Pope says science too narrow to explain creation – Reuters.com: 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.
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.
Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as “theistic evolution,” the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
Anybody that believes in Intelligent Design doesn’t have a prostate like mine.
Does this surprise anybody?
While he is back stepping some what he still says, “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.”
He isn’t anti-science.
1. Science is based on empiricism. Anything untestable is inherently outside of it
2. Science extrapolates from current events into the past based on the current state and known laws. Different laws or external interactions are outside of it. No miracles allowed.
3. Commonly held scientific views change all the time – plate techtonics and asteroid strikes were once inconceivable, as were quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, etherless propogation of light, force at a distance, etc. We’ve always thought we’ve had all the answers, and we’ve almost always found we were wrong.
Pope’s right.
Pope’s right and it works for me.There is a God the beauty and complexity of the Universe is no random series of events.I think he occasionaly burns a batch of cookies.That may explain your prostrate.
“Theistic evolution” makes as much sense as “virgin birth”. If you can actually believe in those things I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Improbus, I don’t believe in those things… but can I buy the bridge?
Sure thing Jim. A mark is a mark no matter their theological leanings.
“Pope says science too narrow to explain creation”
And this comes from the same church that tried to roast Gallileo for finding out that the Earth orbits around the Sun.
The Space Pope is Reptillian!
Also, some things have to be taken on faith. Evolution is one of those things. I’m sure the pope understands the whole “faith” concept.
I happen to believe in BOTH evolution and creation and don’t find a tension int that because they come from completely different disciplines.
I actually find that BOTH require leaps of faith and — to be honest — I find the big bang theory perhaps a greater leap of faith then my belief in God.
I mean, how did the energy of 70 sextillion suns end up in one big-ass ball someplace — out of friggin’ nowhere?
Compared to that, I find God rather easy to believe in.
Compared to that, I find God rather easy to believe in.
From this I take it that you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well. They differ a little from God in that there is some physical evidence that they actually exist (e.g. candy and presents).
Perhaps the Pope should take a trip to the ISS in a Russian rocket. Or go help repair the Hubble in a shuttle. Then he could see that the Earth really is a sphere without map boundaries and not flatland.
#4: I’m afraid you’re missing the forest from the trees. The WHOLE POINT of science is that it’s a CONTINUAL learning process. Science doesn’t say “OK, here’s everything there is, end of story”. It says “Here’s an explanation of what we see and measure as we understand it today.” Unfortunately I see your view frequently. This view is, “Science doesn’t know everything there is to know, so science doesn’t know anything.” However, as time passes, science certainly tends to have a more and more accurate explanation of the universe. You show this yourself – there was a time we had no idea what caused earthquakes and volcanos along well-defined regions of the world. Science now has a theory of plate techtonics, backed-up with a literal mountain of evidence, that matches well with our observations. No TRUE scientist of the modern age would ever claim that we know all there is to know.
—“I mean, how did the energy of 70 sextillion suns end up in one big-ass ball someplace — out of friggin’ nowhere?”—
Greg, if you were a particle physicist you would easily see the possibility of the big bang theory. It doesn’t require a leap of faith like religion. Particle physicists can observe the effect of real particles, study their properties, and apply that repeatable and testable information to experiments to see if the results still fit within the parameters of a plausible big bang. So far they do, but the big bang theory isn’t for certain like you believe God is for certain. Scientists eventually throw away 98% of what they initially theorize through testing and retesting. The 2% success is worth the effort. The scientific process is the only way to get through the noise (like Christianity) and determine the truth.
I think you are just too afraid to truly research what is being discovered in this area, and what the possibilities are. As a previous RC, i know there is the constant belief you are being watched by HIM. What would He think if you actually allowed yourself to lower your defensive position and learn what there is to know about the universe? What if you discover that science makes more sense than the Bible ever did? What if you allowed yourself to be mortal.? .. no ghostly soul that flies to God when you die. I think you believe couldn’t tolerate that truth… that there HAS to be something more after death… that it can’t be over.
It’s the fear that any church uses to control their flock of sheep. I can tell you that I feel incredibly FREE of all the bullshit. I understand my place in the universe, my purpose and my fate… and it all makes perfect sense. There are no what-if’s, and no feelings of being watched. Just pure and simple freedom and life.
