Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[rjs1]

Whenever the issue of Evolution arises on Catholic Answers Forums it seems to produce very heated debate.

What concerns me is that a couple of references have been made seeming to suggest that Creationsists have no place in the debate.

A priest friend of mine, an extremely intelligent man and a long fighter for the Catholic faith, has written several articles pointing out problems with evolutionary theory. I know many other Catholics who have done the same.

The point I am trying to make is that Rome has not made any infallible statement on this matter - except of course the requirement that we believe that there was an Adam and an Eve as the progenitors of the human race.

Therefore all Catholics should be free to carefully study this subject, including considering the views that are critical of evolution, without being considered to be somehow un-Catholic, Protestant or unscientific.

 

[JReducation]

Whenever the issue of Evolution arises on Catholic Answers Forums it seems to produce very heated debate.

What concerns me is that a couple of references have been made seeming to suggest that Creationsists have no place in the debate.

A priest friend of mine, an extremely intelligent man and a long fighter for the Catholic faith, has written several articles pointing out problems with evolutionary theory. I know many other Catholics who have done the same.

The point I am trying to make is that Rome has not made any infallible statement on this matter - except of course the requirement that we believe that there was an Adam and an Eve as the progenitors of the human race.

Therefore all Catholics should be free to carefully study this subject, including considering the views that are critical of evolution, without being considered to be somehow un-Catholic, Protestant or unscientific.

The Catholic Church does not make infallible statements about everything we believe. Much of what we believe comes to us through the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church.

The Church never made an infallible statement about the solar system. It was not necessary. Science proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun. There was not need to make this an article of faith. It is a fact.

The same will happen regarding evolution. The Church is interested in scientific facts that speak to us about the glory and greatness of God. The glory and greatness of God is an already established article of faith in the Creed and in scripture. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any statement with infallible attributes regarding something that science can prove with the passage of time and the progress of research.

As to excluding the creationists and the pro intelligent design thinkers, they are being excluded because they do not represent what Pope Benedict considers reason or rational truth. Creationists represent biblical theology, which we already know and is not up for discussion at this meeting. Intelligent design simply speaks about the power behind evolution, which has already been identified by scripture.

We have to go back to Pope Pius X and work forward. The popes have been looking at scientific development to ensure two things.

1. That science does not deny the centrality of man in creation.
2. That science leads us to a more profound understanding into the nature of God and man, rather than exclude God and reduce man to an accident.

What the Vatican has always wanted is to ensure that scientific reason and faith are compatible. It is Pope Benedict’s position that if science is truly rational, it will always be compatible with faith, even though we may have to accept that the words of faith are not scientific and the words of science are not theological.

In essence, this is a pope who is in love with the relationship between reason and faith. He’s not interested in arguments about things that we already believe, that God is Creator and man is his image and likeness.

There is no reason for anyone to feel disturbed that creationists of pro intelligent design are not included in this meeting. Their ideas are not up for discussion at this time.

The question on the table is “What did God do and how?” nor “Who did it and why?” The latter has already been answered by revelation.

What God did and how is not a matter of revelation, it’s a matter of knowledge. Pope Benedict is interested in educating the Church and the scientific community.

Let us remember that John Paul II was the Pastoral Pope. Bendict XVI is the Professorial Pope. He’s going to approach questions about the faith and human exitence as a scholar, because that’s what he is and has been most of his life. He believes that we need to get back to scholarship. That’s why he wants the wording of the English missal edited, to make them more theological.

We have to learn to live with this while Benedict is pope.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[reggieM]

Buffalo, I don’t wish to derail this topic, but my conscience won’t allow me ignore these slights that you and others have made about George V. Coyne who wasn’t fired. If he had been fired he would not have the title today of Director Emeritus of the Vatican Observatory which clearly states on the url I provided you.

That’s an interesting theory, but I disagree. You have to consider Vatican politics – in other words, Fr. Coyne was an embarrassment because he held the position so long.

