Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

more…
 
Good to see the Pope still agrees with me!😉

In all seriousness, he has confirmed what was said in Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Good to see the Pope still agrees with me!😉
%between%
Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I don’t know Tim…this sounds a little like ID to me 😉 :
“The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability,” he said.

“This … inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science … where did this rationality come from?” he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the “creative reason” of God.
Click to expand...
 
rlg94086 said:
I don’t know Tim…this sounds a little like ID to me 😉 :
Click to expand...
Tim has continually said ID is not science. I do not remember him saying that it cannot fall under metaphysics and I believe he agreed with me about teaching metaphysics in addition to science. Right Tim?
 
buffalo said:
Tim has continually said ID is not science. I do not remember him saying that it cannot fall under metaphysics and I believe he agreed with me about teaching metaphysics in addition to science. Right Tim?
Click to expand...
Mostly. ID as it is used in the public argument regarding evolution is not science and, in my opinion, not even good metaphysics. It is a sham. However, I absolutely believe that all things were created by an Intelligent Designer. I proudly proclaim that I believe that God created everything.

I do agree that metaphysics should be taught in school.

Peace

Tim
 
rlg94086 said:
I don’t know Tim…this sounds a little like ID to me 😉 :
Click to expand...
Except that the article said
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book “Schoepfung und Evolution” (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or “intelligent design” views about life’s origins.
Click to expand...
This pope, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, made it clear that he doesn’t accept the protestant ID as valid. The information given in this article indicates that he hasn’t changed his opinion.

Peace

Tim
 
I wasn’t trying to start a fight guys…I was just needling. Thus the smiley 😉 .

I think we all agree. In fact, Tim could have very well countered that the quote has nothing to do with ID theory. The fact that evolutionary process itself is rational does not mean that you can scientifically prove the signs of that rationality through scientific method - as ID purports. (I think. 🙂 )

God bless,

Robert
Orogeny said:
Mostly. ID as it is used in the public argument regarding evolution is not science and, in my opinion, not even good metaphysics. It is a sham. However, I absolutely believe that all things were created by an Intelligent Designer. I proudly proclaim that I believe that God created everything.

I do agree that metaphysics should be taught in school.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
 
Orogeny said:
Except that the article said

This pope, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, made it clear that he doesn’t accept the protestant ID as valid. The information given in this article indicates that he hasn’t changed his opinion.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Do you have the quote from his original statement? I would like to have that for my edification.

Regarding this article, don’t overstate. The author of the article said the Pope “did not endorse.” This is not a statement of non-acceptance. Rather, it is a stating what he did not say. I would prefer a more direct denial.

Btw…I agree that ID theory is very flawed - not that there wasn’t an intelligent designer, just the “science” behind their work.
 
Good to know Benedict at least sees one major hole in macroevolution, being that’s it’s a purely speculative extrapolated naturalistic explanation of the past that cannot be repeated or tested in a laboratory.

Intelligent Design is flawed only in as much as it attempts to reconcile vague theism with the unexplainable and flawed theory of macro-evolutionary mechanisms.

Creationism on the other hand is founded in our faith and the science around it is perfectly consistent with empirical evidence, but like macro-evolution, from a scientific perspective, they are both pseudosciences founded on philosophical assumptions. They both require an investment of religious faith. But let it be known that God is not the author of death and therefore would not use a method of creation that involves death, diseases and suffering. He is not responsible for these conditions though He does at present permit them for a greater good. Death is the penalty of sin, and our suffering world is a result of the Fall and Original Sin committed by our first parents who’d be no different from us.
 
buffalo said:
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

more…
Click to expand...
It sounds to me as if Pope Benedict is saying the jury is still out:

“The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.”

So the question still remains, why can’t BOTH evolution and Intelligent Design be taught in the schools (or neither, if evolution is only a THEORY)?
 
Abitreckless said:
So the question still remains, why can’t BOTH evolution and Intelligent Design be taught in the schools (or neither, if evolution is only a THEORY)?
Click to expand...
Teach intelligent design in the religion classroom. It isn’t science, so don’t teach it in the science classroom (unless you’re teaching what science is, as an example of what science is not).

As for ‘only a theory’, excuse me while I :banghead: ‘Theory’ is a technical scientific word. Gravity is a ‘theory’ too, but I’d hope you wouldn’t want children to be taught Aristotle’s old theory about rocks falling to the ground because that’s what rock-type things do as somehow equal to the theory of gravity.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Teach intelligent design in the religion classroom. It isn’t science, so don’t teach it in the science classroom (unless you’re teaching what science is, as an example of what science is not).

As for ‘only a theory’, excuse me while I :banghead: ‘Theory’ is a technical scientific word. Gravity is a ‘theory’ too, but I’d hope you wouldn’t want children to be taught Aristotle’s old theory about rocks falling to the ground because that’s what rock-type things do as somehow equal to the theory of gravity.

Mike
Click to expand...
There are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, too.

