• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pope speaks out about Evolution

Tanstaafl said:
I'm not the least surprised. I really expected any successor to JPII to back track a little on evolution, given how hard he worked to make sure the cardinals would be close to universally very conservative, and when they picked Ratzinger I pretty well assumed this would happen.
Click to expand...

I had my own assumptions, mostly confirmed, but raising the evolution issue in this way wasn't one of them. Getting away from the touchy-feely, let's make lots of saints to re-kindle aspirations thing was a given. More authority, more pragmatism, more engagement with the real world. More Latin. Less ecumenicism (except on terms of surrender) and less multi-culturalism.

But why bring up evolution? Is Benny trying to muscle-in on Protestant turf?
 
Iamme said:
Could you explain what you mean by overstated?
Click to expand...
it is an example of proteomics vs genomics.
If it was a demonstration of evolution, than you'd predict that catepillars would change into butterflies that didn't have identical DNA.
 
Big Les said:
Fairly reasonable, except that evolution certainly is a "complete, scientifically verified theory".
Click to expand...
I have a minor quibble with this. Evolutionar theory is not complete. There are unknowns. Lots of them. Hundreds (thousands?) of grad students are presumably working on various aspects of the details through their graduate research.

But I do get - and agree with - your point.
 
If these people want to "not change" THIS much, they should try death. That's as static and unchanging as it gets!
 
what's "more than a hypothesis" but also "not a complete, scientifically verified theory"?
Click to expand...

What's "more than just friends" but also "not your wife"?

The core activity is solidly underway and there's no doubt about it.

Please refrain from wisecracks once "wife" status occurs.
 
CapelDodger said:
I had my own assumptions, mostly confirmed, but raising the evolution issue in this way wasn't one of them. Getting away from the touchy-feely, let's make lots of saints to re-kindle aspirations thing was a given. More authority, more pragmatism, more engagement with the real world. More Latin. Less ecumenicism (except on terms of surrender) and less multi-culturalism.

But why bring up evolution? Is Benny trying to muscle-in on Protestant turf?
Click to expand...

Ditto here. I would have been less surprised if he had brought back Latin at mass, or even indulgences.
 
Benny is a caretaker pope*. Doesn't he realize that?

He's not supposed to actually do anything!


* An old cardinal appointed to take charge briefly (until he dies), giving the other cardinals time to take a breather and contemplate the real successor.
 
SezMe said:
I have a minor quibble with this. Evolutionar theory is not complete. There are unknowns. Lots of them. Hundreds (thousands?) of grad students are presumably working on various aspects of the details through their graduate research.

But I do get - and agree with - your point.
Click to expand...

And I have to wonder if Benny was saying the same thing you are, or if he was saying something more like what the typical ID or creationist supporter usually says.

It's just that I grew up in the Catholic Church, and I never, ever, heard any Catholic theologian question evolution. JP II made staunch statements in support of it. It just strikes me as a bit out of character, to the point that I have to wonder if that's really what he meant.

There is an undercurrent within the evolutionary field today that is sometimes called a "Darwinian fundamentalist", I believe the phrase has been used by Dennet (sp?), to describe people who believe that mind and will are recent developments that are a byproduct of evolution. Of course, Benedict would disagree, and I have to wonder if that isn't what he was talking about. Was he saying that evolution was incomplete as a scientific theory because it could not explain absolutely everything? And what did he mean by the fact that it couldn't be duplicated in a lab? Was it an observation about why it wasn't always accepted, or why it shouldn't be accepted? There's a huge difference, and I have to wonder which he meant.

I'll see what else I can find.
 
Interesting links on Benedict's views.

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006c/090806/090806h.php

It's interesting to me because it was speculating on what the Pope might say at this conference.

I'm beginning to think that Benedict is a bit like a lot of people I've met when it comes to evolution. They don't really believe it or not believe it. They simply don't find it an interesting question. Did we evolve? These people's answer is, "Who cares? How would it affect my life?" As a result, they get lumped in with the unsure crowd on all the evolution vs. creation surveys, but that isn't quite correct. It's not, "I've looked at the evidence, and I think it could be either way." It's more like, "I haven't bothered to look at the evidence, because I don't care either way."
 
CapelDodger said:
I had my own assumptions, mostly confirmed, but raising the evolution issue in this way wasn't one of them. Getting away from the touchy-feely, let's make lots of saints to re-kindle aspirations thing was a given. More authority, more pragmatism, more engagement with the real world. More Latin. Less ecumenicism (except on terms of surrender) and less multi-culturalism.

But why bring up evolution? Is Benny trying to muscle-in on Protestant turf?
Click to expand...


I suspect that as a long-time defender of the faith he was anticipating conflicts between science and Catholic teaching, and was positioning himself for those possible future battles.

Of course, he could be doing this for other reasons altogether.
 
