Pharyngula::Papal anti-evolution

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Papal anti-evolution

PZ Myers • 105 Comments (last page)

We have a much more serious problem with this new pope than that he had to serve in the Hitler Youth for a while or that he is a zombie: Bill Dembski loves him, thinks he's going to favor Intelligent Design creationism, and that he's going to help destroy evolution. John Lynch seems to know a bit about his background on the topic, and is unimpressed with the quality of the Catholic anti-evolution argument. Here's Pope Ratzi on evolution:

It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error…(They) point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed.

Bleh.

I can see why Dembski would be giddy with delight, though: he's got a fellow anti-scientific teleologist in the Vatican now. And in the White House? Dembski thinks so:

I’m predicting that Bush and Benedict XVI will play much the same role in the distintegration of evolution (i.e., the ateleological materialistic form of it that currently dominates the West) as Reagan and John Paul II did in the disintegration of communism.

Neither Bush nor Pope Ratzi are scientists. They don't do science, they don't support science. They aren't going to provide any evidence, and they aren't going to persuade anyone on scientific terms. It is revealing, to say the least, that Bill Dembski thinks these two can determine the outcome of a scientific endeavor—and it's clear that the Intelligent Design creationists don't see this as a project that will be settled by legitimate evidence. It will be settled by the side that has the most potent autocrat.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2191/A3FbTWXq/

Comments:

#22397: — 04/20 at 07:24 AM
I don't pay that much attention to papal politics. Is this really a change from the previous pope? You would expect religious leaders to believe that events in this world are shaped by divine will, even if purely materialistic explanations abound.

#22398: DarkSyde — 04/20 at 07:25 AM
PZ I don't think they really care much anymore about even the facade of science. These bills in Alabama that Nick has been writing up have a provision that you cannot criticize them as being religiously motivated ... it would be illegal to say that.

Check this out for example

"In 2004, Mitchell reportedly defended SB 336 by saying, "I think there is a tremendous ill-balance in the classroom when you can't discuss all viewpoints. This bill will level the playing field because it allows a teacher to bring forward the biblical creation story of humankind," although he later commented, "We are trying to take every step we can to ensure that the people who are operating under this legislation are not challenged on the idea it is a religious effort."

So they're trying to rig it so that no one can call purposely backing this shit, so that biblical creationism can be taught, religiously motivated.

#22402: Danny — 04/20 at 07:48 AM
"Neither Bush nor Pope Ratzi are scientists. They don't do science, they don't support science." Is Bill Dembski a scientist or is he a "scientist"? Does he "do science" and does he "support science"?

#22403: DarkSyde — 04/20 at 08:08 AM
Bill does sophistry, not science. At least you can ask him yourself what the testable scientific theory of non human intelligent design is and, assuming he repsonds, you'll likely get a bunch of bullshit which will bounce around from trying to intimidate you with pseudomathematics, to claims there really is a scientific theory of non human ID in the context of evo but you can't understand it, to the claim that science doesn't matter because it makes wild assumptions like "Magic can't be used as an explanation unless the magic is testable' or the crazy claim that 'the universe exists'.

#22404: — 04/20 at 08:09 AM
I'm a little puzzled. Just what do you expect a believing Catholic to say about the universe and life and how they came to be the way they are? Clearly a believing Catholic has to accept "intelligent design" in the most straightforward sense of those words, even if he also believes that the designer used natural selection to get to his desired results. I think that's an incredibly odd, roundabout, and inefficient way for an intelligent designer to work, but that's what science-friendly Christians think; otherwise, they're no longer Christians.

#22405: — 04/20 at 08:10 AM
Danny, no. But Reagan and JP II were politicians. To the (limited) extent that they played a role in the downfall of communism, a political system, it was by engaging in politics.

#22406: PZ Myers — 04/20 at 08:19 AM
Of course I'm not surprised that the head of the Catholic church believes in a magical being who guides our lives. The troubling thing is that some people believe this is a point of view that legitimately belongs in our interpretation of science.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22408: — 04/20 at 08:24 AM
Ethan--yeah, it's a change. JP II took the same general stance (God created everything, then guided natural forces to make us) but was very progressive about science. He pretty much said that the evidence is indisputable for evolution and needs to be reconciled with religious beliefs, rather than denied. He had an interesting exchange with Steven Hawking that I'll try to remember. I disagree with most of what the post-mortem pope did, but even I have to give him the science thing.

#22409: The Commissar — 04/20 at 08:29 AM
"We have a much more serious problem with this new pope than that he had to serve in the Hitler Youth for a while ..."

Thank you.

#22410: Alon Levy — 04/20 at 08:30 AM
If Benedict and Bush are to science what Reagan and John Paul II were to communism then there is no need to worry, because communism collapsed on its own with little help from any Western leader.

By the way, PZ, how do I disable email notification of follow-up comments by default? I usually forget to uncheck the box, so I then have to unsubscribe to every thread I post to.

#22411: — 04/20 at 08:33 AM
Megan,
I was vaguely aware that JPII was good on science. However, looking at the quote from Ratzi I can't help but think that JPII would have signed on to it as well. It doesn't deny evolution as much as it claims to see the hand of God in its workings. One might say the same about gravity. Whether or not Ratzi is willing to lend support to the ID crowd is a separate question. I'm not aware that it's been answered yet.

I think I'll stick to regarding his fondness for protecting pederasts as his worst failing..... for now.

#22413: Monty Zoom — 04/20 at 08:40 AM
Neither Reagen nor John Paul II brought down Communism! The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight! It didn't do that in 8 years, it took several decades of U.S. and world policy for the CCCP to collapse.

What we have to get used to is that we are entering a new "Dark Ages." Where the only education is a religious one. Where superstition and guesswork is held in higher esteem than rigorous scientific study. I for one welcome our new insect overlords!

