Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope stokes debate on Darwin and evolution
The Times Online ^ | April 12, 2007 | Mark Bridge and agencies

Posted on 04/13/2007 5:58:38 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.

In comments to students, published yesterday in German, the Pope – who took office in April 2005 – stopped short of endorsing intelligent design and said “faith alone” could not “explain the whole picture”.

But, he said: “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”

He advised the students not to choose between creationism and evolutionary theory but to adopt “an interaction of various dimensions of reason”.

He said: “I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”

Benedict reflected on comments of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that theories of evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis."

He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.

Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents – mostly conservative Protestants – of “intelligent design,” who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher power.

In the United States, supporters of both camps have often clashed over what students should be taught in state schools. New attention has been focused on Roman Catholic views of the issue since Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna said in a speech that restricting debate on Darwin’s theories amounted to censorship.

The Pope’s comments, recorded in the new book Creation and Evolution, appear alongside the reflections of Cardinal Schönborn and others who attended a meeting of students at the papal summer estate at Castelgandolfo outside Rome in September.

His remarks were consistent with one of his most repeated themes, that faith and reason are interdependent and that science, however vital, should not rule out God.

“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason... and thus brought us new insights,” he said. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

“Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it.”

Since taking office, the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution. In November 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, told a press conference that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible was read correctly.

But last year, Benedict fired his chief astronomer, Father George Coyne, after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in The Tablet. The sacking was interpreted by commentators as a clear endorsement for intelligent design.

The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: crevolist

1 posted on 04/13/2007 5:58:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Other than the fact that they report a rumor that turned out not to be true (Pope Benedict did not fire Father Coyne) this seems like a fairly good article.


2 posted on 04/13/2007 6:52:30 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”

-St. Augustine of Hippo


3 posted on 04/13/2007 6:59:42 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Claud
"That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

ROTFL! St Augustine argues in favor of sola scriptura...

4 posted on 04/13/2007 7:04:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
LOL...what, you mean like when he argued it here?

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. [267] So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel.

5 posted on 04/13/2007 7:53:17 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Claud

St. Augustine was such a kidder.


6 posted on 04/13/2007 8:10:47 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever He tells you.' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Claud

good one. :)


7 posted on 04/13/2007 11:24:41 AM PDT by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
But, he said: “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”

You can't bring 10,000 layers of geological strata, a living dinosaur, a living pharoah, or a star into a laboratory either. There is more to science than Popperian falsification.

Ironically, some evolution proponents insist on Popperian falsification as the definition of science in order to attack Creationism or Intelligent Design. Everything would be a lot better if people would admit that science rests more on utility rather than logic.
8 posted on 04/13/2007 3:09:05 PM PDT by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; marron; P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy
The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.

The underlined part is wrong. "Mainstream" protestantism has changed considerably from what this author thinks it is.

There are very few adherents in those old protestant denominations compared to huge numbers in the conservative, evangelical churches -- whether denominational or independent.

The single largest faith type in the US is baptistic.

9 posted on 04/13/2007 5:20:26 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

On maybe patterns of inference or whatever one wishes to call it. I have read a short biography of Newton whose author I cannot now recall who relates that even as a child Newton was intrigued by patterns of light he saw and as he mastered the math of the day used it began to build his theories of reality. After all, by the age of twenty he had substantially formulated them. Whatever “insight” is, it plays a larger role than the simple piling up of evidence.


10 posted on 04/13/2007 5:44:08 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Gotta love Pope Benedict — relying on the Bible!


11 posted on 04/13/2007 7:15:16 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; pblax8; oakcon; newbie 10-21-00; Bloc8406; Ransomed; AliVeritas; The Klingon; dcnd9; ..
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

12 posted on 04/13/2007 7:17:33 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I don’t see evolution as such a problem. The “of their kind” in the creation accounts take care of that. I have no doubt God would have used something like micro-evolution within these “kinds” in order to insure survival of his creation in a dynamic, ever changing world. I don’t think science supports macro-evolution. I don’t want to turn this into an evolution thread, I just want to say I believe a thinking person can have faith in the Genesis account without feeling for a second they are compromising their intellect. I like this Pope.