Cardinal Schoenborn called Fr. Coyne’s ideas “nonsense” in a very sharp criticism. Clearly, when he can say that God is not omniscient or omnipotent then it’s clear that he has gone over the edge. The fact that he retains a title is meaningless.

Let’s see if he is invited to the upcoming conference.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t see any sign here that Fr. Coyne denied God’s knowledge regarding the outcome of evolution.

Since the quote in question was not posted here, I’m not suprised that you “didn’t see any sign” of it.

Cardinal Schoenborn cited Fr. Coyne’s denial of God’s foreknowledge of creation in his book “Chance or Purpose”.

We also saw Fr. Coyne state that God is not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

[redneck22]

Originally Posted by Wirraway
what would an evolutionary scientist/ extremist look like?

Here he is:

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

And at the other end of the spectrum you have Moses saying “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them…”

I bet the bouncers at the conference door would have made quick work of him.

.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t see any sign here that Fr. Coyne denied God’s knowledge regarding the outcome of evolution. In which case, if he did not deny such Divine knowledge, there is not reason to believe that he was dismissed. Being an older man, it would be reasonable to suspect that he is retired or semi-retired. That has nothing to do with the God’s knowledge or a change in God as suggested before.

What I’m reading here is that he believes exactly what the Holy Father is trying to show, the more we know abour evolution, the more we know about God’s greatness.

JR

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See’s endorsement of “intelligent design” theory, which essentially backs the “Adam and Eve” theory of creation.

 

[reggieM]

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See’s endorsement of “intelligent design” theory, which essentially backs the “Adam and Eve” theory of creation.

Some have said that the newspaper article was not factual but was editorializing about whether Fr. Coyne was fired. That could be true, but it’s interesting that they reached that conclusion anyway.

 

[tonyl]

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See’s endorsement of “intelligent design” theory, which essentially backs the “Adam and Eve” theory of creation.

Vatican Observatory head rebuts suggestions that he was fired

WASHINGTON (CNS) – Jesuit Father George Coyne, who headed the Vatican Observatory for more than 28 years, said suggestions that he was forced out of the post by Pope Benedict XVI are “simply not true.”
. . .
“For some years I have, upon realizing that a scientific research institute such as ours requires a continuous (name removed by moderator)ut of new initiatives, suggested to Jesuit superiors that they search for a new director of this work,” Father Coyne wrote. "In May of this year upon my repeated request, they finally agreed to begin a search for a new director, resulting, rather rapidly to my delight, in the appointment of Jose Funes."

I’m more inclined to believe the word of Father Coyne than the unsupported speculations of a Tabloid newspaper.

 

[reggieM]

Vatican Observatory head rebuts suggestions that he was fired

WASHINGTON (CNS) – Jesuit Father George Coyne, who headed the Vatican Observatory for more than 28 years, said suggestions that he was forced out of the post by Pope Benedict XVI are “simply not true.”
. . .
“For some years I have, upon realizing that a scientific research institute such as ours requires a continuous (name removed by moderator)ut of new initiatives, suggested to Jesuit superiors that they search for a new director of this work,” Father Coyne wrote. "In May of this year upon my repeated request, they finally agreed to begin a search for a new director, resulting, rather rapidly to my delight, in the appointment of Jose Funes."

I’m more inclined to believe the word of Father Coyne than the unsupported speculations of a Tabloid newspaper.

It’s interesting that he spoke in his own defense. I suspect that he couldn’t find anyone else to affirm that he wasn’t fired. Again, Cardinal Schoenborn criticized him harshly, by name, in print. That is a fact that simply cannot be dismissed or ignored. Consider the authority of Cardinal Schoenborn also. In the Pope John Paul II papacy, he had a very high status (author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). His status has only increased under Pope Benedict’s papacy.

But given his seemingly heretical views, I wouldn’t trust Fr. Coyne at all – in matters of faith or of evolutionary claims.

 

[tonyl]

It’s interesting that he spoke in his own defense. I suspect that he couldn’t find anyone else to affirm that he wasn’t fired. Again, Cardinal Schoenborn criticized him harshly, by name, in print. That is a fact that simply cannot be dismissed or ignored. Consider the authority of Cardinal Schoenborn also. In the Pope John Paul II papacy, he had a very high status (author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). His status has only increased under Pope Benedict’s papacy.

