In the News: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Jason Spaceman
-------------------------------------------------------
John Hooper in Rome
Monday August 28, 2006
The Guardian
Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
Vatican's view of evolution.
There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his
church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in
some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of
the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been
designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for
creationism.
A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique
Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the
Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take
time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution
is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what
was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said
Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1859614,00.html
J. Spaceman
TomS
<shj5f29erabo8a8u2...@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman stated..."
>
>From the article:
[...snip...]
>A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique
>Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
>meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the
>Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take
>time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution
>is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what
This is an incredible slur on "Catholic intellectuals".
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
amo...@cellsignal.com
smell sensational in even the faintest way (especially when the
information behind it is half-baked).
I repeat what I said before:
Those who doubt Pope Benedict's position are kindly reminded that, in
his former function, he supervised the 2004 document "Communion and
Stewardship" which is decidedly pro-science (read paragraphs 62
ff.):
Further, ID was recently criticized (under the current pope!) in the
Vatican Newspaper,
L'Osservatore Romano:
Please pay attention particularly to the following, with emphasis on
the last sentence:
The Times noted, "L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the
Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its
articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it
would
not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply
from that
policy."
***
Also, as long as Nicola Cabibbo is president of the Papal Academy of
Sciences (he will have a central role in these discussions), I see
little reason for concern. For his opinions, see an interview with him:
http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/cabibbo.htm
TomS
<shj5f29erabo8a8u2...@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman stated..."
>
>From the article:
[...snip...]
>Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
From an earlier interview with the National Catholic Reporter:
<http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf>
"What is your scientific training?
"I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite school
of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my
professional career I worked in metallurgy plants, not in a teaching
or research centers. ..."
amo...@cellsignal.com
TomS wrote:
> "On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:08:28 -0400, in article
> <shj5f29erabo8a8u2...@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman stated..."
> >
> >From the article:
> [...snip...]
> >A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique
> >Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
> [...snip...]
>
> From an earlier interview with the National Catholic Reporter:
>
> <http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf>
>
> "What is your scientific training?
> "I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite school
> of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my
> professional career I worked in metallurgy plants, not in a teaching
> or research centers. ..."
>
Nicola Cabibbo on the other hand, the president of the Papal Academy of
Sciences, whom I just mentioned, is a famous particle physicist:
ErikW
amo...@cellsignal.com wrote:
> Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . the newspapers blow up anything that may
> smell sensational in even the faintest way (especially when the
> information behind it is half-baked).
>
> I repeat what I said before:
> Those who doubt Pope Benedict's position are kindly reminded that, in
> his former function, he supervised the 2004 document "Communion and
> Stewardship" which is decidedly pro-science (read paragraphs 62
> ff.):
In my unqualified opinion he would throw out evolution in a blink if he
could get away with it (which he probably can't). But I very much doubt
that he would favour any form of design theory in its place. He is
concerned with restoring faith in God and the bible and that is not
achieved by going on a detour into pseudo-science.
As for that dokument Communion and Stewardship, chew on this :D
69
[...]
"A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to
evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified
complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a
purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or
misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves
scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the
available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be
settled by theology."
First a needless flirtation with ID followed by a disclaimer that the
church won't explicitly take sides. Why even mention it?
erikW
Frank J
ErikW wrote:
> amo...@cellsignal.com wrote:
> > Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . the newspapers blow up anything that may
> > smell sensational in even the faintest way (especially when the
> > information behind it is half-baked).
> >
> > I repeat what I said before:
> > Those who doubt Pope Benedict's position are kindly reminded that, in
> > his former function, he supervised the 2004 document "Communion and
> > Stewardship" which is decidedly pro-science (read paragraphs 62
> > ff.):
>
> In my unqualified opinion he would throw out evolution in a blink if he
> could get away with it (which he probably can't). But I very much doubt
> that he would favour any form of design theory in its place. He is
> concerned with restoring faith in God and the bible and that is not
> achieved by going on a detour into pseudo-science.
Especially if that detour involves bearing false witness.
>
> As for that dokument Communion and Stewardship, chew on this :D
>
> 69
> [...]
> "A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to
> evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified
> complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a
> purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or
> misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves
> scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the
> available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be
> settled by theology."
>
> First a needless flirtation with ID followed by a disclaimer that the
> church won't explicitly take sides. Why even mention it?
I guess because not even acknowledging it can be interpreted as a
cover-up (yes, I know it's a catch-22).