Improbus here my mastercard number. Don’t show it to anyone else.
6552 8657 9765 1223, security code 456. Don’t charge me more than my $23,000 limit. Do you deliver?
We are a way for the universe to know itself —
Carl Sagan
Now if someone could explain how the software continues to run after the hardware is non-functional. Isn’t that the ultimate question?
#10 – tallwookie
“…some things have to be taken on faith. Evolution is one of those things.”
#11 – Greg Allen
“I actually find that BOTH require leaps of faith”
Fellas, just saying that over and over is never going to make it true.
To think that “faith” has anything at all to do with science only demonstrates that your concept of what science is is fundamentally wrong.
Faith = belief without evidence, and in fact, usually belief in spite of evidence.
Science = provisional acceptance (as opposed to“dogma) of only observable, empirical, measurable evidence.
That’s not a comprehensive defintion of science, or but it’s sufficient to make the point: there are few things more absurd in modern technological society than, while surrounded by the products of science, claiming that the method by which they developed is no different than superstition. And when you say evolution or the Big Bang requires faith to believe in, then you’re also saying that gravity, electricity, space flight, medicine, computers, etc, etc, etc, are all products of irrational belief without benefit of evidence, which is simply ridiculous.
Scientists know better than you do what constitutes science – and they know better than you that faith has absolutely no part in it.
How is it that the pope who is supposedly God’s representative on earth not believe in the Biblical form of creation. I wonder what other things he would want to remove from the Bible, what a joke.
Hmm…. The pope doesn’t believe evolution. Perhaps this is predictable from someone who has presumably read just one book over and over and over.
#11 – Greg Allen,
There is evidence of the big bang. The universe has been proven to be not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion. There is however not a shred of evidence for any deity. The best argument ever presented is the cause and effect argument. But, quantum theory completely denies cause and effect and is one of the most tried and proven theories we have. If you choose not to believe in quantum theory, I would suggest shutting down your computer and leaving it that way. Why? Well, the semiconductors that are part of what make it work, do so because of quantum theory.
As for your 70 sextillion suns, whose point are you trying to make? Do you believe that a deity created 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 planets just to wait and watch for 13 billion years and then plant humans on one pathetic little rock in the uncharted backwaters of the eastern spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy?
#16 – BubbaRay,
You asked, “Now if someone could explain how the software continues to run after the hardware is non-functional. Isn’t that the ultimate question?”
I say, quite simply, it doesn’t.
# – Lauren the Ghoti,
WRT gravity, clearly, you have not yet heard the theory of Intelligent Falling, as detailed in the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/89dbh
OK, Seriously, very well said. There are many people in this country now that are getting such bad science educations that they literally can’t describe the scientific method and can’t tell the difference between a scientific theory, such as evolution, natural selection, quantum theory, and relativity, and something that fails to even be a valid hypothesis, like Intelligent Design.
See, the problem with ID is quite simply that it causes endless recursion. In order to explain the creation of the universe, it first postulates the pre-existence of a creature that can go around creating such things at the rate of one a week. Well, why is it not valid to say that the existence of god is evidence of a god creator, which is evidence of a god creator creator, and a god creator creator creator.
See, endless recursion. This is something that fails to even be a hypothesis. The very idea, to put it bluntly, flies up its own asshole.
John, It might surprise you that the Christian world doesn’t conform the catchy caricature that Dawkins pins his thesis to. Moreover, the Christian faith doesn’t hinge on a literal interpretation of Genesis. It was well down on the list of things that Jesus emphasised. The pope may hold to one of many other legitimate interpretations of the creation story.
M Scott –
That Onion story is perfect – I don’t know how I managed to miss it. But like so many superb parodies over the years, from the original NatLamp to Spy and now the Onion, they’re only read by the people who are already in on the joke – it’s preaching to the choir. If I had my druthers, I would make every IDer and creationist read it – because sometimes humor – in this case, gentle ridicule – can sow the seeds of doubt more effectively than straight logical proof, and every ‘believer’ who can be persuaded or cajoled or even ridiculed into questioning the crap they’ve been fed is a step closer to a saner society…
“Do you believe that a deity created 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 planets just to wait and watch for 13 billion years and then plant humans on one pathetic little rock in the uncharted backwaters of the eastern spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy?”
