therefore had to come into existence at some point, which means that it had to have something beyond the physical reality to create it.

Hesienberg’s uncertainty allows us to have a small amount of energy for a short time for free. As the amount of energy gets smaller, so the time allowed gets longer. If the energy is small enough (as with Hawking’s zero-energy universe) then the time can be very long indeed.

Quantum mechanics is a very strange world. Normal logic works well in the macroscopic world; it is unreliable at quantum scales.

The most important thing to consider when looking at Hawkins’ work is that much of it utilizes i to draw conclusions, meaning that it is using number that don’t actually exist as an attempt to justify his personal view of reality.

No numbers actually exist. As with any other mathematical object, they are defined on the basis of axioms: in the case of the integers, the Peano Axioms. There are other possible definitions as with the various group arithmetics.

My used of the word created does not assume a cause, it demands one.

Can a non-living cause create? If not, then you are inserting an unnecessary assumption of life, and incidentally denying the possibility of any explanation of the origin of life.

You have failed to address the fact that Physical things -cannot- create themselves. Quantum mechanics presupposes the existence of some amount of energy and space in order to work.

See Heisenberg again. A virtual particle can exist for a short time with no external cause and no external energy (name removed by moderator)ut. Macroscopic logic is unreliable in the quantum domain.

Space and energy are physical things, however, and therefore require a progenitor. No matter how many levels up the multiverse you take it, you cannot escape the fact that energy and space had to have been created at some point in time by a force outside of the physical reality.

Why? If the multiverse is eternal, then it needs no external cause.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Hesienberg’s uncertainty allows us to have a small amount of energy for a short time for free. As the amount of energy gets smaller, so the time allowed gets longer. If the energy is small enough (as with Hawking’s zero-energy universe) then the time can be very long indeed.

Quantum mechanics is a very strange world. Normal logic works well in the macroscopic world; it is unreliable at quantum scales.

No numbers actually exist. As with any other mathematical object, they are defined on the basis of axioms: in the case of the integers, the Peano Axioms. There are other possible definitions as with the various group arithmetics.

Can a non-living cause create? If not, then you are inserting an unnecessary assumption of life, and incidentally denying the possibility of any explanation of the origin of life.

See Heisenberg again. A virtual particle can exist for a short time with no external cause and no external energy (name removed by moderator)ut. Macroscopic logic is unreliable in the quantum domain.

Why? If the multiverse is eternal, then it needs no external cause.

rossum

Paul Davies believes God works in the pores of quantum mechanics.

 

[rossum]

That is the crux of the issue. And that is why I am suspicious of any interest in a non-scientist like Pope Francis being relevant to the scientific method and its conclusions which are limited to natural causes.

I am sure that the Pope had some excellent advice from the scientists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Pope Benedict has stated in the past that evolution cannot be proven.

The fact of evolution has been observed. We have seen bacteria evolve immunity and we have seen new species of insects, reptiles and others evolve. IIRC the first instance of observed speciation was seen by de Vries in 1905. Pope emeritus Benedict is correct that the theory of evolution will never be proven since no scientific theory is ever proven. All theories are open to replacement by a better theory, just as Newton’s theory of was replaced by Einstein’s.

He did not discount the theory but the critical missing component is God as a direct causal agent in the development of life.

I would be interested to see a paper showing direct experimental evidence of God as a causal agent. Specifically it would be interesting to see how the experimenters prevented Loki/Trickster messing with the experiment to make it appear that Durga was the deity involved.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Atheists claim that an old universe disproves theism. It doesn’t.

Correct. All an old universe does is to disprove the overly literal Young Earth interpretation of Genesis. All the other old earth interpretations remain unaffected.

rossum

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Hesienberg’s uncertainty allows us to have a small amount of energy for a short time for free. As the amount of energy gets smaller, so the time allowed gets longer. If the energy is small enough (as with Hawking’s zero-energy universe) then the time can be very long indeed.

