09.07.06
Pope favors evolution?
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution: ID may be a distraction but the challenge to Darwin is no waste of time. The status of science is at risk from the confusions of Darwinists. If they need to be reminded of this by evangelicals, so much the worse for scientists, who should never have let this situation develop from their own obsessive dogmatism.
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution
by Macy Hanson
published on Thursday, September 7, 2006
advertisement
Distancing itself from the days of locking up the Galileo’s of the world, the Vatican has taken yet another stance in favor of evolution.Sort of.
Pope Benedict spent this past weekend in a seminar with some of his former doctoral students, and a small cadre of philosophers and theologians. The seminar focused on discussing the relationship between faith and science, particularly with regard to the origin of life.
Interestingly, the minutes from the seminar will be published and available for all to see. The minutes should be released around November.
These minutes, Reuters reports, “… will show how Catholic theologians see no contradiction between their belief in divine creation and the scientific theory of evolution.”
Now, the question is how this event will affect the firestorm over the teaching of evolution in the U.S. My hope is that the American evangelical movement will follow the Vatican’s lead and pull its head out of the sand on this issue.
I’m not holding my breath.
Expecting Protestants to lineup behind views of the Catholic Church is as absurd as claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It would be as irrational as, say, claiming that all life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.
It would almost be as illogical as religious fundamentalism.
But the Vatican’s continued support for evolution points to just how monumental of a waste of time the evolution-intelligent design debate is.
Lawrence Dicks said,
September 8, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Is there any scientific method that can be used to prove the theory of evolution? If you point to wolves ‘evolving’ into poodles, then it is a fact. But if you insist on implying that somehow, this process produced life from mud, then you need an experiment like the ’spontaneous generation’ experiments, which didn’t prove that postulate.
If you try to imply that that process went as far as to produce the universe, then the scientific method seems woefully inadequate to demonstrate the truthfulness of such a postulate.
I could assert that all the galaxies besides the ‘milky way’ disappeared millions of years ago. I would have just as much proof as those who choose to use evolution to explain the origin of life, or of the universe. I could never demonstrate that I was right in my lifetime, but no one could ‘prove’ me wrong by direct evidence. They might point to gravitational effects on our galaxy as proof, but they would not be able to prove it the way they proved theories about the moons of Saturn, or other planets that have been probed.
Evolution can only be ‘proved’ on the level that Darwin ‘proved’ it. By pointing to finches and other differentiated animals.
Any proofs about phyla or suns or universes are simply guesses.
There is no theory of the origin of the universe or of life that has disproved the Bible’s first words “in the beginning, God created.â€
(As for the Bible, one problem with the way creationists explain it tends to make it sound as if the Bible says the universe was created in 6 24hr days. The Bible uses the word ‘day’ in other ways than just 24 hour periods. For instance, after describing the first 7 days in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 calls all 7 previous days a ‘day’ (Gen 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God made the earth and the heavens. So, the word ‘day’ becomes an unnecessary sticking point.)
Stephen said,
September 8, 2006 at 5:56 pm
What exactly is the “scientific theory of evolution”? Evolution as a fact of nature is self evident from the changes we all see and feel, but this fact of nature is NOT the scientific-theory-of-evolution. The fact of nature is as much consistent with vitalism and mysticism (of a non-dual type), and as things are merely felt it is an innate vitalism that is more obvious than the so-called theory of science.
Howie Motz said,
September 8, 2006 at 9:32 pm
The Ignor-ance of the materialistic Philosophy of Science
Current scientific philosohy states that all causes and effects can only be identified as, materialistic in nature. Therefore any effects that are observed in nature (like the existence of life and it’s complexity) can only have materialistic based explanations as to their cause.
Current definitions of words are fluid. They must be, because no “absalutes” are recognized to base solid definitions on. Therefore
Words like, ‘materialistic, natural science and even philosophy’ are ambiguous. What is written here, is only effectual to those who accept a more concrete foundation of their thinking.
All scientific facts are fluid, not final, and never can be under current scienctific philosopy. They provide no foundation, to build a strong lasting world or universal view upon.
Science’s only strength rest upon it’s ability to identify rules and laws that can effect the material world. Logic and reasoning and world views, based on such a definition are very dangerous. Because iT is very easy to fool the observer into believeing a lie. As any magician shows.
The truth that science reveals, inspite of science’s safegards, rest to much on the honesty of scientist and all mankinds, questionable, doubtful, good character.
Since most effects we observe in the universe cannot be fit into this materialistic definition. Much of scientific investagation remains paralized from advancement. Theories that cannot be written in strickly materialistic definitions. …Can’t be considered or allowed to grow. Those that are allowed, are stifled, by the limiting definition.
The Materistic philosophy of Science is bond to evolutionary theory. Both are ironically, held to the position of forever evolving towards greater truth. But because of the falsification rule, never allowed to arrive. Bible: “ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”2Tim3:7 “Ironically”, because both evolve in their complexity, only through man’s (intelligent design).
Conclution: Inspite of technology based advancements. Which can betray the simple minded into blind trust of science. Current materialistic scientific philosohy, is holding mankind in a before now, unknown, historic dark-age!
David McCulloch said,
September 10, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Stephen says: “The fact of nature is as much consistent with vitalism and mysticism (of a non-dual type), and as things are merely felt it is an innate vitalism that is more obvious than the so-called theory of science.”
I’m sure you know what that means, but maybe most of us don’t. Has “vitalism” shown how genetic mutations can lead to significant phenotypic change, and hence macro evolution? Biologists have.
