The Pope and the Theory of Evolution

[Suraknar]

Seems like the Pope has taken a middle stance and does not reject Darwin's Theory of evolution, nor endorses Intelligent Deasign Theory.

A fine line indeed.

Link: News

Thoughts?

[doc_bean]

The Catholic Church never (to my knowledge) opposed evolution or endorsed Creationism, this seems like a quite unnecessary comment. If anything he's moving away from the acceptence of the science, not a positive evolution.

But then again, few things are positive about our new fearless leader... (Why O why couldn't they have picked one of the South Americans ???)

[Tribesman]

Seems like the Pope has taken a middle stance and does not reject Darwin's Theory of evolution, nor endorses Intelligent Deasign Theory.

So he is seeing science and religeon as two seperate things really isn't he....
"Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," it just sounds sooooo 5th century he should modernise it a bit
But hey , here we are in the 21st and some people still can't tell the difference between faith and scientific theories .

The Catholic Church never (to my knowledge) opposed evolution or endorsed Creationism

Thats a good thing really isn't it , what we know as creationism today is based on the literal interpretation of every word of the bible as absolute literal truth , the catholic church would have a bit of a problem with that since it had a big hand in rewriting the book .

[KukriKhan]

... John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Is Benedict contradicting JP2 here?

[Incongruous]

Seems so, bad mistake imo.

[doc_bean]

Benedict is one big, bad mistake. John Paul II was far from perfect, but he was a 'liberal' compared to our new fuhrer ...

[rory_20_uk]

Good thing millions of people don't follow his every senile word...

[Husar]

Yeah, I believe in creationism only, all the science is just a bad excuse for non-believers and the catholic church just tries to be hip anyway.

[Ronin]

so this senile old man says something and this is supposed to mean something?

why? because he has a big hat? give me a break...

[Banquo's Ghost]

so this senile old man says something and this is supposed to mean something?

why? because he has a big hat? give me a break...

Why is because he is the spiritual leader of quite a lot of people, and therefore his views are evaluated as interesting by quite a lot more.

Let's be careful if slinging insults to take into account other members' beliefs.

And I'd be more worried about his crook than his hat...

[Crazed Rabbit]

I fail to see the big deal. He's certainly not rejecting evolution, and certainly not endorsing creationism - he doesn't even bring up literal creationism as having any substance.

why? because he has a big hat? give me a break...

Your piercing wisdom has lead you to the source of the Catholic Church's power!
Oh noes!


I find all the ad-homenims thrown against the Pope amusing, especially the 'senile' part.

CR

[Ronin]

Your piercing wisdom has lead you to the source of the Catholic Church's power!
Oh noes!

Isn´t that how the Catholic Church is organized??

to quote Denis Leary:

The bigger the hat the more important the guy right. Priests have no hats, cardinals have those little red beanies, the pope has a collection of big hats. God must have a huge ******* sombrero on up there in heaven!

[Xiahou]

Is Benedict contradicting JP2 here?

I don't see it. Certainly not based on what's in the article. To me it seems more like he's adding to what JP2 said by reminding us that it's also important to keep in mind that the theory doesn't have all the answers and God has a role in it.

I fail to see where any of the statements quoted are anything controversial.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I really don't see the problem here with evolution. All he's saying is that just to say "we evolved" doesn't answer other questions, like why we feel the need to settle down but then a lot of us cheat on our long term partners.

He's only saying evolution isn't provable and testable, you can't watch a bug become a mouce, or a fish become a man. That's true evolution is just our best guess, it's a very good guess but it's not cast iron law.

[AntiochusIII]

He's only saying evolution isn't provable and testable, you can't watch a bug become a mouce, or a fish become a man. That's true evolution is just our best guess, it's a very good guess but it's not cast iron law.

It's actually testable (provable is a pretty confused concept). Remember how the desperate Creationists try to divide "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" The so-called "micro-evolution" is just evolution that happens in a short enough time frame to be clearly observed and experimented upon in a limited period of time. Data from much larger time scales have, of course, been observed and collected, but such data naturally is not as complete as something you can replicate in a laboratory setting.

And only Hitler cares about the Iron Law of Nature [/Mein Kampf + Godwin's Law, ha!]

Our dear His Big Bunny [see South Park] is echoing something a US "evolution skeptic" (it's popular these days) would say -- "Oh, evolution is just a theory! It's rather, erm, decent, I must grudgingly admit, but it's a theory! You gotta learn that it's a theory. Did I say it's a theory?" Which sucks, since a Pope is supposed to be hip and cool, you know, not, ah, all like this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, it's testable, but you can't test from single cell to a human being, which is what the theory puts foward. As such the whole theory is untestable and therefore unprovable. However, we can test much smaller timescales ans this in addition to understanding of selective breeding, the fosil record and an increasing understanding of genetics indicates the theory is correct.

However, not of that constitutes difinitive proof. It's like saying Newton's Laws of Motion are concrete and provable, until Einstien comes along and proves that in 0.1% of cases they don't work.

They're still as close as you or I will ever need but thay're also technically wrong.

Evolution might also be almost right but actually wrong.

So what the Pope is saying is perfectly logical. His intent in saying it might be something else.

[doc_bean]

So what the Pope is saying is perfectly logical. His intent in saying it might be something else.

Which is what I'm a bit worried about, living in a 'Catholic' country. Catholics tend to be rather moderate, compared to most protestant believes at least. I have no desire to see religion become a serious issue again in this country.

*Note: most people no longer go to church and even those that do are often cirtical of the pope, but anything that can widen the gap between the Catholics and secualr society is bad imo.

[KukriKhan]

I don't see it. Certainly not based on what's in the article. To me it seems more like he's adding to what JP2 said by reminding us that it's also important to keep in mind that the theory doesn't have all the answers and God has a role in it.

I fail to see where any of the statements quoted are anything controversial.

You're probably right. His little "disclaimer" at the beginning:

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this... "

raised a tiny red flag with me. Without further explanation, I'd come to see that he (Benny) wanted to distance himself, gently but firmly, from JP2's views. IF that were the case, might he be looking to do the same with other of his predessessor's views; accelerated sainthood process, dialog with other religions, for examples.

Anti-papists don't care, but the guy speaks to/for a sizeable swath of earth's population, so I'm interested.

[Suraknar]

It is very possible that Benedict sees it as his duty to perform a realignment of the Catholic Church, comming from the sentiment that JPII may have been a bit too liberal in his approach and cause many faithfull to doubt the churche's doctrines.

Yet, will taking people back to their flock tending occupations after they have seen Paris, work?

On the other hand, he maybe simply attempting to quel the controversy and debate between the two ends, by standing in the middle and attempting to bring them closer to talking rather than fighting.