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.
- Log in to post comments
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.
"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.
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."
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,
Greco asks,
I can't find the exact quote but here are some close approximations.
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.
Far be it from me to accuse the Pope of being fallible, but I sure don't like his chances in court.
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?
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)