But given his seemingly heretical views, I wouldn’t trust Fr. Coyne at all – in matters of faith or of evolutionary claims.

His successor put out a similar statement that Coyne had asked to retire. Are you saying he’s lying too? Has anyone at the Vatican publicly confirmed the tabloid’s speculation?

And what Heretical views does he hold? Real views, not weird interpretations cobbled together from out of context quotes.

 

[reggieM]

And what Heretical views does he hold? Real views, not weird interpretations cobbled together from out of context quotes.

Please note, I said “seemingly heretical” …

Cardinal Schoenborn states in his book Chance or Purpose - page 169

**“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” **The footnote associated with this paragraph reads "For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel no. 52, December 22, 2000"

Quoting Father Coyne in an essay in The Tablet:

if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously **it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient **in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them.
thetablet.co.uk/articles/1027/

 

[redneck22]

Please note, I said “seemingly heretical” …

Cardinal Schoenborn states in his book Chance or Purpose - page 169

**“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” **The footnote associated with this paragraph reads "For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel no. 52, December 22, 2000"

Quoting Father Coyne in an essay in The Tablet:

if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously **it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient **in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them.
thetablet.co.uk/articles/1027/

‘Coyne, who was director of the Vatican Observatory in Italy until his retirement in 2006, said intelligent design, or creationism, “belittles God.”’[media.www.signal-online.net/media/storage/paper771/news/2008/09/10/News/Priest.Doubts.Accuracy.Of.Creationism-3421726.shtml](read here)

…and then he states that "if we take modern science seriously, it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient " so it seems that it is modern science that belittles God, not ID.

 

[tonyl]

Please note, I said “seemingly heretical” …

Quoting Father Coyne in an essay in The Tablet:

if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously **it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient **in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them.
thetablet.co.uk/articles/1027/

Well, the paragraph starts out:

“It is unfortunate that creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaeo-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true. But, if we confront what we know of our origins scientifically with religious faith in God the Creator.”

And then says the part you quoted.

It’s only “seemingly heretical” if you intentionally misread it. Hence the wording “in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers”.

But here’s the next paragrah, the one he was setting up in your out of context quote:

"This stress on our scientific knowledge is not to place a limitation upon God. Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God. Such a view of creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St Augustine in his comments on Genesis. If they respect the results of modern science and, indeed, the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words. Scripture is very rich in these thoughts. It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe, who empties himself in Christ the incarnate Word. Thus God’s revelation of himself in the Book of Scripture would be reflected in our knowledge of the universe, so that, as Galileo was fond of stating, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature speak of the same God. "

I don’t see anything “seemingly heretical” about what he actually said in that essay. Is it really heretical to preach that God is a loving and active creator? One who constantly interacts with and through his creation?

Read the essay with the intent of figuring out what he is trying to say, not with the intent of mining it for “seemingly heretical” soundbites.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, if all extremists were excluded, and they were, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[reggieM]

Is it really heretical to preach that God is a loving and active creator? One who constantly interacts with and through his creation?

No, but it is heretical to say that God is not omnipotent or omnicient. He said “in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers” without providing any specifics about which scholastic philosophers taught false doctrine about God.

Again, he flatly states that God is not omniscient or omnipotent and he provides an alternative to replace those concepts. Why does he deny the Church’s perennial teaching on the omnipotence and omniscience of God? I would say it’s “seemingly heretical”, especially when added to the quote that Cardinal Shoenborn condemned.

Notice that he says “Judaeo-Christian faith is radically creationist” and then proceeds to prove no further information about what God created. He then attacks the concept of a “designer God”, again giving no further details to explain what he means.

You, apparently, want to defend him. Of course, that’s up to you. For myself, I can see Fr. Coyne’s errors and distortions clearly enough.

 

[tonyl]

No, but it is heretical to say that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. He said “in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers” without providing any specifics about which scholastic philosophers taught false doctrine about God.

Again, he flatly states that God is not omniscient or omnipotent and he provides an alternative to replace those concepts. Why does he deny the Church’s perennial teaching on the omnipotence and omniscience of God? I would say it’s “seemingly heretical”, especially when added to the quote that Cardinal Shoenborn condemned.

He does not “flatly state” that God is not omniscient or omnipotent. His intent is clear to the honest reader and he is simply saying that omnipotence and omniscience does not mean what other’s are claiming it means. Indeed, prior to that he says, “. . .all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God.” That sounds pretty omnipotent to me. Throuought the essay he refers to the universe and us as God’s creation. As for omniscience, nothing he says is inconsistent with the Catholic teaching about omniscience. It may be at odds with protestant pre-destination, but that shouldn’t be a problem for us.

Notice that he says “Judaeo-Christian faith is radically creationist” and then proceeds to prove no further information about what God created. He then attacks the concept of a “designer God”, again giving no further details to explain what he means.

What part of the next sentence “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.” did you not understand? He says right there, and elsewhere in the essay, that the entire universe was created by God and that everything in the universe is the product of his creative process.

You, apparently, want to defend him. Of course, that’s up to you. For myself, I can see Fr. Coyne’s errors and distortions clearly enough.

The theme is consistent throughout the essay. The current science regarding evolution is completely consistent with a God who is a loving creator that is constantly interacting with his creation. I don’t understand how you can miss it.

He offers the following analogy about how he reconciles our understanding of God with our current understanding of the universe derived through science:
*"Theologians already possess the concept of God’s continuous creation with which to explore the implications of modern science for religious belief. God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does. It has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement. You discipline a child but you try to preserve and enrich the individual character of the child and its own passion for life. A parent must allow the child to grow into adulthood, to come to make its own choices, to go on its own way in life. Words that give life are richer than mere commands or information. In such wise ways we might imagine that God deals with the universe.

These are very weak images, but how else do we talk about God? We can only come to know God by analogy."*

And please don’t say that he’s claiming the universe is sentient or alive. He does state that this is an analogy.

 

[edwest2]

The current science regarding evolution is silent, I’ve been told, about God. So to say it is consistent with what God can do is inaccurate. The current theory, it is claimed, works entirely on its own with entirely natural processes. God is excluded.

Peace,
Ed

 

[gjbrunning]

It is a long time since I have studied St. Thomas but I think I remember that he establishes that everything has a cause and at the end of the line going backwards is the Uncaused Cause aka God. Now if God is the cause of everything then His methodology for causing can be only one of two possibilities: He designed and planned what He caused or He caused things to be without any plan. The order in the universe, the complexity of all the species of plants and animals, the biological balances which we do not fully understand but which are essential to life, do not reflect random and/or accidental arrangements.

If St. Thomas could give God the title “Uncaused Cause” to explain his concept of God, in this discussion we might choose another title for God. “Intelligent Designer,” I submit, is a more appropriate title than “Random Evolver.”

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Evolver of heaven and earth
— that just doesn’t ring right to Catholic ears.

 

[reggieM]

What part of the next sentence “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.” did you not understand?

Apparently, you understand what he said, and that’s good because I don’t and you can explain it to me.

“Everything depends on God” … does God direct evolution? How is that different from “undirected” evolution (the kind supported by Kenneth Miller)? Is God responsible for evil and all of the bad things that people do or that happen to them? Does God actually “do” anything, or is it just that “things depend on him”? How, precisely, does everything depend on God?

He says right there, and elsewhere in the essay, that the entire universe was created by God

Again, that’s good to hear. But what does it mean when he says “created by God”? If the entire universe was created by God, then God created everything. That is creationism and it refutes Darwinist theory.

and that everything in the universe is the product of his creative process.

I think that’s trivializes the question. What evidence is that that evolution is equivalent to God’s creative process.

The theme is consistent throughout the essay. The current science regarding evolution is completely consistent with a God who is a loving creator that is constantly interacting with his creation. I don’t understand how you can miss it.