Lawrence Dicks said “Evolution can only be ‘proved’ on the level that Darwin ‘proved’ it. By pointing to finches and other differentiated animals.”
I think the power of Darwin’s inspiration is that without the solid evidence there is today (eg genetic influence on the phenotype) he still came to a conclusion which has only been confirmed, not contradicted, by subsequent experiments and observations (eg in genetics, such as the genome projects showing particular genes to be shared by many different species).
Jim Sherwood said,
September 11, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Catholic theologians see no conflict between their theology and Darwinism? So what? The leading intelligent design theorist Michael Behe, a Catholic, has repeatedly said that he also sees no such conflict, and it’s always been clear in Catholic theology that Darwinism is not contrary to Catholicism. Behe’s objections to Darwinism are scientific, not religious. The Catholic Church has never embraced Darwinism, although it has indicated that “evolution” presumably in the wider sense of the word, may be “more than a hypothesis.” It would be astonishing if the Church rushed into the controversy by expressing any sort of support for Darwinism, which is the view that the “proximate” causes of the appearance of all species must have been perfectly blind, unintelligent, and mechanical; and indeed, due mainly to natural selection.
David McCulloch said,
September 12, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Jim sherwood: “Behe’s objections to Darwinism are scientific, not religious.”
His main theme at the moment is the so-called “irreducible complexity” argument, but he consistently ignores the known processes that can create complex structures in living organisms, which, in a nutshell are that their components evolve for purposes other than that of the function of the final structure, which comes as a sort of “bonus”.
His persistence suggests that he is concerned with more than that the science should just face peer review from an extra peer!
Howie Motz: “Since most effects we observe in the universe cannot be fit into this materialistic definition. Much of scientific investagation remains paralized from advancement.”
Are you serious? Which ones?
Jim Sherwood said,
September 12, 2006 at 3:59 pm
David McCulloch: Evolutionary biologist P.P. Grasse fully agreed with Behe about irreducible complexity. See p.152, I believe, of his book “The Evolution of Living Organisms,” 1977. Grasse did not think that certain complex structures could possibly be produced by natural selection, and rejected Darwinism as “peudoscience” and “daydreaming.” Grasse, who was not an intelligent design theorist, nevertheless believed that some “laws” must determine evolution. But he didn’t know want they were. And if you trouble yourself to ever look at the book Cosmic Life-Force (1990) by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, you will find that the great scientist Hoyle, who studied and analyzed Darwinist ideas at great length, also rejected them. In chapter 10, Fred Hoyle proposes that a “cosmic intelligence” which “arose naturally” in the universe designed some features of all species. Hoyle was a life-long materialist and atheist. Grasse also had no evident religious motives.
David McCulloch said,
September 13, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Jim,
thirty years ago, one could have been forgiven for thinking life was too complex to have evolved “by itself”, but there has been a great deal of progress since then in molecular biology, to the point where most (admittedly not all) biologists regard Darwinian evolution as the cornerstone of biology. Without it, biology becomes just a collection of interesting facts, like a jigsaw that hasn’t been put together. Darwinism puts them together so that you can see the big picture!
I think if Fred Hoyle had lived longer, he might have abandoned the idea “cosmic intelligence”, because it isn’t necessary.
Jim Sherwood said,
September 13, 2006 at 6:40 pm
David: Darwinism indeed creates a big picture, a grandiose picture, but fails to prove by proper scientific standards that that picture is correct. Embracing a “big picture” without proof cannot be called science. In his book The Mathematics of Evolution (1999), Hoyle demonstrated, or at least believed that he had demonstrated, by complex mathematics that Darwinism is false: that natural selection can indeed produce minor adaptations, but cannot account for the major features of any species. One can imagine that Darwinism could be true, in spite of Hoyle and other great scientists who have scrutinized it at great length and rejected it with contempt, but Darwinists have to realize that the ball is in their court: either produce real proof at long last, or accept the fact that Darwinism is a mere “school of thought,” in the sames sense that Marxism and Freudism are schools of thought which have rapidly declined in influence. By “Darwinism,” a word which many biologists of that persuasion constantly use, we mean the view that all species have appeared entirely by blind causes and especially by chance and natural selection. We don’t mean more limited hypotheses which were proposed even by creationists long before Darwin, such as: negative selection; emergence of minor adaptations by natural selection; or descent of all species from common ancsetry, over billions of years. These appear to most anti-Darwinists to be true, but they are not Darwinism: which apparently is beyond the reach of verification by precisely-defined predictive power, so that Darwinism is not science. As for Hoyle’s views, in 1999 he expressed the view that Darwinists are “in a sense, mentally ill.” (The Mathematics of Evolution, p3).That may have been excessive language on his part, but it’s notable that no great scientists have used such language in respect to quantum physicists, say, although some of them have doubted the ultimate validity of their theory. Very few Darwinists, I believe, would be able to follow Hoyle’s mathematical arguments. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, because you’re dealing with some very heavy scientists who see no reason to agree with you.
Jim Sherwood said,
September 13, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I tripped over my syntax and didn’t mean to say that common ancestry was proposed by creationists long before Darwin, although they proposed microevolution by natural selection (James Hutton, 1794) and negative selection. Of course, no creationists believe in common ancestry or in any other form of evolution, even non-Darwinist evolution: at least as I use the word creationism. I have to terminate my participation in this discussion. Good luck to one and all.
Jim Thio said,
October 10, 2007 at 9:42 am
Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.