Anyway, this is their opportunity to unequivocally acknowledge that
evolution never claimed the "chance v. design" dichotomy that most
people have in mind. They can take this opportunity to be clear that
there are critics of details of "neo-Darwinism" who nevertheless will
say that it's still evolution (old earth, common descent and all), and
that ID is a pseudoscientific scam. If, however, they insist on using
terms like "neo-Darwinism" in the bait-and-switch fashion that the
scammers do, and merely "distance themselves" from the fatal flaws and
contradictions in the mutually contradictory creationisms, instead of
confronting them, then the scammers will have scored their greatest
victory to date.
Frank J
amo...@cellsignal.com wrote:
> Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . the newspapers blow up anything that may
> smell sensational in even the faintest way (especially when the
> information behind it is half-baked).
>
> I repeat what I said before:
> Those who doubt Pope Benedict's position are kindly reminded that, in
> his former function, he supervised the 2004 document "Communion and
> Stewardship" which is decidedly pro-science (read paragraphs 62
> ff.):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c37p5
>
> Further, ID was recently criticized (under the current pope!) in the
> Vatican Newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kak3u
I'm 100% with you that the media will sensationalize anything, and that
it almost always benefits pseudoscience when they do, but I read that
Coyne just resigned - or was fired, depending on which sensationalist
story is closer to the truth. Either way, the timing couldn't be worse.
Anyway, I'll do what I did during Dover, and not set my hopes too high.
Remember that the ID scam is so slippery that one can even admit that
ID is not ready for prime time (as some IDers themselves have admitted)
and just promote a designer-free phony "critical analysis" of
evolution. Or use catchy but misleading phrases like "the jury's still
out."
Cheezits
> Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
> Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
> intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
> Vatican's view of evolution.
I don't see why the church needs to have an official view of any theory.
I thought its business was religion.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
TomS
<1156779909....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
[...snip...]
>I'm 100% with you that the media will sensationalize anything, and that
>it almost always benefits pseudoscience when they do, but I read that
>Coyne just resigned - or was fired, depending on which sensationalist
>story is closer to the truth. Either way, the timing couldn't be worse.
This news article also mentions the replacement of Coyne, but
notes that Coyne has cancer.
>
>Anyway, I'll do what I did during Dover, and not set my hopes too high.
[...snip...]
Sounds prudent.
macaddicted
universe was created, presumably by a designer, and that monogenism is
still implicitly a fundamental doctrine of the Church (It has, AFAIK,
never been explicitly stated as such). I would be surprised, but not
shocked, if Benedict did adopt ID at least in part. Also, you need to
look at where the statement is released. There is a tremendous amount of
difference between, say and encyclical and a story in L'Osservatore.
The encyclical _Humani Generis_ could definitely stand to be updated, it
was, after all, promulgated in the 1950's. There have been tremendous
changes in biblical criticism, scientific discovery, and philosophical
ideals since then. JPII's 1996 statement was little more than a
re-statement of ideas put forward in Humani and _Providentissimus Deus_,
as well as other Catholic doctrines.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
wade
TomS wrote:
> "On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:08:28 -0400, in article
> <shj5f29erabo8a8u2...@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman stated..."
> >
> >From the article:
> [...snip...]
> >A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique
> >Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
> [...snip...]
>
> From an earlier interview with the National Catholic Reporter:
>
> <http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf>
>
> "What is your scientific training?
> "I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite school
> of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my
Salem Hypothesis anyone?
Or does the "elite" part cancel it out?
Bob Pease
"Cheezits" <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns982D77A4D218Ach...@130.81.64.196...
> Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> quoted:
> > Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
> > Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
> > intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
> > Vatican's view of evolution.
> [etc.]
>
> I don't see why the church needs to have an official view of any theory.
> I thought its business was religion.
>
> Sue
when a 'Theory" and its applications impact social policy, the Church has a
right and duty to address the Matter.
In Ben/Ratz documents it is made clear that Catholics must act in a manner
with belief in the Christian faith and with the interpretations of the
Magisterium
I don't have to agree with their social policy, but it is exceedingly naive
or ignorant to maintain that the Church has no right to state its position
on ethical issues or on social issues impacting its sense of propriety.
Ratzinger has no choice but to support the idea that the God of the Nicene
Creed was the Creator, and that ID is simply peripheral to that dogma.
Bob Pease
Frank J
Cheezits wrote:
> Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> quoted:
> > Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
> > Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
> > intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
> > Vatican's view of evolution.
> [etc.]
>
> I don't see why the church needs to have an official view of any theory.
> I thought its business was religion.
Certainly they can simply plead ignorance on subtler points such as
mechanistic details of speciation that even experts disagree on. But if
they just "look the other way" regarding the blatant misrepresentations
of the anti-evolution activists, then they would be in essence saying
that it's OK to bear false witness.
Googler
Insofar as the Guardian's bias is concerned, that is a subject best
left alone.
Tassot, despite being featured in this article, *will not* be at
Benedict's Schulerkreis on evolution and creation. As far as we know,
he wasn't even invited.
Tassot was actually interviewed by NCR to demonstrate that there is a
creationist movement in Europe. He is, perhaps, as the article says, a
prominent creationist. He is in no way a prominent scientist.
Furthermore, he is a "Catholic scientist" only in the sense that he is
both a Catholic and a scientist. In the same way can Richard Demski
be labeled as a "Christian mathematician". The labels are meaningless.
Someone who *will* be at the Schulerkreis - by invitation - is Peter
Schuster (see interview below). Schuster is, of course, a
world-renowned scientist with impeccable credentials and, as would be
expected, a supporter of evolution. Now *he* would accurately be
described as a "prominent scientist."
But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
It is also a demonstration of the bias of the Guardian article that it
fails to relate any description of Prof. Schuster.
See Peter Shuster NCR interview here:
http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuster.htm
John Wilkins
Schuster was a colleague of Eigen's, and is indeed a major research
figure on these matters. With luck, he'll speak to Schönborn's silliness
(and do so in German, allowing Benedict to follow the arguments).
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
Would that it were so, but the history of the inclusion of the First
Cause argument in Catholic teaching leads me to think that, if they
don't work it through properly (and if Schönborn is there, that's a very
good possibility), they will add a doctrinal requirement that evolution
was indeed guided by intelligent design. They won't think through how
that applies to things like gravity, chemistry or other "unguided"
physical processes.
Ironically, this *was* resolved by the neo_Thomists in the 1920s-1950s.
In particular I like Eric Mascall's resolution in Word and Image.
Given that the present official view is that biological evolution is
true but that God created a soul in Adam (or some point in evolutionary
history) which is beyond question or challenge, it seems to me one of
two outcomes is likely: 1. that the notion of a "soul" will end up
having little or no empirical content, rather like being told you have
an invisible angel and demon on either shoulder, or 2. that there will
be some aspects of human behaviour and psychology that will be out of
bounds to Catholicsas research topics.
A worst case scenario is that the Church will support ID as a scientific
theory. Accepting evidence from design as a reason to think God
intervened in evolution will be thoroughly malign - Newman said it right
when he noted that oen believes in a purpose because one believes in
God, not vice versa.
John Wilkins
Walter Bushell
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
> interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
> expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
> henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
Agnosticism would be the logical position for a theist.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
> Given that the present official view is that biological evolution is
> true but that God created a soul in Adam (or some point in evolutionary
> history) which is beyond question or challenge, it seems to me one of
> two outcomes is likely: 1. that the notion of a "soul" will end up
> having little or no empirical content, rather like being told you have
> an invisible angel and demon on either shoulder,
...
Which is, in effect, what they have done with "substance" in order to
"save" transubstantiation. Nothing like making a central dogma (the
"real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist) into a silly game of
definitions, or an exercise in uncritical acceptance of the _ad hoc_
metaphysical jury-rigging used to "explain" the Trinity -- and hence
ever-after to be used, whether it makes sense or not. Sigh.
...
> or 2. that there will
> be some aspects of human behaviour and psychology that will be out of
> bounds to Catholics as research topics.
That might happen (it did, in reactionary eras like the mid-19th
century) -- if so, it will eventually get (quietly) swept under the
robe and ignored.
>
> A worst case scenario is that the Church will support ID as a scientific
> theory. Accepting evidence from design as a reason to think God
> intervened in evolution will be thoroughly malign - Newman said it right
> when he noted that oen believes in a purpose because one believes in
> God, not vice versa.
Newman was an Anglican disenchanted with the foundational claims of the
Anglican Church. :-) But as an "Anglo-Catholic" he never really put the
_via media_ completely aside. (And this, given 19th century Catholicism,
is a rather interesting point...)
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Googler <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
...
> > See Peter Shuster NCR interview here:
> >
> > http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuster.htm
>
> Schuster was a colleague of Eigen's, and is indeed a major research
> figure on these matters. With luck, he'll speak to Schönborn's silliness
> (and do so in German, allowing Benedict to follow the arguments).
Much as I loathe Ratzinger (our era's Grand Inquisitor, the official
"enforcer" of [heavily conservatively read] doctrine in the late 20th
century incarnation of the Holy Office), the man is intelligent and
well-educated. I am quite sure he is competent in a fairly wide range
of languages. It is his understanding of dogma, not of languages, which
concerns me.
wf3h
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> John Hooper in Rome
> Monday August 28, 2006
> The Guardian
>
> Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
> Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
> intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
> Vatican's view of evolution.
gee. don't let the true believers read this. i posted something from a
british paper earlier in the week and the defenders of B16 blew their
capillaries...
wf3h
amo...@cellsignal.com wrote:
> Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . the newspapers blow up anything that may
> smell sensational in even the faintest way (especially when the
> information behind it is half-baked).
>
> I repeat what I said before:
> Those who doubt Pope Benedict's position are kindly reminded that, in
> his former function, he supervised the 2004 document "Communion and
> Stewardship" which is decidedly pro-science (read paragraphs 62
> ff.):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c37p5
of course, he's the boss now...before he had to toe the party line.
wf3h
ErikW wrote:
>
> In my unqualified opinion he would throw out evolution in a blink if he
> could get away with it (which he probably can't). But I very much doubt
> that he would favour any form of design theory in its place. He is
> concerned with restoring faith in God and the bible and that is not
> achieved by going on a detour into pseudo-science.
>
the real problem facing B16 is that ID is a creation, so to speak, of
american fundamentalism. aint no way an american idea is gonna make
headway in the church worldwide.
wf3h
John Wilkins wrote:
>
> A worst case scenario is that the Church will support ID as a scientific
> theory. Accepting evidence from design as a reason to think God
> intervened in evolution will be thoroughly malign - Newman said it right
> when he noted that oen believes in a purpose because one believes in
> God, not vice versa.
> --
i think ID will make little headway for the same reason there will
never be an american pope. both would tie the church too closely to the
US.
Michael Siemon
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Ummm, I don't think you have a _clue_ about the intellectual history
of the current pope...
John Wilkins
That is actually possible, All someone has to do is mention the heresy
of "Americanism".
John Wilkins
Education does not correlate well with an understanding of science, nor
theological education with an understanding of philosophy (Frederick
Copleston notwithstanding).
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hktvnt.1pxgpi9c8eiohN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> > j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Googler <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > See Peter Shuster NCR interview here:
> > > >
> > > > http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuste
> > > > r.htm
> > >
> > > Schuster was a colleague of Eigen's, and is indeed a major research
> > > figure on these matters. With luck, he'll speak to Schönborn's silliness
> > > (and do so in German, allowing Benedict to follow the arguments).
> >
> > Much as I loathe Ratzinger (our era's Grand Inquisitor, the official
> > "enforcer" of [heavily conservatively read] doctrine in the late 20th
> > century incarnation of the Holy Office), the man is intelligent and
> > well-educated. I am quite sure he is competent in a fairly wide range
> > of languages. It is his understanding of dogma, not of languages, which
> > concerns me.
>
> Education does not correlate well with an understanding of science, nor
> theological education with an understanding of philosophy (Frederick
> Copleston notwithstanding).
Oh, yes; I was not attempting to credit Ratz/Benedict with understanding
of science -- just expecting competence in languages.
TomS
Bob Pease stated..."
[...snip...]
>Ratzinger has no choice but to support the idea that the God of the Nicene
>Creed was the Creator, and that ID is simply peripheral to that dogma.
But the concept of a "designer" is not merely peripheral to creation, it
is something else altogether. Perhaps even in competition with
creation.
After all, any concept of a design is that of shaping pre-existing
materials in a different way. Not creation from nothing, of things
which are good, but finding things not right, and changing them.
And to make the inference from the way things are, to something
about how they had to come to be that way, is to put the process
within the capacity of human understanding.
The design events only happened in the distant past. There is no
need for designer(s) after the last "irreducibly complex" structure
or last increase in "complex specified information".
And "intelligent design" is only about some abstractions, like
"kinds" or "organ types", not about all living things - and,
in particular, humans - being creatures of God.
TomS
<mlsiemon-E854BC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, Michael Siemon
stated..."
I remind you that Charles Berlitz, of "Bermuda Triangle" fame,
spoke 32 languages (according to Wikipedia).
Ron O
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> John Hooper in Rome
> Monday August 28, 2006
> The Guardian
>
> Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope
> Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for
> intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the
> Vatican's view of evolution.
>
> church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in
> some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of
> the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been
> designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for
> creationism.
>
> Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's
> Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take
> time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution
> is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what
> was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said
> Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1859614,00.html
>
Basically, the Pope would have the same problem that the Intelligent
Design creationist scam artists have. They have no scientific theory.
They have an assertion (things in nature look like they were designed
by an intelligent designer) that is currently equivalent to things like
voodoo and astrology. So if he comes out in support of ID he has to
admit that it is in the same group as the theory of astrology and
voodoo, and hasn't yet made it into the same category as a scientific
theory like biological evolution. When even the creationist scam
artists that perpetrated the ID scam here in the US are now admitting
that they do not have a scientific theory, what kind of theory is the
Pope going to advocate and if he does, will he be honest about it? It
is a tricky proposition. If you advocate something as baseless as the
notion of ID, you know what family of notions that it falls into, and
you are honest about it, what good does it do your beliefs? It only
demonstrates why they call it faith instead of science.
They should discuss how ID stacks up against equivalent notions like
astrology at this summer retreat. Astrology has the Mars effect, what
does ID have besides empty assertions? They can always claim that they
are proud to back number 2 among the pseudoscientific notions, and then
get back to the business of theology.
Ron Okimoto
Kleuskes & Moos
Michael Siemon schreef:
When benedict was elected into office, i happened to be in Pozzuoli,
near Naples having a beer in (of all things) an "irish" pub. The TV was
on when i walked in, showing the Vatican Square (which is round), so i
asked the barlady (my italian is virtually non-existent) "Habemus
Papam?" and she confirmed.
There were five or six people present, all (except yours truly) Italian
and spirits were high in expectation of the name of the new Pope. As
soon as it was announced, however, the mood turned abrubtly, from
joyous to chagrin and (being mistaken for a german) people started
asking me wether i liked the new pope.
Since I did not and neither (it seemed) did anyone else, someone bought
me a beer and the rest of the afternoon was spent in not liking the
Pope. Ratzinger, the general consensus was, had shown himself to be a
dogmatist and the last thing the RCC needs is a dogmatist. Instead it
needs a pope who'se able to inspire a quality Benedictus XVI lacks.
AC
>
> Since I did not and neither (it seemed) did anyone else, someone bought
> me a beer and the rest of the afternoon was spent in not liking the
> Pope. Ratzinger, the general consensus was, had shown himself to be a
> dogmatist and the last thing the RCC needs is a dogmatist. Instead it
> needs a pope who'se able to inspire a quality Benedictus XVI lacks.
He's a place holder, a nod to the ultra-conservatives in the Church. But
the day of reckoning is coming. Sooner or later the Church is going to
have to deal with Western liberalistic Catholicism.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> I think the Pope is seeking to re-emphasize that ...
> ... monogenism is still implicitly a fundamental doctrine of the Church
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogenism
the theory that the human race has descended from a single pair of
individuals or a single ancestral type.
Even I would agree that the human race has descended from a single
ancestral type: homo erectus, and before that LCA(h.e. + neandertal),
and before that LCA(chimp + human), and before that LCA(gorilla + human),
and before that ... LCA(primates) ... LCA(placental mammals) ... etc.
At no point were any of our ancestors a hybrid of two different types,
except way back at the endosymbiosis that formed the first eukaryotic
cell. (I'm ignoring horizontal gene flow via virus vector, whereby even
an individual human could suddenly become a hybrid of mostly human and
an itty bit a bird that had the flu before we got it.)
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Certainly they can simply plead ignorance on subtler points such as
> mechanistic details of speciation that even experts disagree on.
I agree. For example, they might state that they don't have the
expertise to judge questions of such details, for example neutral drift
vs. active selection, or inheritance of methylation of DNA bases.
> But if they just "look the other way" regarding the blatant
> misrepresentations of the anti-evolution activists, then they would
> be in essence saying that it's OK to bear false witness.
But they "looked the other way" for many years while priests were
molesting little boys. By your argument, that means the church was in
essence saying that it's OK for priests to molest little boys. Even now
they (IMO) aren't doing enough to put a stop to that practice. So even
now they're saying it's OK if you don't get caught.