13 posted on 04/13/2007 9:20:26 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The Pople actually advanced the view that God created life through evolution, with the creation in Genesis explained as an allegory.

I couldn't agree more.

14 posted on 04/13/2007 9:24:26 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I was taught evolution all through K-12 Catholic school, I'm glad they did. They weren't afraid of science!


15 posted on 04/13/2007 9:25:21 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Fundie Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Great catch, dear brother in Christ!


16 posted on 04/13/2007 9:32:21 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

You want to explain this post ?


17 posted on 04/13/2007 11:08:05 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

I don’t have to explain jack squat.

Pope JPII was cool, hence the photo.


18 posted on 04/13/2007 11:11:13 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Fundie Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

Thanks for your reply.

I thought he was cool, too. I had a chance to meet him personally and it was a great experience. It was before he became so weakened by Parkinsons.

12 years of Catholic school, huh? Hm-m-m


19 posted on 04/13/2007 11:38:38 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; T'wit; metmom; DaveLoneRanger
The underlined part is wrong. "Mainstream" protestantism has changed considerably from what this author thinks it is.

Hi, xzins! I readily accept that your characterization is true. But your reply doesn't tell me anything about what the mainstream protestant view of evolution is, assuming there is such a consensus view. Can you give me a quick "heads-up" on that?

I don't want to make any rash assumptions about protestant belief here, though I would really like to discuss evolution theory, especially with regard to whether evolution theory is "complete." I think it is not complete, for two reasons: (1) it gives no plausible account of the origin of life; and (2) it gives no explanation of man whatever. Still, it might have been a tool in God's toolkit for the development of the physical side of (lower-order?) creature -- if I might put it that way.

Please let me make it clear: I hold no brief whatever for macroevolution. I think it is a "myth" in the strict sense of that word. Microevolution, on the other hand, might have something going for it.

I suspect Pope Benedict rejects both the materialism and the insistence on randomness of the Darwinist account. As do I. But I didn't have to hear this from him first. It just seems evident to me that a reasonable person of faith would see on the evidence that these requirements of Darwinist orthodoxy do not comport with and cannot explain what we actually see in nature; i.e., the created world.

What do you think?

20 posted on 04/14/2007 9:20:13 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

He drove past me once on the feast of the Assumption in Rome, but I missed most of it, as no one knew it was coming.


21 posted on 04/14/2007 10:32:53 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Fundie Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[ What do you think?]

I think that the TOE(of DNA) is(or has become) an assault on "spirit" generally and MY spirit and the Holy Spirit specifically.. And that ALL life on this planet are DNA-o-saurs and that "life"(all life) is and was not given with a BREATH from Gods(Spirit)..

BUT HAPPENED some other way.. That life came about in some other way.. Life from NoN life..

AND THAT- life is NOT spirit BUT flesh.. <<- I reject that..

22 posted on 04/14/2007 10:37:24 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; Quix; kosta50
AND THAT- life is NOT spirit BUT flesh.. <<- I reject that..

I reject that too, 'pipe! To my way of thinking, flesh is "the donkey" that bears Spirit ("the rider") during the mortal phase of Life, or what we call "existence," which refers specifically to life experience within space and time. But what we mean by Life is not exhausted by considerations of bodily nature in space and time; for the Spirit reflected in and through the soul is eternal: This is what we mean by Life. It is both prior to and posterior to physical incarnation.

And more: We are not truly "alive" or truly human unless we experience our existence as a participation in the divine Life....

Well, FWIW. My Platonic roots are showing here. But the Gospel of John basically says the same thing: He speaks of the helkein, of the "drawing" into mutual participation of the human soul by God, just as Plato did. Indeed, John puts the insight into Jesus' speech directly....

23 posted on 04/14/2007 11:47:40 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[.. To my way of thinking, flesh is "the donkey" that bears Spirit ("the rider") during the mortal phase(s) of Life, or what we call "existence," which refers specifically to life experience within space and time. ..]