Quantum mechanics is a very strange world. Normal logic works well in the macroscopic world; it is unreliable at quantum scales.

Rossum, I’m trying to be polite here, but this is the second time you’ve side-stepped the issue.

Where did that energy come from. As a physical entity, it could not have created itself.

No numbers actually exist. As with any other mathematical object, they are defined on the basis of axioms: in the case of the integers, the Peano Axioms. There are other possible definitions as with the various group arithmetics.

Yes, but that specific number is literally called an imaginary number, which means that it doesn’t -actually- exist, even within the confines of theoretical mathematics. It is used in high-level mathematics to complete equations which would otherwise be unsolvable.

Can a non-living cause create? If not, then you are inserting an unnecessary assumption of life, and incidentally denying the possibility of any explanation of the origin of life.

Rossum, bluntly, this makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn’t even remotely apply to what I said. I said that an external creative force is necessary in an effort to distinguish the term create from what you said it was similar to, which it is not.

See Heisenberg again. A virtual particle can exist for a short time with no external cause and no external energy (name removed by moderator)ut. Macroscopic logic is unreliable in the quantum domain.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle does not say what you claim it says. Summed up, it states that:

The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

It has nothing to do with energy popping in an out of existence at random.

Why? If the multiverse is eternal, then it needs no external cause.

rossum

-IF- the multiverse was eternal then sure it doesn’t need any external cause. Similarly, if my batteries never ran out, I wouldn’t need to buy news one, and if my cells didn’t decay I could arguably live forever. The problem is that none of these things are true.

My cells do decay, my batteries do run out, and the multiverse hasn’t existed eternally, for the reason I have given previously (namely, that that would violate the first and most basic principle of physics). Therefore, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for it to have had an external cause that is not part of the physical reality said multiverse would inhabit.

Until you address the fact that physical things cannot create themselves (which, despite your attempts in your last post, you have failed to do), you cannot get around the fact that the universe, or multiverse, or whatever, had a starting point, which means that it was created by some force external to itself.

 

[Rin]

Yes, but that specific number is literally called an imaginary number, which means that it doesn’t -actually- exist, even within the confines of theoretical mathematics. It is used in high-level mathematics to complete equations which would otherwise be unsolvable.

While I am no mathematician, if I remember correctly from Calculus class, this popular explanation is faulty.

The imaginary unit was indeed given its name because at the time of its introduction, it was simply an imagined number that would be the solution of the square root of -1. Since it is not among the real numbers, it was called imaginary. As with all new concepts in mathematics (like the number 0), mathematicians of the time were wary of any new, not previously thought of, and in this case, to be honest, slightly confusing numbers, which contributed to the idea that the imaginary unit didn’t “actually exist”.

However, complex numbers are indeed true numbers, when represented in a Cartesian plane. They correspond to actual values, and are useful not only to complete equations that would otherwise be unsolvable (I have to add that this is not really high-level mathematics; it is basic undergraduate level mathematics), but to represent very real phenomena, like in transient analysis of analog electrical circuits. If the imaginary unit does not “actually exist”, then neither does phase angles between currents.

So while, as previously stated, I am utterly clueless about the specifics about cosmology, the fact that the imaginary unit is used in a hypothesis is hardly grounds for rejecting it. If so, you would have to reject everything we know about electricity, a lot of what we know about physics (even in classical mechanics, if I remember correctly), and so on. The power supply unit of the computer you are reading this text on, would not exist without the imaginary unit.

 

[anthony022071]

When properly presented and understood, evolution does not replace the idea of a grand designer. Instead it enhances the idea of a grand designer by displaying the equally magnificent mechanism that He used to accomplish his design.