There are scientists who don’t believe in global warming.

I tend to use my own logic about the so-called theories. For instance, with the gravity theory, I can see my purse fall to the floor if I drop it.

With the global warming theory, I am freezing in April, brrrrrrrr, so don’t believe in the global warming theory.

Maybe I’m not supposed to use my own logic, because the scientists are so smart, and all, but I do.

Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.

AND The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

Read all about it: acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm
 
Abitreckless said:
There are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, too.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head with ‘believe’. Yes, there are. To some extent I believe in some of it, too. But ‘belief’ isn’t science. It’s a different thing. (There is room for both, as can be seen by the Vatican having astronomers, etc. - but not in the science classroom)
I tend to use my own logic about the so-called theories. For instance, with the gravity theory, I can see my purse fall to the floor if I drop it.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t if you were in orbit. Would that make you think gravity was wrong?
With the global warming theory, I am freezing in April, brrrrrrrr, so don’t believe in the global warming theory.
Click to expand...
Then, no offense, but you don’t understand it. Nothing in the global warming theory states that there won’t be cold days in April.
Maybe I’m not supposed to use my own logic, because the scientists are so smart, and all, but I do.
Click to expand...
Of course you should use common sense and your own experiences, but you have to be sure you’re jumping to reasonable conclusions.

Mike
 
I find it humorous how neo-Darwinistic theory is purported to provide us with “scientifically plausible” theories, yet a theory of Intelligent Design or creation through an evolutionary process is not “empirical” enough. What is so empirical about “punctuated equilibrium” posited by evolutionary scientists who couldn’t adequately come up with any plausible model to explain the sheer paucity in number of transition fossils between species. I’m not talking the putative 1’s or 2’s, I’m talking the hundreds and thousands that should be littering the strata. Has anyone seen an adequate model to explain how sex and gender came about in a piecemeal discrete evolutionary method because I sure haven’t and I’ve thoroughly researched the subject. What about Dr. Behe’s “irreducibly complex” systems that he mentioned in his book “Darwin’s black box” exposing the gaping holes in nD evolutionary theory from a biochemical and cellular perspective? Regardless of what an modern evolutionist might tell you, “irreducibly complex” systems have not been solved by a long shot.

So, I’m left scratching my head when I see “evolution” as the only science of creation worth having in schools. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a great deal of faith that goes into a pure neo-Darwinistic model of life’s origins. Punctuated equilibrium is defined as the accelerated and virtually “instantaneous” (over thousands of years) evolution of a species from one to the next when the environment produces stressors that catalyze and facilitate this phenomenon. This conveniently hides transition fossils making them virtually impossible to find because they are only evident during “blinks” of evolution within the geological strata. Can we prove it in any lab or do we have any empirical evidence of this? None whatsoever. Species jumping from one to the next that seems to defy the laws of science and statistical models of genetic mutation? If that’s how life started, then it sure sounds…divine…to me.

Oh, and if you are under the false impression that intelligent people and scientists MUST believe in atheistic evolution, try reading about this guy. He just so happens to have been the lead scientist for the Human Genome Project and yep…he’s a Christian too.
 
BrownR said:
Oh, and if you are under the false impression that intelligent people and scientists MUST believe in atheistic evolution,
Click to expand...
Not at all. I’m a reasonably intelligent person and a reasonable scientist and a Catholic, and so by definition I don’t believe in ‘atheistic evolution’. I do however think science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Not at all. I’m a reasonably intelligent person and a reasonable scientist and a Catholic, and so by definition I don’t believe in ‘atheistic evolution’. I do however think science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

Mike
Click to expand...
In some general respects I agree with you that separation of educational disciplines is a good idea to increase the efficiency and clarity of learning. That being said, I disagree that ID or theistic theories are misplaced when learning about the origin of species or life as we know it. First, I think it’s a cleverly obfuscated method of subconsciously conditioning our young that science and faith are somehow intrinsically incompatible when they are not. The primary irony that I’m pointing out is that there are a myriad of components within Darwinistic theory that require just as much “faith” to believe as that of a creator. Punctuated equilibrium was simply one example of many. Do we have a plausible mathematical or genetic model to adequately explain PE? Absolutely not, in fact, many pro gradualism evolutionists bicker among themselves about it. Yet we still find it mentioned in many textbooks. Now, that’s what I call irresponsible science. In my opinion, evolutionary education gets very irresponsible when it starts trying to “fill in the gaping holes” within it’s own theory. If ID can’t be taught because it is empirically untestable in a lab, then PE and the other “gap theories” should suffer the same stringent requirements.

I think kids should learn the reality in that there are a great many inconsistencies in current modern evolutionary theory as we know it. These inconsistencies and “holes” are the primary reason why “origins” transcends one or two realms of science and bridges realms of philosophy and religion. I think that would be a much more honest approach than simply conditioning children to falsely assume that “evolution is solved!” which is the context and perspective of current biological evolutionary texts in schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top