I think the issue of molesting boys is far closer to the proper
business of the Church's stand on morals than the various details of
evolutionary theory. Accordingly, looking the other way regarding the
ID scam seems even more likely than looking the other way regarding
molestations. I don't expect them to denounce the ID scam until the
Sahara freezes over. But I'm not an expert on psychology or religion,
so don't take my expectation as expert opinion.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> See Peter Shuster NCR interview here:
> http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuster.htm
Thanks for the URL. I have some comments on that interview:
I was a Catholic, but I no longer consider myself one. I suppose I am
agnostic. Let's put it his way -- I have difficulties with the idea of
a personal God. I don't have trouble with God as creator of the world
as a whole.
That doesn't sound agnostic to me. Agnostic would be either undecided
whether there is any god at all, or decided it's impossible to know.
He's quite decided there is a god, one and only one god, hence he's a
monotheist, and the god created the world (does he mean Earth and its
biosphere was specially created, or merely that the Universe was
created and the Big Bang was then started as a process dominating the
Universe?), so he's a mono-creator-theist.
Schvnborn also agreed that "neo-Darwinism" [which he criticized in the
New York Times piece] is a view from the 1950s, and that biology has
developed much further, with new problems, since that time.
Hmmm, so if we can't call the current theory "neo-Darwinian" or
anything like that, what do we call it, to distinguish it from both the
original Darwinian theory and the 1950s theory?
The fact that mutations and uncorrelated with
selection does not manifest itself in the product.
Is he claiming that *every* possible mutation happens at each and every
"moment" (in geological time, lasting a hundred thousand to a million
years, during which the environment is approximately constant before it
changes again), so that selection has the full set of possibilities to
work with in adapting to the environement of each "moment"? Maybe point
mutations are so common that *every* possible point mutation would
actually occur each "moment", but other kinds of mutations
(duplications, deletions, rearrangements, chromosome breaks or joins)
can't possibly be fully represented, so there *must* be some chance
element as to which of those major mutations actually occur hence are
available for selection to act upon. That chance element of major
mutations would then be reflected in the product, in that *other* major
mutations never get a chance to be tested hence cannot occur in the
product.
Mutation is not throwing dice, but
it is simply uncorrelated with the selection process.
In the sense of chaos inherent in thermodynamic processes, including
the drift of free radicals and other mutation-producing molecules, I
claim mutation is indeed analagous to throwing dice with random
results. And even if the path of every cosmic ray or UV photon were
known a priori, in order to predict which DNA base it'll strike, and
exactly the point and angle where it'll strike, still whether such a
particle actually invokes a base change has an element of randomness
inherent in quantum mechanics.
Let's put it this way: One could have the intervention at every moment
of a designer, but as such that it does not interfere with the
mechanisms of evolutions. It would give exactly the same result. As
scientists, we have to apply the law of Ockham's Razor -- in choosing
among differing explanations for the same phenomena, we have to opt
for the simplest one.
Agreed, and that's nicely worded. But it begs the question whether
there might be active intervention which *does* change the result of
selection, such as killing off the very last of the non-avian dinosaurs
instead of letting just that one pregnant female survive to compete
with the mammals, or frightening away the only population of early
humans just before a local disaster, so they are scattered and don't go
extinct. There's really no way to know whether such interference in
selection happened or not. Or there could have been a really major
tinkering long ago, such as the eukaryote-creating endosymbiosis.
Even though we consider such to be a natural process, and even today we
see intermediate stages in endosymbiosis (that sometimes-together
sometimes-apart pair I posted about a few months ago), still that
particular event that made the eukaryotic cell might have been a very
difficult kind that got some help. I think we have to say that there's
no evidence whatsoever for intelligent intervention in evolution, but
if somebody wants to believe there was we have no objection.
Schvnborn said he had a discussion with the pope, and
that the pope wants a scientist who in no way can be suspected of
being a creationist.
Hmm, that seems to indicate that the pope is firmly on the side of
evolution and opposed to creationism, and doesn't want there to be any
doubt of that fact.
... One thing
I will stress is that referring to "neo-Darwinism" is not appropriate
in our time. We have different knowledge, and we know many more
details. ... ...
Again begging the question what to call our current theory.
Within the general Catholic public, however, I think there's a big
difference. Many were favorable to Schvnborn's statement on the basis
of a general hostility toward scientists. Some think these scientists
do terrible things -- they pollute the world, they created the atomic
bomb, and now they're destroying the dignity of human beings.
This mistaken attitude needs to be fixed! What chance is there that the
Church will take an active roll in combatting that attitude? Will the
Church take the attitude that it's none of their business if most
actual Catholics hate scientists and all the science they create
(except for practical applications, where they don't understand the
relation between the science and the application)?
CreateThis
Isn't "we have to opt for the simplest one" too strong? I thought the
simplest explanation is simply most likely.
I wonder why we don't hear antievloutionist complaints about the fact
that parsimony is supposed to apply to the mechanisms of evolution but
not to the results. Such a complaint seems bogus enough to qualify.
CT
Googler
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1156783907.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> > But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
> > interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
> > expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
> > henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
>
> Agnosticism would be the logical position for a theist.
>
Perhaps. It would certainly be a rational position, excluding other
knowledge.
But why does that have anything to do with what this thread is about?
Walter Bushell
AC <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or not, a schism is always possible.
Googler
> > From: "Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfa...@spamgourmet.com>
> > See Peter Shuster NCR interview here:
> > http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/intervieww-peterschuster.htm
>
> Thanks for the URL. I have some comments on that interview:
You're welcome. Glad you found it interesting.
>
> I was a Catholic, but I no longer consider myself one. I suppose I am
> agnostic. Let's put it his way -- I have difficulties with the idea of
> a personal God. I don't have trouble with God as creator of the world
> as a whole.
>
> That doesn't sound agnostic to me. Agnostic would be either undecided
> whether there is any god at all, or decided it's impossible to know.
I hate to put words into people's mouths. Why don't you send Schuster
an email and ask him if you really want to know what he meant? I'm
not being a wise-ass, that's a serious suggestion.
But if you are asking my opinion, I think he simply means that he is
agnostic about a personal God - because that is what he actually said.
<<snipped>>
>
> Schvnborn also agreed that "neo-Darwinism" [which he criticized in the
> New York Times piece] is a view from the 1950s, and that biology has
> developed much further, with new problems, since that time.
>
> Hmmm, so if we can't call the current theory "neo-Darwinian" or
> anything like that, what do we call it, to distinguish it from both the
> original Darwinian theory and the 1950s theory?
I think the generally accepted term to describe it is the "Modern
Evolutionary Synthesis". Most scientist would say that the current
theory extends to scientific discoveries and concepts unknown to
Darwin, so it would be innaccurate to simply call it neo-Darwinian.
Discoveries such as DNA, and concepts such as genetics that allow
rigorous and even mathematical analyses.
<<lots of stuff snipped>>
>
> ... One thing
> I will stress is that referring to "neo-Darwinism" is not appropriate
> in our time. We have different knowledge, and we know many more
> details. ... ...
>
> Again begging the question what to call our current theory.
See above, insofar as scientific theory is concerned.
We all have to be aware of the fact that the word "Darwinism" has been
applied in all sorts of contexts, often inappropriately. For example,
'Social Darwinism'.
>
> Within the general Catholic public, however, I think there's a big
> difference. Many were favorable to Schvnborn's statement on the basis
> of a general hostility toward scientists. Some think these scientists
> do terrible things -- they pollute the world, they created the atomic
> bomb, and now they're destroying the dignity of human beings.
>
> This mistaken attitude needs to be fixed! What chance is there that the
> Church will take an active roll in combatting that attitude?
I think the "general Catholic public" pretty much mirrors the 'general
public', insofar as attitudes toward science are concerned.
So I'm not sure that this is the role of the "Church" so much as it is
the role of individuals within the Church. And I would submit that it
is already happening to some extent.
On the other hand, I would submit that Shuster is being a little naive
about the facts of recent history.
> Will the
> Church take the attitude that it's none of their business if most
> actual Catholics hate scientists and all the science they create
> (except for practical applications, where they don't understand the
> relation between the science and the application)?
This is a pretty naive view as well. The idea that scientists bear no
responsibility for and are oblivious to the use of their discoveries
has been refuted by modern historical reality.
And, by the way, if you believe the polls, most people have a generally
positive view of technology, even if they don't understand it.
macaddicted
Actually it's not as simple as that. The Church means a first _pair_,
literally Adam & Eve. The basis for this is the implication of a first
pair in the definition of Original Sin at the Council of Trent.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Walter Bushell
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
Thread drift is an honored not to say hallowed tradition here, newbie.