The theory of evolution replaces Gods’ creative power with the supposed creative power of natural causes alone,as if nature is self-sufficient. It is a naturalistic,mechanistic and reductionist way of explaining the origin of species. So it does not compliment the doctrine of creation. And before we say that God did something a certain way or used certain “mechanisms”,we have to be sure that it really did happen that way and that the mechanisms are real and have the power to do what is attributed to them,and we have to be able to match that account with what Catholic theology teaches about how God works in nature. Catholic theology and the catechism say that God is the cause behind all secondary or natural causes,that nature is utterly dependent upon God,that God’s action in nature is immediate and concrete,and that natural things are not the product of chance or necessity. The theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with these truths.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

While I am no mathematician, if I remember correctly from Calculus class, this popular explanation is faulty.

The imaginary unit was indeed given its name because at the time of its introduction, it was simply an imagined number that would be the solution of the square root of -1. Since it is not among the real numbers, it was called imaginary. As with all new concepts in mathematics (like the number 0), mathematicians of the time were wary of any new, not previously thought of, and in this case, to be honest, slightly confusing numbers, which contributed to the idea that the imaginary unit didn’t “actually exist”.

However, complex numbers are indeed true numbers, when represented in a Cartesian plane. They correspond to actual values, and are useful not only to complete equations that would otherwise be unsolvable (I have to add that this is not really high-level mathematics; it is basic undergraduate level mathematics), but to represent very real phenomena, like in transient analysis of analog electrical circuits. If the imaginary unit does not “actually exist”, then neither does phase angles between currents.

So while, as previously stated, I am utterly clueless about the specifics about cosmology, the fact that the imaginary unit is used in a hypothesis is hardly grounds for rejecting it. If so, you would have to reject everything we know about electricity, a lot of what we know about physics (even in classical mechanics, if I remember correctly), and so on. The power supply unit of the computer you are reading this text on, would not exist without the imaginary unit.

I apologize, my wording was… lackluster. The issue with using i is that, while we know it works, we don’t really know how or why it works, or where it comes from (last I read, at least). It was created to fill a hole, and it fills that hole quite well, but we don’t understand the particulars behind how it works. We use it where we believe it is called for, but don’t have a good way of checking that beyond seeing if our outcome matches our projections.

Even if we did fully understand i, that doesn’t change the fact that physical reality cannot create itself, which is my underlying argument.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The theory of evolution replaces Gods’ creative power with the supposed creative power of natural causes alone,as if nature is self-sufficient. It is a naturalistic,mechanistic and reductionist way of explaining the origin of species. So it does not compliment the doctrine of creation. And before we say that God did something a certain way or used certain “mechanisms”,we have to be sure that it really did happen that way and that the mechanisms are real and have the power to do what is attributed to them,and we have to be able to match that account with what Catholic theology teaches about how God works in nature. Catholic theology and the catechism say that God is the cause behind all secondary or natural causes,that nature is utterly dependent upon God,that God’s action in nature is immediate and concrete,and that natural things are not the product of chance or necessity. The theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with these truths.

This is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is that changes to a species over time can result in a species that could be considered distinct from the species that acted as its basis. Many scientists like to tack on the stuff about “only natural causes” or “no guidance,” but that is only their opinion and is neither supported nor denounced by the facts. What the Church supports is the notion that species could develop over time into their current configuration. What She doesn’t support is the notion that this change happened randomly and without the influence of God.

 

[clem456]

…
Catholic theology and the catechism say that God is the cause behind all secondary or natural causes,that nature is utterly dependent upon God,that God’s action in nature is immediate and concrete,and that natural things are not the product of chance or necessity. The theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with these truths.

A leap too far.
The last line is just not true and it is not “Catholic theology”.

 

[grannymh]

This is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is that changes to a species over time can result in a species that could be considered distinct from the species that acted as its basis. Many scientists like to tack on the stuff about “only natural causes” or “no guidance,” but that is only their opinion and is neither supported nor denounced by the facts. What the Church supports is the notion that species could develop over time into their current configuration. What She doesn’t support is the notion that this change happened randomly and without the influence of God.

May I gently add a qualification. It is the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic doctrine on human origin. This is because the base or foundation for the Science of Human Evolution is genetics which requires large populations. Large populations contradict a population of two first founders of the human species.

