Interesting read. link Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 4,10:12 AM ET VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason. ADVERTISEMENT Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States. The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe. "The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said. But he said science, too, should listen to religion. "We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said. "But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said. "The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design." Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." "A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof." He was asked about comments made in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who dismissed in a New York Times article the 1996 statement by John Paul as "rather vague and unimportant" and seemed to back intelligent design. Basti concurred that John Paul's 1996 letter "is not a very clear expression from a definition point of view," but he said evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops. Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better." The Vatican project STOQ has organized academic courses and conferences on the relationship between science and religion and is hosting its first international conference on "the infinity in science, philosophy and theology," next week.
You do realize that Darwin beleived in God right? Evolution is real and is all around us and most people don't deny that evolution exists, it is just a matter of how far back you believe it goes. My Bible tells me I was made in God's image, and I'd like to think God isn't an ape.
I think most Christians (not the fundamentalists) believe in evolution and the power of science. I'm glad the church is admitting that turning a blind eye to science leads to dangerous results.
The Pope is giving good advice, but don’t forget that there is a difference between good science and bad science. Bad science has a “fundamentalism” of its own and with respect to evolution it’s a very serious problem at the moment. Even some of the most well respected evolutionary scientists have noted it and fought with it, in various ways. I’ve posted this before but I’ll post it again. The issue he addresses here is not ID, or even the broadly defined idea of evolution, but the problem is the same, a narrow, rigid, anti-scientific mindset that calls itself “science” but is really merely pursuing political and personal objectives. As noted in the ID thread, this problem when back to the very beginnings of the theory. The political pressures on this issue have always been very strong, and they continue to be, from both sides. ----- Darwinian Fundamentalism By Stephen Jay Gould With copious evidence ranging from Plato's haughtiness to Beethoven's tirades, we may conclude that the most brilliant people of history tend to be a prickly lot. But Charles Darwin must have been the most genial of geniuses. He was kind to a fault, even to the undeserving, and he never uttered a harsh word—or hardly ever, as his countryman Captain Corcoran once said. Darwin's disciple, George Romanes, expressed surprise at the only sharply critical Darwinian statement he had ever encountered: "In the whole range of Darwin's writings there cannot be found a passage so strongly worded as this: it presents the only note of bitterness in all the thousands of pages which he has published." Darwin directed this passage that Romanes found so striking against people who would simplify and caricature his theory as claiming that natural selection, and only natural selection, caused all evolutionary changes. He wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species: As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation. … http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151
Stephen Jay Gould is great. If you want to read a good book on this subject, get his "Rock of Ages" book. Good, quick concise read.
I agree. His writing about the topics were very enlightening, and actually entertaining to read. He is my favorite scientist on the subject.
Darwin believed that God used natural selection and mutation to create the diversity of species we have today. I've said this before in regard to the ID debates that I don't see why religious people need to feel threatened about Evolution. Its one thing to be skeptical about the evidence it but its another to deny evolution based upon religious beliefs. Both can coexists because ultimately they answer different questions. If you believe that you are created in God's image that doesn't contradict Evolution because perhaps God went through intermediate steps to create you and apes happened to be an intermediate step.
I believe evolutionary science is biased. That's just my own experience and opinion. I don't believe evolutionists adequtely address or admit the theory's shortcomings. My problem with evolution is that it is shoved down school children's throats (in my humble opinion) without seriously looking at problems in the theory. All my opinion.
Rhester; You're certainly free to your opinion but when you make such absolutists statements as "Mutation is a guess. It has never been proven in experiments." or "No transitional fossils have ever been found." I can't but help but believe that your own biases are clouding your judgement from approaching Evolution and the evidence supporting it with an open mind. Even though I defend Evolution in these sorts of debates I will agree that there are some serious questions about Evolution and don't categorically deny that ID couldn't have happened. Further I will also agree that there are some serious problems with regard to the teaching of science and that their is a lot of misunderstanding regarding how science works or teaching science as dogma that has caused problems. All of that given though I would ask that you approach some of this with more of an open mind. The feeling I get from passionate proponents of ID is that your passion is largely driven as a counter reaction to a seemingly dogmatic argument for Evolution.
