Posted on 07/07/2005 4:56:04 PM PDT by CHARLITE
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
According to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."
Indeed, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
Now, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. 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 it, an abdication of human intelligence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
For more than one second, the headline made me think that the Catholic church was endorsing Intel processors.
I was hoping for better things from this Pope. But the sad fact appears to be that "Theistic evolution" is all but Catholic dogma now.
They could do worse.
He says he's identified over 2,000,000 such genes, and that this is only a small fraction of what's available.
So, hold it right there ~ why is this top level expert in genetic research out scooping up glop to find genes? Why did he think there were so terribly many genes out there just for the taking anyway?
His idea is to develop an artifical lifeform into which we can simply "plug" these genes and find out what they really do.
If I read this guy's intentions correction he actually thinks he's going to win most of the Nobel Prizes someday by overthrowing virtually every biologic science known to man.
Imagine that there's glop in the ocean that has a gene with a precise purpose that can improve cellular performance. If we could find that gene and "plug it in", would that be evolution as envisioned by Darwin, or a tune-up as envisioned by Jiffy Lube?
Best bet for the Pope is to put a hold on coming down hard and fast on this one. For all any of us know today, we are little more than a self-organizing but otherwise lost shipment of genetic materials.
Not at all. The Popes are simply leaving the question open, in the absence of empirical proof either way. ("Proof," obviously, can never be obtained, since the origin of life and development of biodiversity cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.) Neither "theistic evolution" nor "six-day, young-earth creationism" is officially condemned or endorsed. Both positions, and any other that does not deny the creative role of God, can be held by a faithful Catholic ... even though they cannot all be right.
My impression is that they don't think the details are that important. I don't agree with that, but they have a lot of other issues to contend with that I don't.
Faith can never conflict with reason. John Paul II's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts. An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical (not spiritual) evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis. Referred to in the 1996 statement. Excerpt:Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [see link & excerpt below], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Actually, all the positions can be "right", but maybe not here at this time, but in the past, or somewhere else.
Cue Twilight Zone music ...
You are right, the article is problematic, but the "sound byte" coming out of this article is a big improvement over the perceived-to-be-pro-evolution comments of the Pope in 1995.
That's the problem. The refusal to endorse what you call "young-earth creationism" and oppenness to "Theistic evolution" come from the refusal to acknowledge total Biblical inerrancy, even though the doctrine is still somehow supposed to be "official." You are missing the point of the whole issue.
My impression is that they don't think the details are that important. I don't agree with that, but they have a lot of other issues to contend with that I don't.
If you don't agree with them, how can you not be disappointed in a 2000 year old "infallible" Church that has gone from condemning Galileo to placing human reason and the human sciences above the Biblical text dictated by G-d Himself? Of course, the Catholic Church has never believed it was dictated.
And btw, if they'd straighten themselves out on this issue, a lot of those "others" they have to contend with would disappear.
"Perceived to be" is the key point there. When you sorted through the paraphrases and interpretations, JP2's statement came out something like, "It's a theory that many people accept. It can be investigated!"
Yes, of course ~ I always have it at the ready. Still, I'm in much better company these days than years back when I first had the epiphany that LIFE IS MUCH OLDER THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.
It's all very complicated. And I see a bunch of kids who've been put to bed already ... so it will have to remain clouded, while I engage with reality.
Catholic "sound bytes" have been problematic for a very, very long time. Even Pope Pius XII (the allegedly uberkonservativ Pontiff) not only left the door open in his Humani Generis but only a few years later read a paper to the Pontifical scientific organization (I forget what it's called) that said that there was simply no doubt that there was something to evolution. Now granted, the Pope did not write this paper, but he surely knew what he was reading. Why would he read such a paper, even by another author, a few years after issuing Humani Generis?
The condemnation of "neo-Darwinian dogma" is nice, but the point of the whole issue is Biblical inerrancy (which is not the same as sola scriptura, no matter what you've heard).
Oh great. If we believe in evolution, you'll let us maintain our belief in talking donkeys. Isn't that a little self-defeating for the naturalistic position?
I post the info; you make your own decisions.
My "decision" is that anyone who insists on a naturalistic origin to a world in which he/she is willing to recognize the existence of the supernatural is a very, very confused individual.
At least people like Richard Dawkins are internally consistent.
One of my favorite passages from the Bible is, "For My ways are not your ways, says the LORD, and My thoughts are not your thoughts. As the heavens are high above the earth, so high are My ways above your ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts."
The Tax-chick paraphrase: "I don't expect you to understand everything, chick! Put the laundry in the dryer, take a shower, and don't forget tomorrow is trash day."
It's very reassuring, especially when I have Pregnancy Brain and have trouble remembering my own name.
"..... A newfound deep-sea relative of the jellyfish flashes glowing red lights on twitching, stinging tentacles to lure fish to their deaths more than a mile below the surface.
The discovery is odd, because scientists had figured deep-sea animals can't see red light, since they live where sunlight doesn't reach and therefore have no evolutionary reason to detect the color.
The transluscent, fragile creature is the first marine invertebrates ever found that produce red light......"
And, starting up the music from Outer Limits AND Twilight Zone, this thing sounds like it has the makings of "spare parts" for a control console on a space craft.
BTW, I've been wondering for a month when someone would find a deep sea something with Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).
That thought hit me when they found a jumping jellyfish in the sea North of Australia that has 24 eyes, and earlier when they found one with 8 advanced eyes, each with its own non-operable lens
The evolutionists really gotta' think that one through!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.