 

[Rin]

I apologize, my wording was… lackluster. The issue with using i is that, while we know it works, we don’t really know how or why it works, or where it comes from (last I read, at least). It was created to fill a hole, and it fills that hole quite well, but we don’t understand the particulars behind how it works. We use it where we believe it is called for, but don’t have a good way of checking that beyond seeing if our outcome matches our projections.

Even if we did fully understand i, that doesn’t change the fact that physical reality cannot create itself, which is my underlying argument.

We actually do fully understand complex numbers, and we have done so for quite some time; it is the extension of numbers to two dimensions instead of one. They describe points on a Cartesian plane, or, if you wish, vectors from origo. As soon as that sinks in, there’s really nothing mysterious about it; however, until one grasps the concept of twodimensional numbers, it does indeed seem “unreal”. But in reality, it is as real (in the common sense of the word) as any other number. Of course, you can’t have 5+2i apples on your table, but neither could you have -5 apples on your table… Yet, no current-day human would contest that negative numbers “actually” exist.

As for the latter, then yes I agree, physical reality cannot create itself. However, that is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If a scientific theory were to be established about how physical reality came to be, then it would still not contradict God as the First Mover, Uncaused Cause, Creator and Sustainer of all things; the “on its own” part most atheists would add, would still be a philosophical assumption, with no basis in science. Similarly, the assertion of God would have no basis in science; this is a philosophical “battle”, not a scientific one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I apologize, my wording was… lackluster. The issue with using i is that, while we know it works, we don’t really know how or why it works, or where it comes from (last I read, at least). It was created to fill a hole, and it fills that hole quite well, but we don’t understand the particulars behind how it works. We use it where we believe it is called for, but don’t have a good way of checking that beyond seeing if our outcome matches our projections.

Even if we did fully understand i, that doesn’t change the fact that physical reality cannot create itself, which is my underlying argument.

I’m not sure what this has to do with evolution, but there is no mathematical basis for treating “imaginary” numbers as not existing in a way real numbers do. There is also no difference in mathematical understanding of the particulars of how they work. Imaginary numbers were invented to extend real numbers so that we could take square roots of negative numbers. In the same way, fractions were invented so we could divide any number by any other number. And irrational numbers were invented to extend fractions so that many other equations could be solved. All these number fields are inventions that have applicability in the real world. Even imaginary numbers are applicable to real-world descriptions of alternating current phase relationships. This has been verified experimentally for more than a century. So look elsewhere for an analogy of whatever it is you are trying to prove, because this dog won’t hunt.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

We actually do fully understand complex numbers, and we have done so for quite some time; it is the extension of numbers to two dimensions instead of one. They describe points on a Cartesian plane, or, if you wish, vectors from origo. As soon as that sinks in, there’s really nothing mysterious about it; however, until one grasps the concept of twodimensional numbers, it does indeed seem “unreal”. But in reality, it is as real (in the common sense of the word) as any other number. Of course, you can’t have 5+2i apples on your table, but neither could you have -5 apples on your table… Yet, no current-day human would contest that negative numbers “actually” exist.

As for the latter, then yes I agree, physical reality cannot create itself. However, that is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If a scientific theory were to be established about how physical reality came to be, then it would still not contradict God as the First Mover, Uncaused Cause, Creator and Sustainer of all things; the “on its own” part most atheists would add, would still be a philosophical assumption, with no basis in science. Similarly, the assertion of God would have no basis in science; this is a philosophical “battle”, not a scientific one.

Thanks for the explanation, it appears that my understanding of i is flawed. I’ll have to read up on it more, it’s been a while. Thank you and Leaf both.

 

[clem456]

May I gently add a qualification. It is the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic doctrine on human origin. This is because the base or foundation for the Science of Human Evolution is genetics which requires large populations. Large populations contradict a population of two first founders of the human species.

I have to wonder why posters go on contradicting the words of Popes.