Phases of LIFE.. exposes TOE(of DNA) as myoptic..

24 posted on 04/14/2007 12:05:32 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; xzins; hosepipe
Hi, xzins! I readily accept that your characterization is true. But your reply doesn't tell me anything about what the mainstream protestant view of evolution is, assuming there is such a consensus view. Can you give me a quick "heads-up" on that?

If I may, I believe the predominant Protestant view is that Scripture is inerrant and a literal understanding is preferred over a metaphorical one. Therefore, since God said He created man, He did.

Evolution by blind chance would go out the window in that view.

Some would favor Intelligent Design, other would favor Young Earth Creationism. Still others would say God created an old looking universe some 6,000 years ago (Gosse Omphalus hypothesis.)

IMHO, theistic evolution and/or the idea the God created the initial conditions and then walked away from it --- would be among the least favored by Protestants.

25 posted on 04/14/2007 7:42:21 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

INDEED. AMEN.


26 posted on 04/14/2007 8:13:56 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

AMEN! WELL PUT, imho.

Thx.


27 posted on 04/14/2007 8:14:40 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Ping.


28 posted on 04/14/2007 9:21:34 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Kol mishkav 'asher yishkav `alayv hazav yitma' . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Alex Murphy
But last year, Benedict fired his chief astronomer, Father George Coyne, after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in The Tablet.

Wow! Talk about getting your facts wrong. Father Coyne retired because he was diagnosed with colon cancer (he's also 73 years old, so he would have good reason to retire even if he weren't sick). Either this journalist is incompetent or a liar.

30 posted on 04/15/2007 8:37:47 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Thanks for the ping.

At this pace, we should be back to an uncompromising exegesis of Bereishis by 2207.

That's about par for the course - it's much easier to destroy than to rebuild.

31 posted on 04/16/2007 5:15:36 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
The Pope, of course, never fires anyone.

The Curia may accept a resignation on the Pope's behalf, of course.

But the Supreme Pontiff is hardly Donald Trump.

32 posted on 04/16/2007 5:17:24 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Well, I think I'd might as well give up. It's impossible to argue with these "theistic evolutionists."

I point out the hypocrisy of invoking uniformitarianism with regard to Genesis but rejecting it elsewhere. I point out the inconsistency of bowing to "science" in one area while dogmatically refusing to listen to it an another. I point out the illogic of expecting the world to come into existence in a way governed by natural laws that were not even fully created until the creation process was complete, not to mention the idea of G-d using a naturalistic, uniformitarian method to create a paradise of immortal humans and talking snakes. All I get are cackles of amusement that imply "oh well, you can't help it, you're one of those simple-minded rednecks." And the thing that really gets me is that the atheists who consistently reject any and all miracles seem to treat these hypocrites with greater respect than they do us honest and internally consistent creationists.

There are still a very few Catholic creationists here at FR. But there isn't a single solitary Eastern Orthodox creationist here, and considering the Alice-in-Wonderland things they believe in other matters that is very hard to stomach. Oh well. So the Orthodox now believe that "Adam and Eve" (who never really existed despite being Orthodox saints) were created mortal and there never was a paradise of any kind. Oh yeah. That's unchanged, unaltered, ancient doctrine of the fathers all right. And I'm a mere rationalist modern under the influence of modern positivism.

Let 'em go. There's no need even trying to converse with these people.

33 posted on 04/16/2007 9:47:34 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Kol mishkav 'asher yishkav `alayv hazav yitma' . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
One can point out that Genesis is not a scientific treatise, nor was it intended to be. Hashem wrote those words to express what He intended to accomplish, not to express what biological researchers want to know. The language of Genesis is plainspoken, not technical.

That being said, the words He wrote are true. They are facts, and things happened precisely as He describes them. He was the witness and the actor. He was there.

Once we start trying to scientifically "explain" Scripture, the thread is lost.

Biological science needs to make a Scriptural account of itself.

Scripture does not need to make a bioscientific account of itself.

St. Thomas Aquinas' take is right, as usual.

34 posted on 04/16/2007 9:57:54 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson