#22436: — 04/20  at  09:30 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.

I think many die-hard evolutionists who have a personal faith would be very surprised to hear that they believe in Intelligent Design.

Ratzi's official position is a dangerous one, because it superficially aligns him with JP2's comparatively progressive stance on evolution, but undermines its core message. JP2's position was really a more adamant legacy of Pius XII's statement that evolution is not inimical to the Catholic faith. JP2's position represented an advance in the right direction in that he emphasized that faith and science do not belong in the same place and in underscoring that evolution is "the most robust theory" to explain biological evolution.

In calling for "audacity" Ratzi is clearly trying to reintroduce matters of faith and religion into the scientific conversation. That erodes the distance that the two Popes previous took care to place between them.

#22438: — 04/20  at  09:36 AM
"I know there is NO EVIDENCE for a guiding intelligence."

Okay ... and so you *know* there isn't one?

Do you *know* that things (don't press me on what I mean by "things," because we'll end up in linguistics-land, where I don't think either of us want to be) exist independent of observation?

Science is useful. If you want to build a structure that won't fall down, make your stomach stop hurting, or travel great distances quickly, it's the best game in town.

Science can't determine ends, though - and it can't answer questions like this.

I'm not at all down with creation "science" being taught in schools. By all means, teach 'em evolution and its implications - but I'd like to see ethics instruction there as well. There are other "conversations" beyond the scientific.

#22443: — 04/20  at  09:49 AM
It's the "chance and error" phrase that worries me. This is classic creationist jargon. To me, use of this language implies that B16 doesn't <i>understand<i> evolution nearly as well as JP2 did, and therefore isn't capable of making informed decisions about it. In my experience, those with the least knowledge of evolution are among the most hostile to it.

#22444: — 04/20  at  09:54 AM
Once again, we have witnessed a pope evolve from a lower Primate.

#22445: — 04/20  at  10:19 AM
A useful way to see what PZ is going on about is to think of creationism as a position that comes in degrees and shades. The current pope, like his recently deceased predecessor is, no doubt, a selective creationist. JP II explicitly defended the thesis that human psychological faculties were created independenly and did not arise out of evolution. This is a creationist position - it is just less extreme than (say) someone who claims the 6000 year position etc.

#22447: — 04/20  at  10:26 AM
According to catholic.net, http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creation.html Pope John Paul II never embraced "Darwin's theories of evolution," and any suggestion that he did so was a distortion by the mass media. What's really interesting is that the Vatican has its own specialist in these matters, according to catholic.net. He is (or was -- the date of this article is unclear) Vittorio Marcozzi, who, the article says, "was summoned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to debate with eminent scientists who have written on evolution and creation." Here's what the Vatican expert on evolution, summoned by the man who is now pope, has to say about it, in part:

Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. ... For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention.

It looks as if the Vatican expert on evolution doesn't even understand it.

#22450: — 04/20  at  10:39 AM

, the Catholic Church recognizes the difference between religion and science and does not try to claim its belief is anything other than faith,

I have always found this puzzling, because an understanding of science, A TRUE understanding of empirical science, leads to conclusions about the supernatural that are unavoidable. To their(dis) credit fundies are more consistent with Christian doctrine than Catholics even thought they are wrong about evolution.

The Catholic view of God placing souls into the first human doesn't allow for:

1. original sin
2. Makes the first human a product of souless parents.
3. Effectively makes the sacrifice of Jesus unecessary due to the above.

There simply is no way around the difficulties without making shit up.

#22451: — 04/20  at  10:43 AM
"I have always found this puzzling, because an understanding of science, A TRUE understanding of empirical science, leads to conclusions about the supernatural that are unavoidable"

Do tell.

#22455: — 04/20  at  10:56 AM

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

Yes! That is so true! So... answer me this, Mr. Science Type Person:

Where is all the evidence for (what would presumably be) a 1.5-celled organism?

Furthermore, how could 1/2 of a cell be advantageous to anyone?

#22456: — 04/20  at  11:01 AM
Here's the official Roman Catholic opinion on evolution as I understand it:

They accept evolution as a scientific fact but reject any "survival of the fittest" conclusions that people may draw from it. In other words, they accept that Darwin was right, but reject any kind of "social Darwinism." And, naturally, in any spot where randomness occurred, they see the hand of God. Not too strange coming from a church.