You forgot to mention – “and He did all this so He could command us to wear funny hats, kill others of our kind who don’t wear funny hats, honor Him with primitive bling-bling accompanied by singing in dead languages, and reassure Him over and over and over how wonderful He is?”
(For someone omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, He sure is insecure!) 😉
M Scott –
That Onion story is perfect – I don’t know how I managed to miss it. But like so many superb parodies over the years, from the original NatLamp to Spy and now the Onion, they’re only read by the people who are already in on the joke – it’s preaching to the choir. If I had my druthers, I would make every IDer and creationist read it, because sometimes humor – in this case, gentle ridicule – can sow the seeds of doubt more effectively than straight logical proof, and every ‘believer’ who can be persuaded or cajoled or even ridiculed into questioning the crap they’ve been fed is a step closer to a saner society…
“Do you believe that a deity created 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 planets just to wait and watch for 13 billion years and then plant humans on one pathetic little rock in the uncharted backwaters of the eastern spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy?”
You forgot to mention – “and He did all this so He could command us to wear funny hats, kill others of our kind who don’t wear funny hats, and reassure Him over and over and over how wonderful He is?”
(For someone omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, He sure is insecure!) 😉
Even the Pope knows that WordPress is a primitive, buggy piece of shit…
See, the problem with ID [intelligent design] is quite simply that it causes endless recursion…
Comment by Misanthropic Scott — 4/12/2007 @ 4:55 pm
Just as Stephen Hawking said in ‘A Brief History of Time’ :: (Quoting old lady)… “You see, young man, it’s turtles, turtles all the way down.”
Momma said it best, “Never trust a man in a funny hat.”
2nd: gotta admit, the Pope’s got a cute butt for an older guy.
I only say that because I was sexually abused / molested / filmed / enjoyed / by homopriests under the poope’s watchful eye — you know, the eye in the middle of his popely pickle?
IN GHOD WE TRUST! Everybody else gets burned at the stake for heresy.
Lauren TG,
If you missed that onion article, you probably missed this one too. I’ve been reading theonion long enough to remember when this was in the current issue. They’re still great. But, they were even funnier in ’96.
Of course, this one’s actually likely to piss off a few people. I apologize in advance to any offended by it. I’d also say that if insulting the pope bugs you, you probably shouldn’t read this one.
http://tinyurl.com/2hb86o
The Theory of Evolution as currently used is a fine model for describing how things change and grow in response to their environment. It is very useful for predicting what is going to happen in the future. It should be learned by everyone becuase of its usefulness.
The model requires a “Godless” point of view to function and that is fine too. Feel free to use and refine the Theory. Teach it. Just don’t force everyone to believe that the universe really is Godless. Using a model that assumes a Godless point of view is not the same thing as believing that God does not exist.
Most of us who hold the Apostolic faith see no conflict between using Evolutionary Theory to explain and predict, while at the same time believing that God is “everywhere present and filling all things.”
We believe it is he who created the universe (or the multiverse of which our universe is a part) and it is he who activly sustains and governs it, according to the laws he has established. He applies those laws consistently, making the Theory of Evoultion possible to describe. There is no confilict here.
#29 – Jim Smith,
Unfortunately, while you make some good points, you have a key misunderstanding of evolution. The only prediction it can make is that species will evolve to improve their own survival. It is not predictive in any greater sense than that.
This is one of the common misconceptions of those who see evolution as the tool of god. The problem is that if you could go back in time and play forward again from any point, it would not necessarily and not even likely lead to the same place, i.e. to the evolution of the species we see today, including ourselves.
The predictions evolution has made that have come true are about finding intermediate fossils as the fossil record fills in. Where the gaps are large, the details get less specific. Evolution predicted that we would find intermediate species between land animals and cetaceans. It could not have predicted the specifics of Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus.
Where the gaps are smaller, such as with feathers, no one dared to expect that we would be lucky enough to see intermediate stages between scales and feathers. But we got lucky with some Chinese fossils. The intermediates between scales and feathers are exactly what we would have expected. But, the details of the creatures could not have been guessed.
So, evolution is more explanatory than predictive. We can’t tell what species will evolve after the sixth mass extinction, the greatest this planet has ever seen.