Marxism and Evolution?
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
as a valid scientific theory, the ICR newsletter wrote a little piece
which included a remark to the effect that when the Pope was in Poland,
he got along well with the Communists.
The most recent ICR newsletter had remarks in it which linked Darwinism
and Marxism (I seem to have misplaced it somewhere).
Where do Creationists get this supposed link? Is it just more nonsense
they make up? I mean, to argue for guilt by association, you have to have
some association -- and if it doesn't exist, claiming it does lets you go
ahead.
But my memory of this is that the Soviet Union banned Darwinism as being
ideaologically contrary to Marxism. What's more, I seem to remember that
Darwin himself was inspired partly by a book about capitalism.
Is there actually anything behind the linking of Darwinism and Marxism,
or is it just a complete lie?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
Q
It's alot easier to try and knock something when you can make it out to be
evil, or associated with evil.
I don't think it's really a lie on thier part. More like wishful thinking.
Hugs
--
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices
Loren Petrich
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>But my memory of this is that the Soviet Union banned Darwinism as being
>ideaologically contrary to Marxism. What's more, I seem to remember that
>Darwin himself was inspired partly by a book about capitalism.
Darwin had read Adam Smith's classic statement of capitalism, The
Wealth of Nations.
And it was not Darwinism that the Soviet Union had banned, it was
Mendelian genetics. There was a plant breeder and quack geneticist named
Trofim Lysenko who claimed he could do a better job than those idealist
Mendelist-Weismannist-Morganist hirelings, and he had gotten support from
none other than Joseph Stalin himself. So mainstream biologists either
"recanted", or were sent to prison camps, or were even executed.
The same thing almost happened in physics, where quantum mechanics
had seemed too "idealistic" for some ideologues (philosophical idealism is
the theory that everything is a figment of some imagination).
Unfortunately for us, it did not happen, and Soviet scientists could use
the "correct" theory to build nuclear bombs.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
The Wilkins Family
>
> In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
> as a valid scientific theory, the ICR newsletter wrote a little piece
> which included a remark to the effect that when the Pope was in Poland,
> he got along well with the Communists.
>
> The most recent ICR newsletter had remarks in it which linked Darwinism
> and Marxism (I seem to have misplaced it somewhere).
>
>
> Where do Creationists get this supposed link? Is it just more nonsense
> they make up? I mean, to argue for guilt by association, you have to have
> some association -- and if it doesn't exist, claiming it does lets you go
> ahead.
I think it has several sources. The first, and most historically relevant,
lies in the origins of fundamentalism as a reaction to "modernism". Since
fundamentalism was first proposed (in the 30s IAMNM) it has dealt with any
modern worldview as "humanistic", and so on that score alone evolutionary
theory and Marxism are immediately in the same boat.
The second is that they are both process theories, although one is of human
society, is a developmental view of change, and is based in Hegelian
philosophy, while the other is a view of biology, is an opportunistic view
of change, and rests pretty much on empiricial evidence :-)
The third reason is that Marx and Engels gave Darwinism qualified support in
their correspondence, although the Russian socialists and anarchists like
Kropotkin disliked the Spencerian "survival of the fittest" simile based on
Malthus (see Daniel Todes' magisterial _Darwin without Malthus_, Oxford UP
1989).
Edward Aveling, Marx's son-in-law (married to Jenny Marx, I think), wrote an
anti-religious scientific tract that he sought and was refused Darwin's
permission to dedicate it to. Since Marx sent Darwin a copy of _Capital_
(which was never read, which we know because the pages were never slit), it
became "common knowledge that Marx and Darwin were fellow travellers, and
that Marx had tried to dedicate _Capital_ to Darwin. A myth rather like the
deathbed conversion myth.
The primary motivation for the marx-darwin nexus in creationist minds is, I
think, that neither requires the intimate involvement of God in the subject
matter, which is also a good argument against automotive mechanics manuals.
>
>
> But my memory of this is that the Soviet Union banned Darwinism as being
> ideaologically contrary to Marxism. What's more, I seem to remember that
> Darwin himself was inspired partly by a book about capitalism.
The Soviets under Stalin/Lysenko banned Mendelian genetics in favour of
neo-Lamarckian genetics (and starved 40 million people as a result).
Evolution was still in vogue, although it was more of the
Lamarckian/Geoffroyan variety, which is a pity because the synthesis began
in Russia with people like Filipchenko. However, Darwinian theory as we now
know it was definitely banned.
Darwin was inspired but not, I think particularly informed, by Rev. Malthus'
_Essay on Population_ (as was Wallace), but it was more in the line of a
socially conservative (=Tory) justification against welfare measures. It is
a common line bt the left that evolutionary theory is an ad et post hoc
justification for laisse faire capitalism, and certainly Darwin, like most
of his contemporaries, was aware of David Ricardo's economic writings, and
less directly, of Adam Smith. However, I think the lesson learned by Darwin
was the notion of hidden hand effects, not the value of profit motives, etc.
>
> Is there actually anything behind the linking of Darwinism and Marxism,
> or is it just a complete lie?