The Catholic Church also considers the creation story/stories in Genesis to be metaphor, not literal, so they would NOT be on board with any kind of "Young Earth Creationism."

#22460: — 04/20  at  11:43 AM
Read my posts (both of them) and it should be apparent that my puzzlement came from the implication (unintended?) that this Pope is in some way "anti-evolution." While I'm at it, I'll add that you also imply (without intending to as well?) that this new guy in some way marks a turn for the worse compared to his predecessor: "He [Dembski]'s got a fellow anti-scientific teleologist in the Vatican NOW..." (emphasis supplied). In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think this new fellow is any worse (or better) on science than John Paul II. My question (and maybe I didn't express it clearly) amounted to this: why all the fuss over one more theist who accepts evolution? (He's an important theist to be sure; but he almost certainly will NOT depart from the views of his predecessor, so nothing important has changed.) I find this fuss particularly puzzling, given that you've gone to some pains elsewhere to distinguish theists who accept evolution from the principal objects of your ire: the Discovery Institute types and their ilk. You merely condescend to the former; you spray the latter (deservedly, no doubt) with all the verbal bile you can muster.

So no, I didn't misunderstand your post in the obtuse way you suggest I did.

#22462: — 04/20  at  11:48 AM
I am an atheist now, but I was a Catholic when I was a child. At Catholic school they taught us plain evolution in science class (often by a priest) and the Genesis in religion class. As far as I can tell, Catholics don't see any contradiction in doing so.

#22469: — 04/20  at  12:57 PM
Here's what John Paul II said, ex cathedra:

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith–a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies–which was neither planned nor sought–constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here–in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.


The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

Here's one site where it's available: http://www.saint-mike.org/Library/Papal_Library/John_PaulII/Addresses/evolution.html

I would be surprised and disappointed were Benedict XVI to back away from that stand. As I understand it, John Paul II invited several well-informed biologists to discuss this issue for a couple of years before saying anything at all -- James Ferris may have been one, if my memory serves correctly. It's a reasoned stand, and not one that should give much comfort to creationists.

#22470: — 04/20  at  12:59 PM
See here, too: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Resources/vatican_admits_darwin_correct.htm

#22474: Pete — 04/20  at  01:04 PM
C. Schuyler said: "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" ...<snip>"
(I'm just using this post as an example, not criticizing its content).

What I would like to point out is this: when we criticize people's statements, we shouldn't have to temper our criticisms by arbitrary constraints such as what religion they belong to. In other words, yes, a Catholic has to accept ID, but no one has to be Catholic!

What someone believes in private is, of course, up to them and I won't criticize someone for merely believing in a religion. However, if someone makes public statements, they open themselves up to public criticism. It's no defense to say, "That's what they have to say, since they're (insert religion here)." Of course we're not surprised at such statements, but that fact doesn't make the statements immune from criticism.

So when this guy says that living things "..point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before", we have every right to point out that this is crap; or more specifically, that "Human beings are not a mistake but something willed" presents a false dichotomy: we are neither a mistake nor something willed, but a product of evolution, and to say otherwise is, as a matter of fact, incorrect.

#22477: — 04/20  at  01:15 PM
"as a matter of fact"

So it's a fact that we are not willed?

#22489: Ken Cope — 04/20  at  02:56 PM
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but Knemon should know that the theory of evolution has no need for any hypothetical guiding intelligence. Knemon, after being all but directly invited to present any evidence for guiding intelligence has instead seen fit to flit on to other insipid little logic games.

If we're having a scientific discussion about what is or isn't, there needs to be evidence for whatever hypothetical Knemon wishes to introduce. Show us something supernatural, Knemon. Show us the observations and evidence for our having been willed by some guiding intelligence. That we are the product of evolution is as much of a fact as that of gravity or a heliocentric solar system.

Knemon's tactic appears to be an effort to prove a negative, that evolution is false, by demanding we prove that there is no magic sky pixie du jour. One may as well ask me to prove that God didn't paint this graffito of the Baby Jesus Escape Hatch instead of a Madonna.