#22415: — 04/20 at 08:41 AM
If you believe in God, then you believe in ID - that's a no-brainer. The real leap of faith is to DENY the existence of God, yet still assert ID. Boggles the mind.

#22416: DarkSyde — 04/20 at 08:41 AM
It's hard to say you know. He might turn out to be no worse than John Paul II. And JPII was a mixed bag, but we could have done much worse for the last 26 years. Seems to me like you might run into a theology problem if he contradicts a prior Pope. I don't know how that works. But I think they have to be stick with the partie line that JPII was basically inerrant about all things or close to it ... but just from a political viewpoint you have to figure he might hold off stating the JPII was dead wrong about anything even if it's technically kosher.

To tell you the truth I wouldn't even be talking about Ratzi or Popesm ... but it's being shouted out at me from every news channel, every blog, every newspaper, every telephone conversation, and has been for a fukcing month straight. I seriously wonder if there's any other news being made the last few weeks.
Based on what I'm hearing I'd predict for this guy the same thing that Bush has done for the US. He will take the church from the center of the world's attention with everyone wishing it the best in the aftermath of a loss, and within a year or two the RCC will be either ridiculed, ignored, or hated by much of the rest of the planet, and catholics will be at each other's throats bitterly divided like they haven't been in decades, while Ratzi stuff his buddies pockets full of cash in imaginative giveaways that look half way honorable. That'd be my best guess, but who knows?

#22418: DarkSyde — 04/20 at 08:43 AM
Yeah June but Demsbki doesn't just believe in God and ID, his version of ID specifically says that God DID NOT use common descent/diversification.

#22419: — 04/20 at 08:46 AM

Of course I'm not surprised that the head of the Catholic church believes in a magical being who guides our lives. The troubling thing is that some people believe this is a point of view that legitimately belongs in our interpretation of science.

True, but those people are pretty much the same today as they were a few weeks ago. If things look bad, it's because they've been that way for a while.

#22422: — 04/20 at 08:53 AM
OK, so despite some of the wording of your post (e.g. "Papal Anti-Evolution"), there's no evidence of anything uniquely troubling about Ratzinger with regard to evolution and natural selection. Precision is a virtue, Professor, even when you're venting.

#22424: — 04/20 at 09:01 AM
Oh, come off it, PZ: You and I may know that there's no guiding intelligence behind evolution, but you can hardly expect the Pope to say that, even if he believed it.

The best we freethinkers can hope for is for him to acknowledge, as John Paul II did, that Darwinian evolution isn't incompatible with Christian belief. If God wants to step in late in the process and inject a nonphysical element -- a "soul" -- fine. We don't see it, and we needn't try to account for it; it's his problem.

#22425: Orac — 04/20 at 09:04 AM
I agree that entitling the post "Papal Anti-evolution" is not a great description of the true case.

PZ, this really isn't a change from Pope John Paul II. Read JP's full comments on evolution from 10 years ago sometime. It is unlikely in the extreme that Benedictine will change anything regarding the Church's teaching on evolution. The essential belief is that evolution happened and the Church has no problem with current evolutionary theory, but God is responsible for it all (as, according to the Church, He is for everything). The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant fundies is that, as far as evolution goes anyway, the Catholic Church recognizes the difference between religion and science and does not try to claim its belief is anything other than faith, whereas evolution is science. In fact, the Catholic Church has quite happily had evolution taught in its own schools for decades. From some anecdotes I've heard, it may even be more open to teaching it in its classrooms than public schools these days, given the pressure fundies are putting on public schools to teach "alternatives" to evolution.

Dembski's just too stupid to realize that. Just because the Church considers evolution to be God's way of producing the diversity of life does not mean that it will support his pseudoscience or move to promote the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#22426: — 04/20 at 09:06 AM
To follow up: as a Jew, as a supporter of gay rights, women's rights, death with dignity, and freedom of speech (among other things) I have much bigger problems with Rat****er than his failure to be an atheist.

#22427: PZ Myers — 04/20 at 09:15 AM
As I've already said, I don't expect the pope to be an atheist. My points here were that 1) that quote from Ratzinger is so much babbling noise, and isn't particularly impressive as a defense of much of anything, and 2) some members of the ID crowd think he's just wonderful, and are arguing that the opinions of a religious leader and a Republican non-scientist are going to have a significant effect on the process of science.

Read the last paragraph for my summary of the problem. It definitely isn't that the Pope believes in Jesus.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22428: Orac — 04/20 at 09:18 AM
Theophylact is right. All John Paul II ever said was that evolution was not incompatible with Catholic doctrine. That's all you could ever expect any Pope to say. It went further than any other Pope before him. Of course a Catholic theologian is going to say God is responsible for it all. The point is, the Church recognizes that the belief that God is responsible for the diversity of life is a matter of faith. Look at Ratzinger's own quote: "It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith."

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#22433: — 04/20 at 09:24 AM
"You and I may know that there's no guiding intelligence behind evolution"

I'm sorry - you KNOW this? how, exactly?

#22434: — 04/20 at 09:26 AM
Since the influence of the RCC seems to be strongest in South America and Africa I would be more interested in seeing some sensible talk about condoms from Ratz. That could have real, positive results. How much guidance he thinks his magic friend provides evolution is pretty much hot air.

US and European Catholics pretty much ignore any impractical nonsense coming from the Vatican anyway.

#22435: PZ Myers — 04/20 at 09:27 AM
I know there is NO EVIDENCE for a guiding intelligence.

People who think otherwise are welcome to tell me what it is. The ID creationists have been saying there is for years, and have failed to show anything for it.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Next entry: Damned by a spelling error

Previous entry: Random thoughts on the appointment of a new Pope

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Papal anti-evolution

Info