>
>
> Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
>
--
John Wilkins
thewi...@bigpond.com
Loren Petrich
I think that the Fundies like trying to make a connection because
doing so is great mudslinging.
A Pagano
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
as a valid scientific theory,...
Pagano replies:
Pope John Paul's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on
10/22/96 has been much misused by evolutionists. If one searches the
short address (it's only 3+ pages) one will not find the Pope claiming
that the neoDarwinian framework, for example, is valid. What did the
Pope say about validity: [BEGIN QUOTE FROM THE POPE] "...A theory's
validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly
tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter,
it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must be rethought."
[QUOTE FROM THE POPE]
The Pope was speaking in general terms about theories. He never
directly or by implication claimed that "the neoDarwinian argument" was
a valid argument. And even if he had this would not be a strong claim
because there is no direct relation between the truth and the validity
of a conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and false
conclusions. This weakness is chronicled in the history of
science---that is prior to being falsified every false theory in history
was verified. The neoDarwinian framework and modern uniformitarian
geology have significant contradictions which have been ignored or
answered ad hoc.
The Pope's address was not international news for its claim that
evolutionism was valid. It made international news when he said: [BEGIN
QUOTE] "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed
remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory." [END QUOTE]
Here the Pope simply pointed out that since the encyclical letter
"Humani Generi" was written in Aug 1950 by Pope Pius XII the
evolutionary framework has accumulated a level of corroboration that
moved it above the status of "untested hypothesis." This is not a
strong claim because most theories in history which were falsified were
also "something more than just a hypothesis." The Pope points to
acceptance of evolutionism by researchers as a point in its favor.
Again I point out from history that most falsified theories in history
had garnered majority support prior to its falsification.
It should be noted that Pope John Paul did not repudiate the encyclicals
"Providentissumus Deus" or "Humani Generi" and he did not call for
scripture to be reinterpreted because evolutionism had been established
as truth.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
>In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
>as a valid scientific theory,...
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Pope John Paul's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on
>10/22/96 has been much misused by evolutionists.
>
>The Pope was speaking in general terms about theories. He never
>directly or by implication claimed that "the neoDarwinian argument"
Here pagano does another creationist tap dance. he equates
'neodarwinism' with ALL of evolution.
sorry pagano, try again. the pope said evolution is a good theory.
was
>a valid argument. And even if he had this would not be a strong claim
>because there is no direct relation between the truth and the validity
>of a conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and false
>conclusions. This weakness is chronicled in the history of
>science---that is prior to being falsified every false theory in history
>was verified. The neoDarwinian framework and modern uniformitarian
>geology have significant contradictions which have been ignored or
>answered ad hoc.
meaningless rhetoric. the pope objected ONLY SPECIFICALLY to theories
which require the evolution of 'minds' from inanimate matter. since
evolution does not do this the pope has NO objection to evolution at
all
try again, champion liar.
>
This is not a
>strong claim because most theories in history which were falsified were
>also "something more than just a hypothesis." The Pope points to
>acceptance of evolutionism by researchers as a point in its favor.
>Again I point out from history that most falsified theories in history
>had garnered majority support prior to its falsification.
the pope was saying that evolution is as well accepted a theory as any
other in science. unless you're saying ALL of science is wrong, you
have some explaining to do...again.
>
.
Michael
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
> as a valid scientific theory,...
>
> Pagano replies:
> Pope John Paul's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on
> 10/22/96 has been much misused by evolutionists. If one searches the
> short address (it's only 3+ pages) one will not find the Pope claiming
> that the neoDarwinian framework, for example, is valid. What did the
> Pope say about validity: [BEGIN QUOTE FROM THE POPE] "...A theory's
> validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly
> tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter,
> it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must be rethought."
> [QUOTE FROM THE POPE]
>
> The Pope was speaking in general terms about theories. He never
> directly or by implication claimed that "the neoDarwinian argument" was
> a valid argument. And even if he had this would not be a strong claim
> because there is no direct relation between the truth and the validity
> of a conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and false
> conclusions. This weakness is chronicled in the history of
> science---that is prior to being falsified every false theory in history
> was verified. The neoDarwinian framework and modern uniformitarian
> geology have significant contradictions which have been ignored or
> answered ad hoc.
>
> The Pope's address was not international news for its claim that
> evolutionism was valid. It made international news when he said: [BEGIN
> QUOTE] "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
> evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed
> remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
> researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
> knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
> results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
> significant argument in favor of this theory." [END QUOTE]
It looks to me like the Pope is saying he tentatively buys the
best-supported theory at this time. Isn't that how science
works?
>
>
> Here the Pope simply pointed out that since the encyclical letter
> "Humani Generi" was written in Aug 1950 by Pope Pius XII the
> evolutionary framework has accumulated a level of corroboration that
> moved it above the status of "untested hypothesis." This is not a
> strong claim because most theories in history which were falsified were
> also "something more than just a hypothesis." The Pope points to
> acceptance of evolutionism by researchers as a point in its favor.
> Again I point out from history that most falsified theories in history
> had garnered majority support prior to its falsification.