#22490: — 04/20  at  03:30 PM

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.

As far as my understanding of Catholic theolology goes the pope is only considered infallible when he makes a special kind of statement. Such a statement has only been made once. (I think it declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was lifted directly into heaven without dying.)
These special statement can also only be about fundamental matters of faith. The pope offering the opion that one scientific theory is correct would not qualify as infallible.

#22494: — 04/20  at  04:07 PM
On a related topic, over at Powerline, Hindrocket thinks the bible somehow provides more insight into human nature than the study of primates does. How else to read this:

"But who do you think has a more sophisticated understanding of human nature: Cardinal Ratzinger, the new pope, or the researcher who believes that studying bonobos can enable humans to construct an 'ideal world'?"

#22503: — 04/20  at  05:18 PM
As an ex-Catholic who got all A's in religion for 14 straight years, I can tell you what the lumpen- or garden variety Catholic was taught:

Darwinian evolution is OK, as long as you admit that at some (unspecified) point in the progression, God put immortal souls in humans.

Aside from style, I don't see much difference between Ratzinger's statement and either Humani Generis or the common and commonsense attitude toward evolution that American Catholics displayed in the 1950s and for a while thereafter.

It seems to me that Southern backwoods yahoo views have crept into the ordinary Catholic consciousness (from the right, but balanced, so to speak, by Kumbiyah views from the left) in recent years, so that American Catholics are more likely to express skepticism about evolution generally than they used to be.

What non-American Catholics imagine is anybody's guess. They see swirls in pizza sauce as evidence for divinity.

If we believe in darwinian principles of selection, the outlook for Ratzinger's reactionary views (psychologically, he wants to go back to the 1840s in everything else, so why not with biology, too?) must be dim.

I read the creation/evolution debates back in the early '80s, and I found a lot of really crappy defenses of evolution. Even the best defenders, like Kitcher and Ruse, were none too profound, although given the carny-barker presentation of that generation of creationists, they didn't have to be.

Thanks to suggestions I read here, I have gone into the current literature.

The sophistication/deviousness of the creationists' arguments have improved by a great amount, but the counterargumentation is evolving even faster. I was greatly impressed by Pennock's 'Tower of Babel.'

If evolution means anything -- that is, if it has any utility (like keeping people healthy) -- then the future belongs to it.

#22507: — 04/20  at  05:40 PM
I, too, am an atheist who grew up Catholic and attended Catholic schools; plain vanilla evolution was taught in science classes. I can't imagine this being an issue. The church has a whole laundry list of things more important than picking a fight with science. (You know, like making sure people at risk for HIV don't use condoms, and encouraging the faithful to breed like rabbits by avoiding birth control.)

As a Catholic, my understanding was that the creation stories of Genesis were not to be taken literally. The natural workings of the universe, in all their magnificence, were to be taken as a sign of the glory of god, and as a reminder that s/he can't be pigeonholed into a performer of magic tricks.

#22519: Matt McIrvin — 04/20  at  07:19 PM
Just because Dembski thinks the pope is on his side against evolutionary biology, it doesn't mean he is; Dembski thinks a lot of things. I don't hold out any hope that Ratzinger will soften the conservative positions he's known to have, but before I fret that he's going to be any harder-line than Wojtyla's fairly tolerant position on modern science (which I'd guess Ratzinger was a party to), I'm going to need more evidence.

#22520: Matt McIrvin — 04/20  at  07:24 PM
The sophistication/deviousness of the creationists' arguments have improved by a great amount, but the counterargumentation is evolving even faster.

I think the Internet helped a lot. I'm heartened by the fact that climate scientists finally seem to be following the evolution defenders' lead in using the Web as a clearinghouse for defenses of their work.

#22524: Bartholomew — 04/20  at  07:54 PM
So Demski no longer argues that ID will win out through its superior arguments; instead, he figures that the combined temporal and spiritual power of Bush and Benedict will be enough to displace science with ID Creationism. Talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves...

#22525: Bartholomew — 04/20  at  07:56 PM
I can't spell. That should, of course, have been "Dumbski".