Nail on the head. I am biased by my faith. My judgment is clouded by that bias. My mind is not open. (Things I don't understand, I leave to those who do) When I think of transitional fossils, I don't think the way an evolutionist thinks. In Genesis chapter 1 God said He created everything after its kind, not species (species is man's idea). In other words their are different 'kinds' cats, birds, snakes etc and each in their kind may share common ancestors. So fossils based upon the Bible would be within 'kind'. When considering the massive amount of transition that would take place during 150 million years of evolution logic demands that over any short time period (150 yr say) there would be huge amounts of evidence of transition across kinds. Species is the way most men could understand this, so I use the missing link phrase. The amount of transitional change necessary to get from a primitive primate to modern man is huge biologically. That scenario logically and rationally demands large amounts of fossil record. Unless there were these strange evolutionary jumps where species appeared instantly due to some cosmic disturbance. I have read evolutionists who are now supporting this idea. When I state that mutation is a guess I was not including controlled experiements where highly intelligent scientists set up special conditions to observe small mutations at levels that indicate that within kind all kind of mutations take place. I was referring to much larger observations and experiments that I have read about where mutation was tried to come up with evolutionary transition between kinds. Where mutation was an observable cause of an evolutionary development. I am not aware of any mutation experiment that produced an actual evolutionary developed organism or species or anything. Mutations over time in every experiment I have seen have damaged the species or organism resulting in shorter lifespan and even quick death. So I meant that to take a small experiment of mutation on a very small scale within kind and extrapolate it to macro evolution is a guess. At least my own bias perceives it that way. I am not trying to sound competent when I post, just trying to be honest and opinionated. Again, nail on the head.
BYT- my expertise and training is in Bible College, (expertise is not quite the word I wanted), not science. I am sure I am off base on science. I am open to be convinced of evolution. Until then I stay the course with my Bible.
As I said in my original post, it is all in "how far" you think evolution goes. That would contradict my beliefs and the Bible, so not an acceptable view in my opinion. Genesis 2:7 states "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Please read on for more explanation on this. Genesis 1:26-30 states the following... Basically, we are made in God's image... and by image I don't mean his physical apperance because Paul writes in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". Now, you might say "Ha, you just proved my point for me" but wait before you go celebrating. I also believe in the Holy Trinity, which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all of which have been around since the beginning. The Bible also states that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, and Jesus was obviously a man. God has given man free will, which reflects God's image. Every man has the ability to choose for himself his actions. He is morally aware. Man understands that certain things are good and certain things are evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had no experiential knowledge of good and evil, but they most certainly understood that they should obey God's commands. Although we now must struggle against our evil nature to obey God, we still have moral understanding and comprehension of good and evil. Lastly, one of the ways the image of God manifests itself in man is that only man can be aware of God and is capable of fellowshipping with Him. This part of man was exercised freely in the Garden before the fall. All men still are able to comprehend God's existence, but none are able to fellowship with Him unless they have been born again in Christ. Obviously, the universality of religion shows that awareness of God and some need for a relationship with Him is common to man. Obviously like nearly the entire Bible, this discussion all comes down to interpretation but it is a rather simple arguement in my opinion... but then again that is based on my views and beliefs.
This is a curious statement with respect to ID because it’s clearly the fundamentalist evolutionists that are the ones who feel threatened by people opening the doors to other explanations. Is it “fundamentalism” in general that you are questioning or merely the fundamentalism that’s not in line with yours?
I think I am safe in saying that no scientists are threaten by creationism - because creationism isn't science - but they are offended and threaten by the way creationist are trying to change what science is, creationists can't win the argument on even footing, so they are changing the rules - they are praying on the ignorance of the masses (not a real surprise considering the history of religion) I have no problem with alternatives, as long as those theorys are based in reality and on actual evidence - creationism fails in both regards
As a Christian this is a line of reasoning that says that this is literally what happened, word for word, is one I’ve never found very compelling. The Bible teaches with parables and metaphors in many places. Could this not be another instance? In fact our bodies are made out of water and minerals and other things that come from the dust of the ground, but these materials alone to bring a body to life. The essence of life is something different. Could this not simply be a way of illustrating this and helping people understand the important difference?
I believe the Bible to be true and complete, and I believe it word for word... I know a lot of Catholics (especially anglo-Catholics rather then latin Catholics) believe the Bible to be a "guidebook" rather then a fact based book. I have been dating a Irish-Catholic for about 3 years now and we butt heads constantly on this. When God and Jesus spoke in parables they openly stated that. I don't for one second believe that we started as lesser beings and evolved into what we are today (obviously not speaking about our society or scientific advancements). God created the heaven and the earth in 7 days, why would he take thousands of years to "morph" man into what he wanted them to be? Basically, I believe if we started as lesser beings it would have been said.