And points out that that acceptance is based on several discoveries
that support the theory. Duh.
Evolution has far more evidence for it than Creationism. That
makes evolution the BETTER theory. Even if its completely
wrong, its better than creationism.
>
>
> It should be noted that Pope John Paul did not repudiate the encyclicals
> "Providentissumus Deus" or "Humani Generi" and he did not call for
> scripture to be reinterpreted because evolutionism had been established
> as truth.
Why should he? Where does it say anything about man's soul or the
existence of God?
Mike
otter
what the creationist types want to do.
Paul
Robert Parson
The Wilkins Family <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[much snipped]
>The third reason is that Marx and Engels gave Darwinism qualified support in
>their correspondence, although the Russian socialists and anarchists like
>Kropotkin disliked the Spencerian "survival of the fittest" simile based on
>Malthus (see Daniel Todes' magisterial _Darwin without Malthus_, Oxford UP
>1989).
Lenin also wrote nice things about Darwin, although he didn't address
Darwin's ideas about evolutionary mechanisms in any detail:
"Just as Darwin put an end to the view of animal and plant species being
unconnected, fortuitous, 'created by God' and immutable, and was the
first to put biology on an absolutely scientific basis by establishing
the mutability and the succession of species, so Marx put an end
to the view of society being a mechanical aggregation of individuals
which allow of all sorts of modification at the will of the
authorities (or, if you like at the will of society and the government) and
which emerges and changes casually, and was the first to put sociology
on a scientific basis by establishing the concept of the economic
formulation of society as the sum-total of given production relations,
by establishing the fact that the development of such formations is a
process of natural history."
>>
>> But my memory of this is that the Soviet Union banned Darwinism as being
>> ideaologically contrary to Marxism. What's more, I seem to remember that
>> Darwin himself was inspired partly by a book about capitalism.
>
>The Soviets under Stalin/Lysenko banned Mendelian genetics in favour of
>neo-Lamarckian genetics (and starved 40 million people as a result).
IMO that's a bit exagerrated. While Lynsenkoism certainly did great harm
to Soviet agriculture, the main reason for the Stalin-era famines was the
collectivization program itself and the incredibly brutal way in which
it was imposed upon the peasantry. The worst famines - the Ukrainian
and Kazakh disasters of 1932-33 - predated Lysenko's reign. Lysenkoist
practices probably contributed to the postwar famines as well as the
subsequent agricultural bungling during the Khrushchev era (Khrushchev
also supported Lysenko.)
>Evolution was still in vogue, although it was more of the
>Lamarckian/Geoffroyan variety, which is a pity because the synthesis began
>in Russia with people like Filipchenko. However, Darwinian theory as we now
>know it was definitely banned.
Emphasis, though, on _as we now know it_. Lysenko and company actually
regarded themselves as defending "true" Darwinism against
Mendelist-Morganist perversions. This didn't seem as odd at the
time as it does today, since in the early decades of the century it
was widely believed that Mendel's laws of genetics posed serious
problems for evolution by natural selection. IIRC Morgan himself took
this viewpoint. Furthermore, Darwin had allowed that Lamarkian mechanisms
might play some role in evolution. Lysenko himself was a crank who
understood Darwinism about as well as Kent Hovind does, but the
neoLamarkian ideas which he drew upon originated in the work of
respectable pre-revolutionary Russian biologists.
------
Robert
Andy Byron
being in some way linked to fascist ideology (the link seems to be
"Darwinism = survival of the fittest = eugenics = Nazism") and now it
seems we're a bunch of pinko Communists as well! :-)
It is just an attempt to smear science and scientists. Linking science
with any political ideology is completely invalid.
The Nazis may have used eugenics to justify their genocide and the
Soviets may have used some concept of "science" and rationalism to help
justify their persecution of religion.
However, if the actions of extremists are to be used to discredit
science we all know that we can go down the same route with religion
e.g. Ayatollahs issuing fatwas, popes encouraging Inquisitions, crusades
, jihads, witch hunts, any number of religious wars, persecution of
various types of heretics by the orthodox, etc, etc.
Basically, either of the above tactics is a smear aimed at tarring the
majority in either science or religion with the same brush as the
loonies.
Regards,
Andy.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
>
> In 1996, when the Vatican released the Pope's statement about evolution
> as a valid scientific theory, the ICR newsletter wrote a little piece
> which included a remark to the effect that when the Pope was in Poland,
> he got along well with the Communists.
>
> The most recent ICR newsletter had remarks in it which linked Darwinism
> and Marxism (I seem to have misplaced it somewhere).
>
> Where do Creationists get this supposed link? Is it just more nonsense
> they make up? I mean, to argue for guilt by association, you have to have
> some association -- and if it doesn't exist, claiming it does lets you go
> ahead.
>
> But my memory of this is that the Soviet Union banned Darwinism as being
> ideaologically contrary to Marxism. What's more, I seem to remember that
> Darwin himself was inspired partly by a book about capitalism.
>
A Pagano
The Pope's address was not international news for its claim that
evolutionism was valid. It made international news when he said: [BEGIN
QUOTE] "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed
remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory." [END QUOTE]
Mike replied:
It looks to me like the Pope is saying he tentatively buys the
best-supported theory at this time. Isn't that how science works?
Pagano responds:
The Pope has offered three facts: (1) neoDarwinism is more than an
untested hypothesis, (2) neoDarwinism is accepted by the majority
consensus, (3) neoDarwinism has accumlated corroborations, and (4) the
convergence of the opinion was not the result of fraud. He attempts to
be dispassionate and doesn't minimize that these facts are reasons for
this theory. No one disputes any of these facts, however, none of these
facts indicate that the theory is true or even probably true. The Pope
didn't say he "believed" in this theory nor did he say these reasons
indicated the theory was true. And most importantly he didn't say these
reasons were sufficient to cause him to direct the reinterpretion of
Genesis. This Pope is interested in the truth not the best available
purely materialistic theory. This is where materialists and the Pope
part company.
It is true that the history of science has shown that men have preferred
the best available theory rather than true ones. This is a
psychological phenomenon discussed by Kuhn in the "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
discovery of true theories. What this means is that most men judge
theories by relative rather than absolute standards. So the best
naturalistic theory currently available can retain the status of
"scientific knowledge" even if it is at odds with some or much of the
evidence. NeoDarwinism is at odds with some of our scientific
knowledge. This has been ignored or answered in ad hoc fashion. And
these problems are withheld in the schools or represented as an
indicator of the incompleteness of our knowledge rather than implying
the falsity of their theory.
*******************************************************
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
Here the Pope simply pointed out that since the encyclical letter
"Humani Generi" was written in Aug 1950 by Pope Pius XII the
evolutionary framework has accumulated a level of corroboration that
moved it above the status of "untested hypothesis." This is not a
strong claim because most theories in history which were falsified were
also "something more than just a hypothesis." The Pope points to
acceptance of evolutionism by researchers as a point in its favor.
Again I point out from history that most falsified theories in history
had garnered majority support prior to its falsification.
Mike replies:
And points out that that acceptance is based on several discoveries that
support the theory. Duh.
Pagano replies:
The history of science is littered with theories which had corroborating
discoveries and garnered majority consensus but were nonetheless
falsified and abandoned. What this means Mike is that acceptence based
merely upon some level of corroboration while ignoring contradictions is
the worst indicator of truth in the history of man.
*********************************************
Mike continued:
Evolution has far more evidence for it than Creationism. That makes
evolution the BETTER theory. Even if its completely wrong, its better
than creationism.
Pagano replies:
Let me get this straight, "even if its completely wrong, its better than
creationism." This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of
evolutionism. And second Mike should be clear that the creationist
framework accepts and incorporates the vast majority of the body of
scientific knowledge incorporated by evolutionists. This includes the
knowledge obtained in genetics, biology, microbiology, biochemistry,
etc. One of the dramatic differences is that creation scientists
conjecture that there are natural limits to biological change and that
these limits did not change over time. There is a more evidence of this
than of the transformism required by common descent "fueled" by
neoDarwinism.
Also it is doubtful whether Mike has any clue whether evolutionism is
the better theory because no comparison in the light of day, in any
scientific journals, on any college campuses, in any research
laboratories, or anywhere has any such exhaustive comparison been
conducted. If it has please offer the references. The vast majority of
comparisons are philosophical in nature (see works by Ruse, Kitcher, and
a few others). And the popular works that do attempt some limited
comparison invariably don't even take the time to obtain the current
creationist model.
**************************************
Regards,
T Pagano
Michael
> Pagano previously wrote:
> The Pope's address was not international news for its claim that
> evolutionism was valid. It made international news when he said: [BEGIN
> QUOTE] "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
> evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed
> remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
> researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
> knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
> results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
> significant argument in favor of this theory." [END QUOTE]
>
> Mike replied:
> It looks to me like the Pope is saying he tentatively buys the
> best-supported theory at this time. Isn't that how science works?
>
> Pagano responds:
> The Pope has offered three facts: (1) neoDarwinism is more than an
> untested hypothesis
He never said untested, did he?
> (2) neoDarwinism is accepted by the majority
> consensus,
because
> (3) neoDarwinism has accumlated corroborations, and (4) the
> convergence of the opinion was not the result of fraud. He attempts to
> be dispassionate and doesn't minimize that these facts are reasons for
> this theory. No one disputes any of these facts, however, none of these
> facts indicate that the theory is true or even probably true.
However, they do show that it is a superior theory to creationism
which can't get any corroboration.
> The Pope
> didn't say he "believed" in this theory nor did he say these reasons
> indicated the theory was true. And most importantly he didn't say these
> reasons were sufficient to cause him to direct the reinterpretion of
> Genesis.
Why should he have to? The Catholic church doesn't tie itself to a
literal interpretation. With or without evolution, the Catholic
church's interpretation will stand.
> This Pope is interested in the truth not the best available
> purely materialistic theory. This is where materialists and the Pope
> part company.
>
> It is true that the history of science has shown that men have preferred
> the best available theory rather than true ones. This is a
> psychological phenomenon discussed by Kuhn in the "The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> discovery of true theories. What this means is that most men judge
> theories by relative rather than absolute standards.
Given that we don't have access to absoute standards, its the
best course of action. And by those standards, Creations loses
big time.
> So the best
> naturalistic theory currently available can retain the status of
> "scientific knowledge" even if it is at odds with some or much of the
> evidence. NeoDarwinism is at odds with some of our scientific
> knowledge.
Really? Which ones?
> This has been ignored or answered in ad hoc fashion. And
> these problems are withheld in the schools or represented as an
> indicator of the incompleteness of our knowledge rather than implying
> the falsity of their theory.
Do you have anything that would imply falsity rather than incomplete
knowledge? Do you have anything that makes the twin-nested
hierarchy go away? Does your theory explain why that hierarchy
is so well correlated with the stratigraphic recrod? Didn't think so.
Mike
hrgr...@my-deja.com
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> Pagano previously wrote:
> The Pope's address was not international news for its claim that
> evolutionism was valid. It made international news when he said:
[BEGIN
> QUOTE] "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
> encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
> evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed
> remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
> researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
> knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
> results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
> significant argument in favor of this theory." [END QUOTE]
>
> Mike replied:
> It looks to me like the Pope is saying he tentatively buys the
> best-supported theory at this time. Isn't that how science works?
>
> Pagano responds:
> The Pope has offered three facts: (1) neoDarwinism is more than an
> consensus, (3) neoDarwinism has accumlated corroborations, and (4) the
> convergence of the opinion was not the result of fraud. He attempts
to
> be dispassionate and doesn't minimize that these facts are reasons for
> this theory. No one disputes any of these facts, however, none of
these
> facts indicate that the theory is true or even probably true.
Of course it *indicates* that the theory is approximately true.
Indication is not absolute proof.
Special relativity (SR) fulfils all of the above criteria; would anyone
claim that this does not indicate that SR is not approximately true
(within its domain: macroscopic lenght scales and weak gravitational
fields) ?
So why deny this status to evolution ?
The Pope
> didn't say he "believed" in this theory nor did he say these reasons
> indicated the theory was true. And most importantly he didn't say
these
> reasons were sufficient to cause him to direct the reinterpretion of
> Genesis. This Pope is interested in the truth not the best available
> purely materialistic theory. This is where materialists and the Pope
> part company.
>
> It is true that the history of science has shown that men have
preferred
> the best available theory rather than true ones.
Since by Pagano's exalted criteria no scientific theory can ever shown
to be true - and revelation is at best a source of belief, but not of
objective truth - I'd say that is simply a realistic stance.
This is a
> psychological phenomenon discussed by Kuhn in the "The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> discovery of true theories.
Which we can't discover anyway if "truth" = "Pagano truth".
What this means is that most men judge
> theories by relative rather than absolute standards.
No wonder, since no theory can ever meet Pagano's absolute standards
(i.e. those he applies to the theory of evolution). Any scientific
theory would fail this test.
So the best
> naturalistic theory currently available can retain the status of
> "scientific knowledge" even if it is at odds with some or much of the
> evidence. NeoDarwinism is at odds with some of our scientific
> knowledge.
This statement of has so often been made, challenged and refuted that
to make it again borders on dishonesty.
Regards,
HRG.
This has been ignored or answered in ad hoc fashion. And
> these problems are withheld in the schools or represented as an
> indicator of the incompleteness of our knowledge rather than implying
> the falsity of their theory.
> *******************************************************
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Michael
> Pagano previously wrote:
> Here the Pope simply pointed out that since the encyclical letter
> "Humani Generi" was written in Aug 1950 by Pope Pius XII the
> evolutionary framework has accumulated a level of corroboration that
> moved it above the status of "untested hypothesis." This is not a
> strong claim because most theories in history which were falsified were
> also "something more than just a hypothesis." The Pope points to
> acceptance of evolutionism by researchers as a point in its favor.
> Again I point out from history that most falsified theories in history
> had garnered majority support prior to its falsification.
>
> Mike replies:
> And points out that that acceptance is based on several discoveries that
> support the theory. Duh.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The history of science is littered with theories which had corroborating
> discoveries and garnered majority consensus but were nonetheless
> falsified and abandoned. What this means Mike is that acceptence based
> merely upon some level of corroboration while ignoring contradictions is
> the worst indicator of truth in the history of man.
> *********************************************
What contradictions are we ignoring? Theories are overturned by
weight of evidence that falsifies them. There is no such weight
bearing down on evolution.
Tell me you have more than your misunderstanding of stasis to
make this claim with.
>
>
> Mike continued:
> Evolution has far more evidence for it than Creationism. That makes
> evolution the BETTER theory. Even if its completely wrong, its better
> than creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Let me get this straight, "even if its completely wrong, its better than
> creationism." This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of
> evolutionism.
Let's get this straight. I think that evolution is corroborated enough
that it is likely correct or close to correct. But if you wish to push
this uncertainty thing, then it cuts both ways. Creationism has
been falsified many times over by radiometric dating, genetic
studies, the fossil record, etc.
> And second Mike should be clear that the creationist
> framework accepts and incorporates the vast majority of the body of
> scientific knowledge incorporated by evolutionists.
Then how does it explain the existence of fossils that are
morphologically transitional between land mammals and whales
and are always younger than 65 million years old? Why do more
recently dated whales tend to look more like modern whales?
> This includes the
> knowledge obtained in genetics, biology, microbiology, biochemistry,
> etc. One of the dramatic differences is that creation scientists
> conjecture that there are natural limits to biological change and that
> these limits did not change over time. There is a more evidence of this
> than of the transformism required by common descent "fueled" by
> neoDarwinism.
I have yet to see this evidence. Care to point out a reference? There
seems to be a nice gradation is genetic difference that corroborates
the morphologic pattern. This in turn is well correlated with the
stratigraphic record. Mutations can give mosquitos the ability
to digest the nerve gas we use to poison them. Has any creationist
actually identified this limit? Can anyone define a "kind" yet?
Didn't think so.
>
>
> Also it is doubtful whether Mike has any clue whether evolutionism is
> the better theory because no comparison in the light of day, in any
> scientific journals, on any college campuses, in any research
> laboratories, or anywhere has any such exhaustive comparison been
> conducted. If it has please offer the references. The vast majority of
> comparisons are philosophical in nature (see works by Ruse, Kitcher, and
> a few others).
Most of the ones I have read have dealt primarily with the scientific
data. Your problem seems to be trying to learn science from
philosophers.
> And the popular works that do attempt some limited
> comparison invariably don't even take the time to obtain the current
> creationist model.
> **************************************
>
There's actually a creationist model? I've been looking all over for
it! Is there a reference? What predictions does it make?
Seriously. I've never found a statement of the creation model I can
use to make predictions and thus test it.
Mike
A Pagano
It should be noted that Pope John Paul did not repudiate the encyclicals
"Providentissumus Deus" or "Humani Generi" and he did not call for
scripture to be reinterpreted because evolutionism had been established
as truth.
Mike replied:
Why should he? Where does it say anything about man's soul or the
existence of God?
Pagano replies:
Now Mike disguises the issue. Provine's claim (and the claim of many
evolutionists) is that the Pope, in his address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, considered the theory of evolution to be valid. If
Pope John Paul II considered evolutionism valid why didn't he lift the
restraints imposed by the previous encyclicals "Providentissumus Deus"
and "Humani Generi?" Neither of those encyclicals could be construed
(as Mike apparently does) as giving permission to anyone to treat those
parts of Scripture touching matters of the physical or historical order
as merely incidental and having no connection whatever with faith. In
"Providentissumus Deus" Pope Leo XIII made clear that while it was not
the purpose of Scripture to teach men the essential nature of the
visible universe that this did not free Catholics to regard the portion
of Genesis which touches matters of the physical or historical order as
merely incidental.
Pope Pius XII wrote in "Humani Generis" published on August 12, 1950,
"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the
origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. What
overwhelming evidence existed in Oct 1996 when Pope John Paul gave his
address that did not exist in Aug 1950 which grants any greater
verisimilitude to the transformism required by neoDarwinism?
Pope Pius XII also wrote in "Humani Generis": "For these reasons the
Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity
with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research
and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take
place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires
into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living
matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God. HOWEVER THIS MUST BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY
that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those
unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with necessary
seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared
to submit to the judgement of the Church, to whom Christ has given the
mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred scriptures and of
defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this
liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body
from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and
proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by
reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sourecs of
divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
this question.
"Humani Generis" permits the faithful to study evolutionism provided
that the reasons for AND AGAINST are judged with the necessary
seriousness, moderation, and measure. Most modern secular theorists do
not take these restraints seriously (nor are they bound by them), but
the faithful are reqired to do so. Secularists have effectively
characterized the theories of Common descent and neoDarwinism as fact.
This not only contravenes "Humani Generis" but also the Popperian
philosophy of science. The Biblical authors, and the Church Fathers all
taught Genesis to be of real historic value. The encyclicals were
written in part to prevent the faithful from being misled by highly
speculative theories into rashly and imprudently abandoning that
Tradition. Pope John Paul's address did nothing to lift these
restrictions.
Regards,
T Pagano
Michael
> Pagano previously wrote:
> It should be noted that Pope John Paul did not repudiate the encyclicals
> "Providentissumus Deus" or "Humani Generi" and he did not call for
> scripture to be reinterpreted because evolutionism had been established
> as truth.
>
> Mike replied:
> Why should he? Where does it say anything about man's soul or the
> existence of God?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Now Mike disguises the issue. Provine's claim (and the claim of many
> evolutionists) is that the Pope, in his address to the Pontifical
> Academy of Sciences, considered the theory of evolution to be valid. If
> Pope John Paul II considered evolutionism valid why didn't he lift the
> restraints imposed by the previous encyclicals "Providentissumus Deus"
> and "Humani Generi?" Neither of those encyclicals could be construed
> (as Mike apparently does) as giving permission to anyone to treat those
> parts of Scripture touching matters of the physical or historical order
> as merely incidental and having no connection whatever with faith. In
> "Providentissumus Deus" Pope Leo XIII made clear that while it was not
> the purpose of Scripture to teach men the essential nature of the
> visible universe that this did not free Catholics to regard the portion
> of Genesis which touches matters of the physical or historical order as
> merely incidental.
I never said it was merely incidental. It deals specifically with the idea
that man was created by God and owes the existence of his sould to
Him.
>
>
> Pope Pius XII wrote in "Humani Generis" published on August 12, 1950,
> "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
> been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the
> origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
> pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. What
> overwhelming evidence existed in Oct 1996 when Pope John Paul gave his
> address that did not exist in Aug 1950 which grants any greater
> verisimilitude to the transformism required by neoDarwinism?
Only the half century of continuing corroboration to which Pope
John Paul II refers. Note also, that rather than focus on the
uncertainty of scientific theories, the Pope states "A theory's validity
depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested
against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows
its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought."
Yet we see no references to such limitations in the document. I can
only interpret this as general acceptence of the validity of the theory of
evolution.
>
>
> Pope Pius XII also wrote in "Humani Generis": "For these reasons the
> Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity
> with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research
> and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take
> place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires
> into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living
> matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
> immediately created by God. HOWEVER THIS MUST BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY
> that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those
> unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with necessary
> seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared
> to submit to the judgement of the Church, to whom Christ has given the
> mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred scriptures and of
> defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this
> liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body
> from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and
> proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by
> reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sourecs of
> divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
> this question.
>
IMO you highlighted the wrong words. ".. the Catholic faith obliges us to
hold that souls are immediately created by God" is the most important
part of this statement according to John Paul II.
>
> "Humani Generis" permits the faithful to study evolutionism provided
> that the reasons for AND AGAINST are judged with the necessary
> seriousness, moderation, and measure. Most modern secular theorists do
> not take these restraints seriously (nor are they bound by them), but
> the faithful are reqired to do so. Secularists have effectively
> characterized the theories of Common descent and neoDarwinism as fact.
> This not only contravenes "Humani Generis" but also the Popperian
> philosophy of science. The Biblical authors, and the Church Fathers all
> taught Genesis to be of real historic value. The encyclicals were
> written in part to prevent the faithful from being misled by highly
> speculative theories into rashly and imprudently abandoning that
> Tradition. Pope John Paul's address did nothing to lift these
> restrictions.
And Pope John Paul II clearly has declared evolution to be more
than a speculative theory.
The only restrictions I saw was to not attribute the soul to anything
but God and to not blindly follow theories and use them to make
theological pronouncements that are not Church-approved.
Regardless of the status of evolution, the Churse will want to retain
its veto power. That stands for all scientific theories.
Mike
Joseph Potter
Marty Fouts <mathem...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote in message
news:wkzoz6s...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com...
> A Pagano pounded silicon into:
>
> [snip]
>
> > [...] The Pope has offered three facts: (1)
> > neoDarwinism is more than an untested hypothesis, (2) neoDarwinism
> > is accepted by the majority consensus, (3) neoDarwinism has
> > accumlated corroborations, and (4) the convergence of the opinion
> > was not the result of fraud.
>
>
> [snip]
>
That would be three not four, Marty.
#1 is an opinion, not a fact. :-)
The rest may be facts.
Regards, Joe
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Pope Pius XII wrote in "Humani Generis" published on August 12, 1950,
>"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
>been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the
>origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
>pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
this pope, as pagano points out, wrote half a century ago. i suggest
in this spirit, pagano types his next encyclical on a computer from
that time period.
what? there were few in existence??
oh...science has advanced since then. yeah, you could say that. the
present pope is pretty sharp on science. thats why he said evolution
is 'more than a hypothesis'.
What
>overwhelming evidence existed in Oct 1996 when Pope John Paul gave his
>address that did not exist in Aug 1950 which grants any greater
>verisimilitude to the transformism required by neoDarwinism?
uh, 50 yrs of scientific research??
i know pagano is a scientific illiterate and cant conceive of science
advancing, but it does...
>>
HOWEVER THIS MUST BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY
>that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those
>unfavorable to evolution,
there aint none unfavorable to evolution. and in fact, the present
pope in his statement does not repeat this demand because he KNOWS
there is NO evidence AGAINST evolution
>
>"Humani Generis" permits the faithful to study evolutionism provided
>that the reasons for AND AGAINST are judged with the necessary
>seriousness, moderation, and measure.
except that 50 yrs ago science didnt know as much about evolution as
it does today. again, the present pope does not mention
ONE SINGLE WORD...not ONE about evidence AGAINST evolution.
try quoting from PRESENT DAY science and PRESENT DAY popes pagano...
Most modern secular theorists do
>not take these restraints seriously (nor are they bound by them), but
>the faithful are reqired to do so. Secularists have effectively
>characterized the theories of Common descent and neoDarwinism as fact.
>This not only contravenes "Humani Generis"
in your opinion. it doesnt contradict pope JPII because he doesnt say
ANYTHING against evolution
but also the Popperian
>philosophy of science. The Biblical authors, and the Church Fathers all
>taught Genesis to be of real historic value.
who cares? history aint science
The encyclicals were
>written in part to prevent the faithful from being misled by highly
>speculative theories into rashly and imprudently abandoning that
>Tradition.
and with pagano's view of papal history he would still lock us into
ptolemy's view of the universe because galileo was once condemned by
pope urban...a condemnation for which this pope has issued an apology.
>>Pope John Paul's address did nothing to lift these
>restrictions.
>
really? then tell us pagano, where did the pope have ONE SINGLE WORD
to say about evidence AGAINST evolution of the physical universe AT
ALL...
even ONE WORD will suffice. quote him. go ahead.
.
ZenIsWhen
>Pagano previously wrote:
>It should be noted that Pope John Paul did not repudiate the encyclicals
>"Providentissumus Deus" or "Humani Generi" and he did not call for
>scripture to be reinterpreted because evolutionism had been established
>as truth.
Why does it matter what a person more concerned with religious beliefs than
scientific realities thinks about evolution.
The pope's declarations about evolution were not "scientific validations", but
were, instead, a hint of a religious organization coming out of ignorance
and into reality.
Which puts them way ahead of you.
>
>
>Mike replied:
>Why should he? Where does it say anything about man's soul or the
>existence of God?
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Now Mike disguises the issue. Provine's claim (and the claim of many
>evolutionists) is that the Pope, in his address to the Pontifical
>Academy of Sciences, considered the theory of evolution to be valid. If
>Pope John Paul II considered evolutionism valid why didn't he lift the
>restraints imposed by the previous encyclicals "Providentissumus Deus"
>and "Humani Generi?" Neither of those encyclicals could be construed
>(as Mike apparently does) as giving permission to anyone to treat those
>parts of Scripture touching matters of the physical or historical order
>as merely incidental and having no connection whatever with faith. In
>"Providentissumus Deus" Pope Leo XIII made clear that while it was not
>the purpose of Scripture to teach men the essential nature of the
>visible universe that this did not free Catholics to regard the portion
>of Genesis which touches matters of the physical or historical order as
>merely incidental.
Such logic and reasoning is best seen in childhood behavior - "no one told me
NOT to do it, so I assumed it was all right to do it."
>
>Pope Pius XII wrote in "Humani Generis" published on August 12, 1950,
>"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
>been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the
>origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
>pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. What
>overwhelming evidence existed in Oct 1996 when Pope John Paul gave his
>address that did not exist in Aug 1950 which grants any greater
>verisimilitude to the transformism required by neoDarwinism?
How about the evidence that the catholic church started thinking instead of
hiding their heads in their religious sandbox?
The evidence has been there for a long time ... it just takes ignorant people
longer to recognize reality ..... some - (hint, hint) never seem to get it.
>
>Pope Pius XII also wrote in "Humani Generis": "For these reasons the
>Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity
>with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research
>and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take
>place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires
>into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living
>matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
>immediately created by God. HOWEVER THIS MUST BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY
>that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those
>unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with necessary
>seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared
>to submit to the judgement of the Church, to whom Christ has given the
>mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred scriptures and of
>defending the dogmas of faith.
If religious ignorance opposes the realities of science, then the religious
ignorance must change ... reality can't.
Christ ordered that the word of god be spread; not that believers
stubbornly remain ignorant of reality.
Science does not challenge the word of god ... but it certainly does upset
those who, in the guise of religion, prefer to remain dense.
Some however, rashly transgress this
>liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body
>from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and
>proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by
>reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sourecs of
>divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in
>this question.
You're babbling.
>"Humani Generis" permits the faithful to study evolutionism provided
>that the reasons for AND AGAINST are judged with the necessary
>seriousness, moderation, and measure. Most modern secular theorists do
>not take these restraints seriously (nor are they bound by them), but
>the faithful are reqired to do so. Secularists have effectively
>characterized the theories of Common descent and neoDarwinism as fact.
People who deal with reality understand and accept evolution.
Those that don't, for religious reasons? ... that's their problem.
>This not only contravenes "Humani Generis" but also the Popperian
>philosophy of science.
Who gives a f* what the "popperian philosophy of science" is?
Luckily science broke away from religious domination and ignorance centuries
ago.
The Biblical authors, and the Church Fathers all
>taught Genesis to be of real historic value.
The tales of Odin, and Zeus, and the Great White Buffalo are also of
historical significance, and value.
That does not mean that genesis is historically correct .. or science.
The encyclicals were
>written in part to prevent the faithful from being misled by highly
>speculative theories into rashly and imprudently abandoning that
>Tradition. Pope John Paul's address did nothing to lift these
>restrictions.
The encyclicals were meant to keep the ignorant people under the churches
dominance by keeping them ignorant.
JP took a little step to break that ignorance.
Why are you so intent on keeping it?