Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Pope and Darwin

For those whose news never arrives except through a cult filter I thought I'd put this into the Origins board as it is more drivel than science: But hopefully interesting drivel.

Headline writers might be tempted to advertise a grudge match between the Holy Father and the high priest of natural selection. But look again. Our title promises the Pope AND Darwin, not the Pope VS. Darwin. Benedict XVI will indeed be hosting a scholarly powwow this weekend at his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, to debate evolution and creation. But don't expect the Catholic Church to start disputing Darwin's basic findings, which Pope John Paul II in 1996 called "more than a hypothesis."

Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html?cnn=yes

Sch?nborn: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

I'm okay with this as his personal belief. I'm even okay with him telling this to his flock.

However, evolution, as you well know, so far as we can tell, has no direction. This is not a religious or anti-religious sentiment. That expression is a specific refutation of an erroneous evolutionary conception, namely Lamarckism. Evolution seeks local extrema, not global extrema.

'Sch?nborn condemned what he called "scientism," or the failure of those in the scientific community to recognize that their findings can't provide all the answers.'

First, scientists don't claim to provide all the answers. This is a strawman. Second, the implication is that religion CAN provide the missing bits; or rather, the bits that religionists believe are missing. We don't know that this is true. (And I strongly suspect it is not.)

I outlined before what I thought were legitimate roles for religion in science. Anything more than that is extremely dangerous - not just for science, but for society.

A better course, I think, would be for him to say something like "Okay, evolution is probabilistic, BUT God invented probability and it was all part of His plan that humans would eventually result, at which point He imparted a soul to man."

One could argue that this is a silly invention to impart to God, but it's no sillier than any of the other inventions attributed to him.

I like to think that the lord and lady set up the rules of the universe many many cycles ago. After that, they might put in a few tugs here or there, but mostly they let it go as it was, which from their point of veiw would be perfect.

IFF wrote:
"I'm okay with this as his personal belief. I'm even okay with him telling this to his flock."

I'm not. By telling them something that is not true the implications are very negative.

1) They don't learn to think for themselves
2) They are taught to obey a self-annointed authoritarian
3) The implication of this seemingly harmless idea is that whatever we do is god's will and therefore we are not responsible

dehammer is correct. If there is indeed a god that god would have set things up such that micromanagement would not be required. Anything less would be proof of a god that couldn't anticipate the results of its own act.

If god is omniscient, why does he keep changing his mind?

This is in fact a logical impossibility.

Therefore god either does not exist or does not think.

QED

To go a little deeper... a god that knows 'everything' past and future cannot change his mind and therefore cannot think. He is just an unthinking truth ie the laws of physics and nothing more.

I hope this helps.

Hi all:

DA knows that God and evolution are like apples and oranges so debate upon which is better is a matter of taste and out of context.

TFF: This fellow could write his PHD thesis on evolution. My unwanted observation is that he is the most adament on the subject.

If Darwin was alive and he was debating the current Pope I would bet on the Pope to make the best presentation. Why? Because Darwin was living at a time when new discoveries were jumping into the heads of all kinds of people and they did not have enough accumulated science with which others could challenge the "brain child" of the latest dreamer. If you think we are comming up with more new ideas (except in electronics) then check the history of patent listings that are not strictly science focused. (I made that up.)

I think the Pope is misguided in his belief but after all if they will make me Pope, and let me make full use of the privledged position, it might be fun. "It is nice to be King"

The evolution theory works. To establish it without reasonable arguement, I think, that we must trace every living creature as far back as we can to see if the changes were gradual or appeared on short notice. Recall the special on Bikini island where we blew the bomb, some of the new dreatures were freaks but many were good results. Possibly Darwin would not want to discuss his views with the Pope due to the general ignorance of the day on such things.
Just another disturbing thought.
jjw

If Darwin debated the Pope, he would almost certainly lose. I've witnessed creationists "debate" with scientists. Generally the scientists don't fare too well. They have facts. They have understanding.

But creationist 'debates' are about spectacle, not dialectic.

The things that go into making a good scientist aren't always the same things that go into making a good public speaker - but religion rewards and thereby nurtures those who can rile the public.

So, yes, His Holiness would put Darwin to shame, I'm sure - not with the strength of his arguments, but by the emotional forcefulness of his rhetorical. If I were going to have someone debate the Pope or one of his cronies, it would be Kenneth Miller. He has a lot of experience with the subject - AND he is himself a creationist.

However, Ken M. is very careful to distinguish his scientific opinion that evolution is good science, from his religious opinion, that God did it. Ken also believe that teaching ID is not science.

Yes. I am adamant about evolution, because I have studied it - unlike the vast majority of those who dismiss it.

And, yes, I hope to perhaps get a PhD in complex adaptive systems after my girls are done with school.

Hi TFF, I'm on your team.

I only think the Pope might out do Darwin because I am giving Darwin only the knowledge available in his time and the current Pope what we know in his time. Get it?
jjw