If you sincerely do not understand how I miss this and you’re not just asking a rhetorical question to provoke an argument – then I would like to explain it. You don’t have to agree with me but I would be very appreciative if you could understand my view.

In order for God to be a loving creator, He would have to create something. According to current science, God did not create anything in nature. Everything, according to the materialist-philosophy that dominates science, is the product of natural laws.

In order to make evolution consistent with God, the loving creator, one has to explain that God really didn’t create anything in nature. There is no plan or purpose to evolution – it is the result of natural selection acting on random mutations and random environmental effects. Again, one has to reformulate the nature of God to fit the evolutionary program.

I can understand how people will do this and also claim that evolution is consistent with belief in God. They allow materialist-philosophy to define what role God can have (an extremly minimal role if any). How does God interact with nature? This question cannot be discussed with any detail because it threatens to overlap with materialist-philosophy which declares that all of nature is the product of natural laws alone.

So, if one is willing to redefine what God is (as Fr. Coyne does by denying God’s omnipotence and omniscience) – then evolution is consistent with God the creator.
But this redefinition essentially eliminates God from any involvement in the development of nature.

How does God influence nature? Can God’s creative work be observed in ways that can be distinguished as separate from the natural laws?

Again, a rock rolling down a hill is evidence of a natural law at work. If Fr. Coyne’s claim is that God is pushing the rock down the hill – then he really should say that.
If what he really means is that “God created gravity” – he also should say that.
Instead, he doesn’t say either thing.

Why should we pray to God? If the natural laws create and develop all things in nature, and God created the natural laws to do all of the wonderful things on their own – why should we pray to God at all? Why not just let natural laws do what they do?

This is the illogic of Fr. Coyne’s position.

The universe has … has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement.

That’s an interesting point.

What evidence does Fr. Coyne give that shows that the universe can “respond to words of endearment and encouragement”. How has he tested this notion? Does he talk to the universe and notice “it’s ability to respond”? Would you understand where I suspect that Fr. Coyne has lost his mind?

Words that give life are richer than mere commands or information. In such wise ways we might imagine that God deals with the universe.

Again, what does this mean with regards to creation and evolution?

These are very weak images, but how else do we talk about God? We can only come to know God by analogy."

Well, he didn’t find any hesitation in saying that God is not omnipotent or omniscient.

And please don’t say that he’s claiming the universe is sentient or alive. He does state that this is an analogy.

He’s claiming whatever he said – I would appreciate some kind of explanation. He’s claiming that the universe responds to “words”. Whose words? God’s? Why does this make any sense at all?

He’s saying that God talks to the universe like a parent talks to a child … and therefore Darwinism is correct and creationism is wrong?

Again, I wouldn’t call this good theology or science, as I see it.

 

[reggieM]

It is a long time since I have studied St. Thomas but I think I remember that he establishes that everything has a cause and at the end of the line going backwards is the Uncaused Cause aka God. Now if God is the cause of everything then His methodology for causing can be only one of two possibilities: He designed and planned what He caused or He caused things to be without any plan. The order in the universe, the complexity of all the species of plants and animals, the biological balances which we do not fully understand but which are essential to life, do not reflect random and/or accidental arrangements.

If St. Thomas could give God the title “Uncaused Cause” to explain his concept of God, in this discussion we might choose another title for God. “Intelligent Designer,” I submit, is a more appropriate title than “Random Evolver.”

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Evolver of heaven and earth
— that just doesn’t ring right to Catholic ears.

I fully agree.

God’s intelligence and power shaped the universe and all natural life on earth. God permits us to see “randomness and chaos” so we can learn what life is like without God.

God shapes our own lives. We do not turn to natural selection as the means for our own growth – but we pray to God and he shapes our lives, just as he created the earth and life itself.

St. Thomas also teaches that God creates all “substances” directly – they’re not the product of evolution. We, His children, possess the natural power to see the essence of things directly. With common sense and human intuition we can see the truth about things.