This has come up before. When assessing anything the Pope or some other Catholic bigshot does, always ask, "What is the advantage to the Church of this speech or action?" The Church never acts altruistically. CapelDodger guessed about right, I think. Eggs is trying to have a bite of the Bible-believin' protestant sandwich.

Well...in this case he's trying for a bite of waffle, I suppose. He can't quite come out agin' Charlie Darwin this late in the day, but he'd like to nudge-nudge 'n wink-wink a bit, just for the fundie of it.
 
There's no real backtracking here.

The evolution-but-God-tweaked-it "theory" is still in play.

Whereas "intelligent design" as usually presented is too Protestant.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
There's no real backtracking here.

The evolution-but-God-tweaked-it "theory" is still in play.

Whereas "intelligent design" as usually presented is too Protestant.
Click to expand...

Could you explain your last sentence some more? I have no idea what they are exactly teaching kids these days as I have none, and don't sit in on classes to find out.
 
Tanstaafl said:
I suspect that as a long-time defender of the faith he was anticipating conflicts between science and Catholic teaching, and was positioning himself for those possible future battles.

Of course, he could be doing this for other reasons altogether.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church effectively innoculated itself against any scientific conflicts by not initiating them. Science itself won't, because it doesn't do religion; it will respond if religion tries to kick in the door. Over matters such as stem-cells, scientists will agree that there is an ethical dimension and the Catholic argument is on ethical grounds. The Vatican doesn't argue the science. That was recognised as a losing game long ago.

Benedict has diverged from that policy; evolution has no ethical dimension but he's deliberately involving the Catholic Church in the controversy, and what's more is making references to the science. Meadmaker's concerns over what Benny might really mean is a side-issue; the important point is that he's got involved at all.

Damn' right he's doing it for other reasons. Raising the Catholic profile springs to mind, and let's face it we've taken notice and are talking about it. A "me-too" thing, slip-streaming on the US fundie investment.
 
The Catholic Church effectively innoculated itself against any scientific conflicts by not initiating them. Science itself won't, because it doesn't do religion; it will respond if religion tries to kick in the door. Over matters such as stem-cells, scientists will agree that there is an ethical dimension and the Catholic argument is on ethical grounds. The Vatican doesn't argue the science. That was recognised as a losing game long ago.

Benedict has diverged from that policy; evolution has no ethical dimension but he's deliberately involving the Catholic Church in the controversy, and what's more is making references to the science. Meadmaker's concerns over what Benny might really mean is a side-issue; the important point is that he's got involved at all.

Damn' right he's doing it for other reasons. Raising the Catholic profile springs to mind, and let's face it we've taken notice and are talking about it. A "me-too" thing, slip-streaming on the US fundie investment.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think you are pretty on the money here. With previous statements from the Church, evolution is a done deal. But the Church has always drawn a very heavy line in the sand when it comes to the evolution of self awareness spirituality and the soul.

The Pope might be firing the first shot in a turf war. I am not sure where current anthropolgy studies are going these days, but he may fear science is starting to stray onto his patch in trying to define the evolution of self awareness and spirituality.

So I guess it might be a case of wait and see rather than jump the gun and try and second guess the Popes intentions
 
MG1962 said:
Yeah I think you are pretty on the money here. With previous statements from the Church, evolution is a done deal. But the Church has always drawn a very heavy line in the sand when it comes to the evolution of self awareness spirituality and the soul.

The Pope might be firing the first shot in a turf war. I am not sure where current anthropolgy studies are going these days, but he may fear science is starting to stray onto his patch in trying to define the evolution of self awareness and spirituality.

So I guess it might be a case of wait and see rather than jump the gun and try and second guess the Popes intentions
Click to expand...

Can I ask you something? Why is it that if someone says that evolution is just an untested theory, we call them an idiot but if the pope says it, we wait and see what his intentions are?

If you are afraid to say it, fine but I am not. The pope is an idiot!

Opps, sorry! Let me clarify this a little better; the current pope,
Pope Benedictus XVI (aka. The Rat), is an idiot!
 
CapelDodger said:
Damn' right he's doing it for other reasons. Raising the Catholic profile springs to mind, and let's face it we've taken notice and are talking about it. A "me-too" thing, slip-streaming on the US fundie investment.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the never-ending struggle to get butts into pews and cash into collection baskets. I'm sure someone in the Vatican has been doing their market research and found that most Americans will accept one variety of creationism or another. Ergo, cater message to suit the audience; whether it's the die-hard right-wing Papists (e.g. Cal Thomas, Pat Buchanan) who think the RCC has been too namby-pamby on evolution since JPII's previous proclamation, or the "liberal" Catholics who are willing to kinda-sorta accept evolutionary theory, but can't let go of the whole "God" thing.

Now sit back, relax, and wait for the jack.... I mean, the tithes to roll in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom