Monkey Business

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by New York Times
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.

American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09ca...artner=homepage (http://nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=8f8f477d0e53f308&hp&ex=1120881600&partner=homepage)

Ok, what's really going on here?

I suggest that one of the possible causes of this initiative is that the Catholic Church is becoming worried about the appeal of protestant evangelical fundamentalism (a.k.a. Christian fascism). The Catholic hierarchy is being "out-flanked" from the right...something rather unusual in their experience.

Thus the release of this "trial balloon"...testing the waters for a further move to the right. Just as elements of the Church experimented with "liberation theology" in the 1970s and 80s as a response to radical guerrillas, they may now intend to experiment with Catholic fundamentalism...and see how they do.

I don't have to add that this is further evidence of why religion is always and fundamentally an implacable enemy of rational thought...do I?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I find it hard to believe that any serious member of this board can take religion seriously when things like this happen. But they just seem to brush it under the carpet.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by some religious bastard which makes anyone with a brain go "ewww!"
evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

Show it to us, Mr. Paedophile.

Honestly, anyone who still thinks evolution didn't happen is somebody who should sue his/her deity for giving him/her a flawed brain.

[More Fire for the People]

I was finally hoping churches were progressing away from fundamentalism and then the Catholic church goes and screws things up.

[ste_17]

i cant believe this still happens !!!! this guy obviously doesn't have a clue and is only sayin that because he is old, and doesn't want to wake up to the new explanations of how we got to this stage. He obviously wants to keep his reputation as a true catholic or whatever he is. he should reep his brain into darwins theory- and sow some knowledge.

Here is how the coding works - EM

[B][COLOR=blue]CONTENT[/B][/COLOR]

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:50 PM
"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
In other words, the cardinal objects to any purely natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanation of the origins of species including Homo Sapiens.

This is deeper even than if he had totally rejected Darwin's theory. It's a rejection of the scientific method, which seeks to explain things in terms of natural law, without recourse to miracles or other supernatural means. (Methodological naturalism.)

[chaval]

I think this quote is being grossly misunderstood! the catholic church foes not reject the theory of evolution. after all, it is basically a proven fact that we evolved from more primitive primates who evolved from other animals etc etc back to bacteria. what the cardinal is saying is not "evolution is not compatible with Christian teaching and Creationism is the only theory we accpet" what he is basically saying is that evolution, in other words, we as human beings capable of extraordinary thigns such as reasoning, moral judgement etc could not have evolved from a single celled organism without a guiding force; that force being God. the cardinal is saying yes we did evolve from a more primitive species but it was not purely accidental and chaotic. the cardinal mrerely states the view that evolution of mankind was guided by a greater force than pure chance. The catholic church does not reject science, if anything, science can be regarded as God's tool for creation. He doesn't wave a magic finger and 'poof' suddenly the first human appears. God guides the transition from monkey to man using evolution, using natural selection. there is no opposing views between science and the current christian dogma (at least none that i know of) if there was, the entire church would have collapsed long ago

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:59 PM
what he is basically saying is that evolution, in other words, we as human beings capable of extraordinary thigns such as reasoning, moral judgement etc could not have evolved from a single celled organism without a guiding force; that force being God.
Right. But God cannot be part of a scientific theory, because God cannot be measured, weighed, tested, or experimented on. Science works on nature not the supernatural. Any theory that includes God, divine guidance, miracles, or the laws of nature as God's tool, cannot be tested by repeatable experiment or observation, so it's not a scientific theory.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:59 PM
I think this quote is being grossly misunderstood! the catholic church foes not reject the theory of evolution. after all, it is basically a proven fact that we evolved from more primitive primates who evolved from other animals etc etc back to bacteria.
"Evolution" is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are not "proven".


the cardinal is saying yes we did evolve from a more primitive species but it was not purely accidental and chaotic. the cardinal mrerely states the view that evolution of mankind was guided by a greater force than pure chance.

Natural selection is not "pure chance".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval
The Catholic Church does not reject science, if anything, science can be regarded as God's tool for creation.

No, I am afraid it does "reject science".

The Church accepts "miracles" as events that "really happen" -- in fact, you need a couple of "miracles" to qualify for "sainthood" (just doing "good works" isn't enough).

Science does not accept "miracles" as a legitimate explanation of anything.

Accordingly, there's no way for a person to accept the Church's "teachings" on miracles and, at the same time, "accept" the scientific method.

You can do one or the other, but not both.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jul 16 2005, 11:20 AM--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jul 16 2005, 11:20 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 10:59 PM
I think this quote is being grossly misunderstood! the catholic church foes not reject the theory of evolution. after all, it is basically a proven fact that we evolved from more primitive primates who evolved from other animals etc etc back to bacteria.
"Evolution" is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are not "proven". [/b]
Eh...it's a fact that evolution occurs. The emergence of new species has been observed.

What's theoretical, is the process behind evolution.


Natural selection is not "pure chance".

Right. Important point.

[praxis1966]

I've heard this kind of hogwash that's coming from the Cardinal and Chaval before. It's called "intelligent design" (a misnomer due to the contradiction in terms) and it's as much psuedoscience as pure Creationism. It's an invention of religious types with degrees (assuming they have any) in everything except biology. If it's any indication of how disingenuous these people are, I heard a guy on NPR about three years ago claiming he had invented the concept and written a book about it when in reality it's been around for decades. People like him don't really comprehend the principles involved in evolution and use reverse logic to prove their point. They begin at the conclusion that God exists, and rationalize backwards in order to reconcile their beliefs with their understanding (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory.

In any case, I don't know why anyone would hold the clergy in any higher esteem than they do themselves. After all, it simply requires a doctorate to become a priest. Furthermore, you only have to read one book to get it. It's not like it requires as much sophisticated thinking as it does to get a doctorate in paleo-botany or something.


Right. But God cannot be part of a scientific theory, because God cannot be measured, weighed, tested, or experimented on...
I believe the phrase you were looking for was "not falsifiable."

No, I am afraid it does "reject science".
Exactly. The two are mutually exclusive. Intelligent design, Creationism, and all the other so-called competing theories are based on logical fallacies, a total disregard for the scientific method, and are completely non-falsifiable. Therefore, to refer to them as though they were somehow scientifically based is either dishonesty or ignorance of the way science operates.

[Clarksist]

Natural selection is not "pure chance".


Natural selection is pure chance.

What happens is mutations happen by chance, and if that mutation helps the animal survive better, it has a better chance of reproducing offspring and those offspring will probably have the mutation. If they do, they will get a better chance to reproduce, etc., etc.

It isn't like evolution HAS to happen. It just DOES. That's what is truly amazing about it. Evolution just ends up happening.

[LSD]

What happens is mutations happen by chance, and if that mutation helps the animal survive better, it has a better chance of reproducing offspring and those offspring will probably have the mutation. If they do, they will get a better chance to reproduce, etc., etc.

...so...not pure chance!

As Richard Dawkins put it, evolution is the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators.

Mutations occur by chance, but "natural selection", by definition, is not chance. Rather it is determined by the nature of the environment in which the species in question lives.

[Clarksist]

Mutations occur by chance, but "natural selection", by definition, is not chance. Rather it is determined by the nature of the environment in which the species in question lives.


Could you not just turn that around and say that the nature of the environment comes down to pure chance? I mean it is not like someone (yes I'm looking at you people who believe in a God) just decided everything that will exist in our environment.

It just HAPPENED to turn out that way. See what I'm saying?

[LSD]

Could you not just turn that around and say that the nature of the environment comes down to pure chance?

You could, but it would be unscientific.

Yes, in the long view, everything is a matter of chance, but we're looking at immediate cause here, not first one.

For example, one could, rightly, argue that ultimately everything about George Bush, his personality, opinions, ideas, etc... developed because of chance. But does that mean that Iraq was bombed on "pure chance"? Of course not.

While the ultimate cause of the Iraq war, like that of the existance of humanity itself, is chance, this specific event was immediately caused by specific and deliberate actions.

Likewise, although the environmental conditions are indeed random, those environmental conditions are nonetheless specific. And their effects on replicators is not random, it is directly correlated to the details of the environment, regardless of how those details developed.

Natural selection is not chance, even though the environmental conditions that define it are.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:08 AM
Science does not accept "miracles" as a legitimate explanation of anything.

Science does not accept "miracles" as a legitimate explanation of anything.

Although, some scientific theories accept the improbability factor. For example, if I throw a ball up in the air 15 times, I will never actually KNOW if it will come back down again, due to improbability.

[LSD]

For example, if I throw a ball up in the air 15 times, I will never actually KNOW if it will come back down again

Current scientific theories dictate that if you throw a ball in the air 15 times (all else being equal), it will come back down. Not "maybe", not "probably", but every time.

If this does not occur it means that either unknown conditions are skewing the results or the theory is wrong. But "improbablities" are not "allowed for"!

[madashell]

"evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection"
http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/brasseye2.jpg

Who cares what this moron thinks? He clearly knows nothing about evolution or, for that matter, the philosophy of science.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:24 PM
I've heard this kind of hogwash that's coming from the Cardinal and Chaval before. It's called "intelligent design" (a misnomer due to the contradiction in terms) and it's as much psuedoscience as pure Creationism.
Nah, what the cardinal's pushing here isn't ID.

ID is much closer to pure creationism: the various "kinds" of organism were designed not evolved. The difference is it makes a bigger effort to pretend to be a scientific theory not a religious doctrine: it doesn't explicitly state who the designer was, just looks for signs of design in organisms, like supposed "irreducible complexity."

The cardinal's talking about guided evolution: accepting Darwin's theory, and probably the history of life apparent from the fossil record. Since the Catholic Church doesn't believe in Bibilical literalism, why not?

But refusing to accept that the process was entirely natural (as opposed to supernatural.) Because the Catholic Church does believe in active, intervening God.

As I said, a quarrel with the scientific method itself, rather than Darwin's theory or any particular theory so much.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:55 PM
Could you not just turn that around and say that the nature of the environment comes down to pure chance? I mean it is not like someone (yes I'm looking at you people who believe in a God) just decided everything that will exist in our environment.
Yes, natural selection is working on random inputs.

But the process of natural selection is not a random process. A random process spits out outputs, well, randomly, without regard to inputs. There are random processes that are part of evolution: mutation, gene recombination during sex, genetic drift in populations.

A nonrandom process gives different outcomes depending on what inputs are fed in. The outcome of natural selection depends on what kind of variation it's working on, and what the environment favors.

So the process of evolution by natural selection is nonrandom...which is one reason it can produce more and more complex organisms. Unlike most things in the universe, which tend towards increasing entropy.

(Another reason is the constant input of free energy into the system, thanks to photosynthesis mostly.)

Looking at the original post, the Cardinal doesn't seem to be claiming natural selection is random, rather the variation it works on: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

Actually I think he does accurately state the current "neo-Darwinian" understanding of biological evolution. Before denying it.