Sometimes life hands you nice ironies and wry humour. The same week that the Pope, Ratzinger-Benedict XVI (don't you hate hyphenated names?) announces that he almost accepts evolution as science, Michael Ghiselin, a rather famous evolutionary biologist and author of the 1969 book The Triumph of the Darwinian Method publishes (in the same journal as my latest, preen, preen) a paper entitled - I kid you not - "Is the Pope a Catholic?"
Ghiselin is making a point about set inclusion in the context of the nature of species, so I won't belabour the pun any further, but Ratzinger's new book Schöpfung und Evolution, which is in German of course (it means Creation and Evolution) is the outcome of a meeting of him and his advisors, including the execrable Christoph Schönborn, who published a DIsco press release under his name in the New York Times a while back, on the topic of evolution and the Catholic faith.
I worried that Schönborn's involvement indicated a shift of Catholic official teaching back to the bad old days of Catholic opposition to evolution. It might have gone that way - there are a number of signs of antiscience among the Catholic hierarchy. Or it might have gone the other way and affirmed, as it should have, that there was not the slightest doubt that evolutionary biology is good science, and that, as Catholic doctrine asserts, truth cannot contradict truth, and so that evolution cannot be a problem for Catholics.
Of course, it was not to be... instead we got a wishy washy affirmation that evolution occurs, but that science is not the whole answer to life's origins. I suppose this is something we might have expected. After all, Karol Wojtyla-John Paul II said that evolution was "more than a theory" (as if theory was something that was deprecated in science) but woe betide any Catholic who thought that human minds and morals evolved (he didn't say it like that, exactly: he said that Catholics had to think that souls are directly created by God. Hey, since I don't think there are souls, I can live with that). But Ratzinger-Benedict goes one step further:
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."
Umm.. back when I did theology (I know... it's not something I talk about much) I did my major essay on Faith and Reason. The lecturers liked it so much I got 100% for it. So I think I know at least the basics here. Isn't faith supposed to perfect reason, not supplant it? Faith is not a dimension of reason, even in the Catholic tradition. In any case, it is simply false that science cannot explain some aspects of the physical world, and that includes all life.
Now I may be condemning him on the basis of newspaper reports contrary to Twain's dictum*, but I don't have the book, and this is media coverage clearly being driven by a press release by someone who has an interest in that book. I think that the Catholic church has learned nothing in the nearly 150 years since the Origin was published. 150 years without Darwin is enough. Let theology deal with what theology is good at, whatever that might be on your favourite account. Let science do the scientific explanation. Evolution is fact and the theoretical explanations of evolution are as solid as any science, and more than most. Deal with it, Joseph. Or take the Church back to the Dark Ages, it's your call.
At least he repudiated ID...
* "I wouldn't hang a dog on a newspaper report."
- Log in to post comments
The Pope writes that evolution can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
Hmm. I write that history can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
Gosh, I feel so Popish, I'm gonna go buy a big hat.
I'm uncomfortable with the degree that some of his quoted soundbites echo common ID/Cist phrases. Catshark thinks I'm being too sensitive (he may be right).
The Pope is a closeted Agnostic.
Eamon, I don't think you're being too sensitive. Cardinal Schonborn, who takes much of his talking points from some of the shills at the DI I'm sure was influential here.
:(
I've read weirder papers about the pope: ftp://selab.janelia.org/pub/publications/EddyMacKay96/EddyMacKay96-repr…
Come on guys ... it wasn't like anyone expected him to announce that he was giving up the religion biz, was adopting materialism and turning the Vatican into a retirement home for aged scientists from Minnesota.
What we got, at least, was Schonborn failing to triumph over the more rational parts of the Church. It's certainly no victory (nor, despite PZ's hysteria, did I proclaim it be one) but it's not the worst news we could have heard out of the Vatican either.
Well it is sad that a man that knows so little of science as the pope does gets to set an agenda.
One would think with the traditions of the Catholic church of being pro science that someone would have stepped in to stop him from making such a fool of himself as he did.
I love your claim that "it is simply false that science cannot explain some aspects of the physical world, and that includes all life." So it is not intricately false then, like you are agnostically making the working assumption that the scientific method might lead us to full explanations? Great! How science might one day explain how complex biochemical structures become so individuated that they possess subjective experiences is...?
... yet to be worked out in detail, but I think will involve the recognition that subjectivity is not a self-subsisting state of mind.
Mmm... I doubt that it is simply a matter of working out the details though. That would be the case had I asked about the evolution of the eye, of course (for all that IDers pick on such things), or of a detecting and computing structure that processes information about its own physical states (and whose evolution seems plausible to me).
Your guess is better than mine, about how science might answer the question, but I'm not sure that subjectivity is a state of mind at all. When I see 'state of mind' I think of such states as inquiring, gullible, alert, sleepy, conscious, unconscious... Subjectivity I think of as necessary for the actual possession of all such states (as opposed to their mere mimicry, by some mechanism). (I'm pretty sure that 'self-subsisting' is a technical term, for me to look into, thanks.)
The notion that Ratzinger's 'Creation and Evolution'..."is the outcome of a meeting of him and his advisors"...as John S. Wilkins asserts, is simplistic, to say the very least. Does Wilkins actually expect learned theologians, academics, fellow athiests and those of the agnostic persuasion to swallow that gibberish? While I do not consider myself a member of any of these communities,I think my assertion is clear to all who simply think. I'm amused that he is taken seriously when he opines on theological matters. It seems to me that he mailed this one in. What he posits he "...can live with..." regarding Wojtyla's soul comments, demonstrates a glaring lack of objective scholorship.
