Pharyngula

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

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Papal anti-evolution

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/2191/15ZXLX1y/

Comments:
Trackback: Pope Benedict XVI on Evolution Tracked on: The Politburo Diktat (216.193.202.220) at 2005 04 20 08:52:09
Then Cardinal Ratzinger presided over the Church's International Theological Commission, which has this document online: I'll offer this brief, layman's interpretation. The Church has no problem with Darwinian evolution (random mutation and natural selection) as an explanation for diversity of life on earth. But, since the Church DOES believe in God, it reserves for Him, the role of "causer of causes." This doctrine is generally called "theistic evolution." Some…



Trackback: Pope Ratzi on evolution Tracked on: Agylen (80.68.90.61) at 2005 04 20 09:20:29
Yesterday we chided Pope Ratzi for being a homophobic reactionary. Now it's time, thanks to PZ Myers, to see how he stands on matters of science, especially in fields where science seems to be perfectly able to explain things like the evolution of livi...



Trackback: Leveraging the New Pope to Advance Intelligent Design Creationism Tracked on: Abnormal Interests (64.81.36.251) at 2005 04 20 13:43:58
Those you who read these rambles regularly know that I think PZ Myers at Pharyngula has about the best blog on the web. However, I think he may have gone a little beyond the evidence today. He has a very...



's avatar #22747: Ken Cope — 04/22  at  03:16 PM
Pharyngula, my first stop when surfing for religious literature.

Why do most people presume that those who eschew religion have had no prior exposure to it? It's not as if there is a shortage of opportunities to be inundated with it. Religion needs no help, especially not from Knemon (how is Augustine on the ethics of lying?). It's the science that's in short supply.



#22749: — 04/22  at  03:32 PM
"Why do most people presume that those who eschew religion have had no prior exposure to it?"

Well, that was my personal trajectory.
And I'm still very much an agnostic. But I've gone from having utter contempt for "fairy tales" etc., as you guys do, to being more respectful of it.

It's made me less bitter, and simultaneously less arrogant (though this may be hard to discern from my posting). But hey, if you're happy, that's great.

Most "religious" people are very bad advertisements for religion. I'll just say, Mr. Cope, that you aren't making the alternative look any better.



's avatar #22754: Ken Cope — 04/22  at  04:22 PM
So what if I'm not making the alternative any better? I'm not proselytizing for atheism. I have plenty of respect for the religious posters here who don't use their religious beliefs as a pretext for reality-denial.

I LOVE me my fairy tales. Some of the books in my L. Frank Baum first edition collection are over 100 years old. I've got animation screen credits on a few big screen fairy tales, and am working on a few Oz characters in 3D right now. Stories are just not improved by insisting that they're really truly non-fictional. Is there no parable nor metaphor in the Bible?

I don't take well to people who want to employ the power of the State to mandate religious instruction ("When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." --Franklin). It's bad enough that you charged in here spouting a handful of logical fallacies in support of the usual nonsense, but then you went and dropped everybody's jaw advocating lying. That you don't like me for pointing that out is not my problem.

If you can't look up into a starry night and feel a shiver up your spine apprehending Carl Sagan's "apperception of the numinous" it isn't (or shouldn't be) a problem for science. If you want to put the fear of god into people to scare them into ethical behavior, beware the backlash when the fraud is found out. If there isn't enough magic in the world for you, take the advice, as I do, of Shel Silverstein:

Sandra’s seen a leprechaun,
Eddie touched a troll,
Laurie danced with witches once,
Charlie found some goblin’s gold.
Donald heard a mermaid sing,
Suzy spied an elf,
But all the magic I have known
I’ve had to make myself.



#22755: — 04/22  at  04:32 PM

"Why do most people presume that those who eschew religion have had no prior exposure to it?"

Well, that was my personal trajectory.


Knemon ... what planet are you from.

More than one person here has related a tale of how they had to question and then escape an environment where religion is just assumed without question. And then we are forced to live with it on a daily basis (how far can you drive without seeing a church or related institution?).



#22759: tristero — 04/22  at  05:45 PM
Knemon proposes lying (white lies, of course). For reasons I fully agree with, everyone in this conversation other than he are appalled at the notion.

Knemon states that we have moral problems today that are not being addressed by the theory of evolution and other scientific theories. He is right, but morality is also not being addressed by the Bossa Nova or the New York/Metropolitan Transit Authority, to name two others at random. Science is not a theology, it is not a religion, and it is emphatically not an ethical syste (although it is practiced within an ethical system).

Knemon says that religious ideas should be taught in humanities classes. He is clearly unaware that they are, all the time. But they are not taught, or should not be taught, as revealed, absolute, truth.

I am genuinely at a loss as to what he wants or expects. That natural selection is a fact in no way undermines religious observance or a moral code unless a person wants it to. To advocate science in no way minimizes the immense importance of other modes of thought, such as poetry, music, visual art, and spiritual quests.



#22761: — 04/22  at  05:59 PM
"I am genuinely at a loss as to what he wants or expects."

That makes two of us.



Trackback: Ratzinger and Creation Tracked on: Tractatus Bloggius (195.137.69.156) at 2005 04 24 13:17:04
PZ is concerned that Ratzinger could be a big help for IDC. Perhaps. I don't think Ratzinger has really been too interested in ID, but he has made the occasional hat tip with regards to creation. Stranger Fruit has some comments on this, as does Agylen and Abnormal Interests.



Page 5 of 5 pages « First  <  3 4 5

Next entry: Damned by a spelling error

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

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college