- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Benedict's backs "theistic evolution"
In remarks published in a new book yesterday, Pope Benedict refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Pope Benedict 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 yesterday 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, the Herald says.
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"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," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going".
"Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that nature or evolution has done this or that," Benedict said in the book, which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.
"Just who is this nature or evolution as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.
"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.
Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close adviser, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the intelligent design view.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/704/52.php
Originally posted by Conrau KDoes that mean that the pope thinks it required no intelligence for God to create life?
Benedict's backs "theistic evolution"
In remarks published in a new book yesterday, Pope Benedict refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Pope Benedict says scienc ...[text shortened]... telligent design view.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/704/52.php
It's just the sort of reasoning I expect from a man who thinks he's the successor of Peter. Just more religious posturing for political and capital gain.
I still believe the bible. Literally!
Originally posted by josephwDo you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds?
Does that mean that the pope thinks it required no intelligence for God to create life?
It's just the sort of reasoning I expect from a man who thinks he's the successor of Peter. Just more religious posturing for political and capital gain.
I still believe the bible. Literally!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by josephwAs far as I understand the pope is merely articulating the theistic version of evolution which states that God is the primary author, the "First Cause", of all of creation, and who endowed his creation with the dynamism to evolve. I expect the pope would reject the "God of the Gaps" idea which implies God to be any other sort of cause just like physical causes.
Does that mean that the pope thinks it required no intelligence for God to create life?
EDIT: It does seem that the pope personally thinks evolution to be a valid theory.
Originally posted by josephwThe claim by ID folks is not that intelligence was used but that:
Does that mean that the pope thinks it required no intelligence for God to create life?
1. Intelligence was required
2. There is substantial evidence for that requirement.
Sadly they have failed to provide any evidence of a substantial nature.
It's just the sort of reasoning I expect from a man who thinks he's the successor of Peter. Just more religious posturing for political and capital gain.
It more likely he is just reflecting the views of his Church members, the majority of which probably believe that evolution is fact.
I still believe the bible. Literally!
I don't remember the Bible ever saying that evolution is a flawed theory. Even if God did create the world say about 10,000 years ago, it is not a logical deduction that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed.
Originally posted by Conrau KNot just the Pope but the Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution for what it is, namely a serious scientific theory.
As far as I understand the pope is merely articulating the theistic version of evolution which states that God is the primary author, the "First Cause", of all of creation, and who endowed his creation with the dynamism to evolve. I expect the pope would reject the "God of the Gaps" idea which implies God to be any other sort of cause just like physical causes.
EDIT: It does seem that the pope personally thinks evolution to be a valid theory.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt seems you missed off a few key words. How does your sentence end, Ivanhoe?
Not just the Pope but the Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution for what it is, namely a serious scientific theory...
a) ...which is almost certainly true
b) ...which is probably true
c) ...which may be true, but is unlikely to be true
d) ...which is highly unlikely to be true
Originally posted by dottewellI'm sure there are officials in the Church who would individually agree with a-d. The point is there is no Church dogma rejecting evolutionary theory. I was taught Darwin, not creation "science", when I went to Catholic schools many moons ago.
It seems you missed off a few key words. How does your sentence end, Ivanhoe?
a) ...which is almost certainly true
b) ...which is probably true
c) ...which may be true, but is unlikely to be true
d) ...which is highly unlikely to be true
Originally posted by dottewellCan you imagine someone saying anything about major scinetific theory which is hardly probable??? 😛
It seems you missed off a few key words. How does your sentence end, Ivanhoe?
a) ...which is almost certainly true
b) ...which is probably true
c) ...which may be true, but is unlikely to be true
d) ...which is highly unlikely to be true
Originally posted by dottewell....that's the trouble with a scientific theory, isn't it Dotty ? There are still a lot of questions to be answered .... or do you think all the issues regarding the evolution theory are settled ?
It seems you missed off a few key words. How does your sentence end, Ivanhoe?
a) ...which is almost certainly true
b) ...which is probably true
c) ...which may be true, but is unlikely to be true
d) ...which is highly unlikely to be true