Wilkins is cleverly asking his fellow athiests to believe that Wojtyla's pronouncements on evolution were suddenly pulled out of thin air and then spun by Wojtyla in a clever syntactical fashion to say nothing more than that:"...Catholics had to think that souls are directly created by God." Wojtyla said no such thing! The quotation marks in the proceeding statement denote that, these are obviously Wilkins' words and not Wojtyla's. Note the absense of quotation marks in Wilkins' posting regarding Wojtyla's alleged assertion. Further, Wojtyla didn't say that Catholics " had to think " anything. His remarks pertaining to the creation of souls by God were not uttered from an Ex Cathedra standpoint. I suppose he knew that the matter of the soul rests in faith;no need for dogma there folks.
Wilkins goes on and states categorically that Ratzinger, obviously a man of boundless scholorship, is positing... "a wishy washy affirmation that evolution occurs, but that science is not the whole answer to life's origins." If Wilkins were a learned theologian, I would probably have a difficult time in demonstrating that Ratzingers position is steeped in an exhaustive body of investigation, delineated time and time again since the pontificate of Leo XIII, who was a contemporary of Darwin. In fact, countless lay-Catholics and lay-Christians from other denominations have been involved,and have been consulted with, pertainent to the evolution investigation. Brian W. Harrison, a lay contributor to " Living Tradition," a sanctioned Catholic quarterly periodical, submitted a lengthy thesis on evolution 15 months after John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. I think we can safely assume that Harrisons thesis and countless others crossed the desk of Ratzinger. It was Ratzinger's job at the time to monitor such renderings put forth under the banner of "Catholicism." It matters not, whether we or Ratzinger concur with Harrison's findings. My point is that Ratzinger's "Schopfung und Evolution" is certainly not..."the outcome of a meeting of him and his advisors"...as Wilkins would have us believe...Twain's dictum, indeed.
So, rather, it is Wilkins who is wishy-washy, in that, he has blithely dismissed and misquoted Wojtyla in the matter. This,from a man who, in his very next pertainent thought boasts that: he knows "...at least the basics here." Yet, he goes on to pontificate in two areas: First, "In any case,it is simply false that science cannot explain some aspects of the physical world,and that includes all life" He really does have that soul hypothesis thing nailed down. I suppose all of the agnostics who visit this site can now come over and submit to his persuasion, huh? But he has said that he respects theists. I'll take solace in that. Second, " I think that the Catholic Church has learned nothing in the nearly 150 years since the Origen was published" A pretty sweeping statement from someone who says he knows,..."at least the basics"... I think a reading of Harrison's thesis will attest that he and a myriad of other theists have been laboring with zest to reconcile the fact of evolution with the thirst for a soul, which they believe in through a fervent faith. Failing to do so, they earnestly feel, would leave them with a despair that their toiling here was for naught. Why not go out in a blaze of glory with a mass killing or something? Isn't that something that only a Godless person is capable of?
Next, we find a contradiction in terms from Mr. Wilkins. ..."the theoretical explanations of evolution are as solid as any science." Who was he addressing that point to? WE give up, John. We theists concur on that point. In his 1996 address Wojtyla said this:" ...some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. "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." So why the overkill, John? Why not let the remarkable fellow rest in peace. I think all he was asking of you folks was to allow his folks to continue in the search for their souls. After all, you did say this: "Let theology deal with what theology is good at...Let science do the scientific explanation.
"The same week that the Pope, Ratzinger-Benedict XVI (don't you hate hyphenated names?)"
That's why Catholics don't use them and just say Pope Benedict XVI *or* Pope Ratzinger (esp. in my Poland, where the JP2 cult flourishes and "The Pope" usually means the dead one).
"The same week that the Pope, Ratzinger-Benedict XVI (don't you hate hyphenated names?)"
Just refer to him as "God's Rottweiler"
JP II said "...is more than a hypothesis", not theory
Huh?
If you want some objective measure, it certainly looks like our "toiling" is for naught. But so what?
Not that I've tried, but I can't imagine running amok is fun.
evolution can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory
The existence of Jesus can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
The resurection of Jesus can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
The existence of souls can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
The existence of a god can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
The virgin birth can never be known for sure because it is impossible to conduct controlled laboratory experiments into the theory.
At least you don't *have* a hyphenated last name.
I do. It's a pain in the ass sometimes. Important bureaucratic data entry systems will dislike hyphens and mangle things. (Carelessness by state motor vehicle people will give me a botched driver's license, it seems.) Some people and computers will inconsistently think it's a middle name and a last name, so I have to look up records in different ways when they seem to have vanished.
In general, it seems that great big chunks of the data entry world do not comprehend the notion of hyphenated last names, and freak out or do ad hoc hacks when they encounter one.
That's exactly my point, in that context, David. Isn't this why many parents today don't bother to impart moral values to their children?...because it's all for naught? Lots of the kids are running amuck in a sea of depravity. Granted, one man's depravity is anothers norm.
Quite a few controlled laboratory experiments are now being conducted on the Shroud of Turin, Margaret. Many scholars are already convinced that it is the cloth that the historical Jesus was wrapped in following his crucifixion. Apart from that, the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, who was not a contemporary of Jesus, and who many scholars believe could not have regarded Him as a messiah, does attest to his existance, as well as to his crucifixion. As for his resurrection, that is the faith part for which I had begged an indulgence from you folks. Ditto for souls and the Virgin birth. One man's rationalism is anothers rationale. It's an inate thing that we choose to go with, somewhat blindly, although Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 do provide some startling inspiration as to the resurrection thing. The same is true of Isaiah 7 regarding the virgin birth. I prefer myopia rather than total blindness. That's not me preaching at ya. That's not why I'm here. I do love a lively debate, though.