More on the pope on evolution

John Allen, at National Catholic Review, has an interesting analysis of the motives behind the recent Evolution Study Day the pope held. Unsurprisingly, the issue is not whether life changed over time, or even whether natural selection works - although he indicates that as Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict inclined to thinking that "macro-evolution" (speciation and above) was impossible by random variation and natural selection, showing that he knows very little about the actual  biology.

No, it's this:

Evolution has become a kind of "first philosophy" for enlightened thinkers, ruling out the possibility that life has any ultimate meaning. Here Christianity must draw the line.

Benedict's deepest concern is that Darwinism has promoted scientific positivism, holding that only empirical science can produce certainty, and hence that religion, if it survives at all, can only do so as a subjective, emotional consolation against the cold indifference of the universe. In response, Benedict argues that Christianity relies on truths deeper than empirical observation, chief among them that life has purpose. In this sense, he believes in "intelligent design" -- not necessarily as the product of scientific observation, but as a metaphysical principle.

Once again we see the theological obsession with purpose, which is, after all, its raison d'etre. But there is the usual theological logical error - from saying that evolution does not require a purpose, Benedict apparently infers that it denies that there is a purpose to be had. And that's just wrong. Physics doesn't require a purpose either, but nobody is concerned that because  e=mc2 there is no God.

Benedict draws this argument out in Truth and Tolerance: "An evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. ... All this is of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which is what we need."

Of course it has little comfort to offer. Evolutionary theory is not about comfort one way or the other. It's about the biological realities. It is almost universally accepted nowadays that an Is doesn't imply an Ought, nor is it believed that because competition occurs in selection, that we can't all cooperate if we choose to. Benedict attacks a strawman spectre of the church's own invention. If it turns out that we actually don't cooperate because of evolutionary processes, then shouldn't we know about that, if we want to change things?

The "Darwinism" that Benedict is concerned about strikes me as the latest in a series of strawman opponents of theology dating back to Epicurus, who are supposed to show that all is just blind random chance. So they try to restrict what sorts of scientific views are acceptable on theological grounds:

With respect to Pope John Paul II's famous 1996 statement that evolution is "more than a hypothesis," therefore, it's meaningless to ask whether Benedict XVI agrees or disagrees. Ever the professor, he would insist upon clarifying what precisely is meant by "evolution," whether it's being evaluated on a scientific or philosophical basis, and so on.

What seems clear, however, is that Benedict fears such nihil obtstats for evolution may inadvertently have accelerated the diffusion of a worldview that holds that it's pointless to ask questions that can't be settled by laboratory experiments, and that chance and meaninglessness are the ultimate laws of the universe. In that sense, one suspects Benedict would affirm that evolution is indeed "more than a hypothesis" -- for better, and for worse.

Science is not a worldview, at least not in the "quasireligious" ideological sense that theologians frame it as. Science is a learning procedure and practice. It's about finding out about the world, not telling one what to think of it when you find it out. Darwin told us what the world does. Deal with it, or your religion is too fragile for the real world, I say.

Categories

More like this

There was a fair bit of talk last week about Pope Giblets Benedict's weekend seminar on evolution. I haven't seen any post-seminar commentary yet, but I'm not sure I would expect much, given that no official statements are forthcoming. I'm sort of puzzled as to why this is a story, though. As the…
Red State Rabble declares that we must stand united against the common enemy, creationism and such anti-scientific forces of unreason that threaten our secular institutions. That's a nice, fuzzy statement, which I personally suspect is unrealistic and unworkable, but let's give it a try. Our first…
Muslims have shown their displeasure with what Pope Ratzinger (professional name, Benedict XVI) said about Islam, but not many people have noticed what he said about atheists. I guess there are more Muslims than atheists. Too bad. The world would be a lot better off with more atheists and fewer…
Jerry Coyne is confused: Iâm surprised that accommodationists and the National Center for Science Education donât criticize [other] evolutionists for describing the evolution and natural selection as âpurely natural and materialistic processes,â for that steps on the toes of the faithful just as…

Please can someone tell this guy: evolution is the best model available, whether you believe that that's all it is is up to you.

By Corkscrew (not verified) on 05 Sep 2006 #permalink

"Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. ... All this is of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which is what we need."

I think we've seen a Pope erect a false multichotomy. Bet he can't erect a tent half as well.

The problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.

Is Pope Palpatine quote-mining Maynard Smith? Does anyone know the context of this sentence?

Im not going to read another post or article about the latest patheic ranting of creationists. Its too annoying.
As soon as someone mentions religion during a discussion about anything that effects real life the proper resonse is "Sit down and STFU, the adults are talking now."

By Brian Power (not verified) on 06 Sep 2006 #permalink

Silly humans, I /designed/ evolution. Darwin and the rest of the scientists merely discovered and revealed it.

Thanks God. Although I am not a very religious person I can't seem to understand why religion and evolution can't co-exist.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

According to John Allen, Cardinal Raztinger said,

The problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.'

Greco asks,

Is Pope Palpatine quote-mining Maynard Smith? Does anyone know the context of this sentence?

I can't find the exact quote but here are some close approximations.

On the theoretical side, there is no reason why evolution by natural selection should lead to an increase in complexity, if that is what we mean by progress. At most the theory suggests that organisms should get better, or at least no worse, at doing what they are doing right now.

Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. (1995) THE MAJOR TRANSITIONS IN EVOLUTION p. 4

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not predict that organisms will get more complex. It predicts only that they will get better at surviving and reproducing in the current environement, or at least they will not get worse. Empirically, many and perhaps most lineages change little for many millions of years.

Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. (1999) THE ORIGINS OF LIFE p. 15

Let's see what they say following the second quotation in THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. This will tell us whether the current Pope is misrepresenting Maynard Smith and Szathmáry.

Yet some lineages have become more complex. There is some sense in which elephants are more complex than slime moulds, and oak trees more complex than green algae, even if we find it hard to say just what that sense is. p. 15

It seems then, that although there is no general reason why evolution should lead to greater complexity, it has in fact done so in some cases. In the next section, we argue that this increase has depended on a small number of major changes in the way in which information is stored, transmitted, and translated. These changes we refer to as the major transitions.

Far be it from me to accuse the Pope of being fallible, but I sure don't like his chances in court.

By Larry Moran (not verified) on 06 Sep 2006 #permalink

Ever the professor, he would...

Any competent professor would know better than to lead a discussion on a topic he does not understand.

I read that the transcripts of the meeting will be offered for sale in a few months. Who has any interest in hearing what a bunch of theologians have to say about biology? What next, tapes of physicists discussing which brand of toothpaste is best?

By somnilista, FCD (not verified) on 06 Sep 2006 #permalink

Oh, there were biologists at the meeting, too. For example Peter Schuster, a theoretical biologist who works on RNA folding, has taught Structural Biology I to me, and is now president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Quite disappointing to see that the Pope has confused progress with evolution.

However, according to dogma, he's only infallible when speaking ex cathedra about issues of faith :o)

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 08 Sep 2006 #permalink