Walter Bushell
rem...@Yahoo.Com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> This mistaken attitude needs to be fixed! What chance is there that the
> Church will take an active roll in combatting that attitude? Will the
> Church take the attitude that it's none of their business if most
> actual Catholics hate scientists and all the science they create
> (except for practical applications, where they don't understand the
> relation between the science and the application)?
The danger there is that you lose your educated flock and even those who
obtain education.
macaddicted
> In article <1156874999....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > In article <1156783907.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
> > > > interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
> > > > expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
> > > > henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
> > >
> > > Agnosticism would be the logical position for a theist.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps. It would certainly be a rational position, excluding other
> > knowledge.
> >
> > But why does that have anything to do with what this thread is about?
>
> Thread drift is an honored not to say hallowed tradition here, newbie.
Just wait. A pun thread should be devolving any time now.
VoiceOfReason
macaddicted wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1156874999....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > > In article <1156783907.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
> > > > > interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
> > > > > expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
> > > > > henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
> > > >
> > > > Agnosticism would be the logical position for a theist.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps. It would certainly be a rational position, excluding other
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > But why does that have anything to do with what this thread is about?
> >
> > Thread drift is an honored not to say hallowed tradition here, newbie.
>
> Just wait. A pun thread should be devolving any time now.
But that's only micropunning. Macropunning has never been observed.
John Wilkins
Why are you so unkind? I have created macropuns, out of nothing.
Windy
John Wilkins wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > macaddicted wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <1156874999....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > > > > Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1156783907.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > But Schuster is also a self-described agnostic, and was also
> > > > > > > interviewed by NCR. Therefore - using the Guardian's logic - we can
> > > > > > > expect that as a result of the meeting, the Pope will announce that
> > > > > > > henceforth the Catholic Church will embrace agnosticism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agnosticism would be the logical position for a theist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps. It would certainly be a rational position, excluding other
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > But why does that have anything to do with what this thread is about?
> > > >
> > > > Thread drift is an honored not to say hallowed tradition here, newbie.
> > >
> > > Just wait. A pun thread should be devolving any time now.
> >
> > But that's only micropunning. Macropunning has never been observed.
>
> Why are you so unkind? I have created macropuns, out of nothing.
Was intelligence involved?
-- w.
Dean Chesterman
Windy wrote:
A low kind of intelligence
Dean Chesterman
TomS
<44F591A2...@shaw.ca>, Dean Chesterman stated..."
Moo.
Walter Bushell
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote:
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t <rem...@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
>
> > > From: macaddic...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted)
> > > I think the Pope is seeking to re-emphasize that ...
> > > ... monogenism is still implicitly a fundamental doctrine of the Church
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogenism
> > the theory that the human race has descended from a single pair of
> > individuals or a single ancestral type.
> >
> > Even I would agree that the human race has descended from a single
> > ancestral type: homo erectus, and before that LCA(h.e. + neandertal),
> > and before that LCA(chimp + human), and before that LCA(gorilla + human),
> > and before that ... LCA(primates) ... LCA(placental mammals) ... etc.
> > At no point were any of our ancestors a hybrid of two different types,
> > except way back at the endosymbiosis that formed the first eukaryotic
> > cell. (I'm ignoring horizontal gene flow via virus vector, whereby even
> > an individual human could suddenly become a hybrid of mostly human and
> > an itty bit a bird that had the flu before we got it.)
>
> Actually it's not as simple as that. The Church means a first _pair_,
> literally Adam & Eve. The basis for this is the implication of a first
> pair in the definition of Original Sin at the Council of Trent.
Now that alone puts them in the class of fundamentalists.
Bob Pease
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:166945648.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
That's spelled
"Muu"
RJ P
Matt Silberstein
<pr...@panix.com> in <proto-AADFEB....@reader2.panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <1hkuhy2.1em3g7g10n8ifgN%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>,
> macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote:
>
>> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t <rem...@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
>>
>> > > From: macaddic...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted)
>> > > I think the Pope is seeking to re-emphasize that ...
>> > > ... monogenism is still implicitly a fundamental doctrine of the Church
>> >
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogenism
>> > the theory that the human race has descended from a single pair of
>> > individuals or a single ancestral type.
>> >
>> > Even I would agree that the human race has descended from a single
>> > ancestral type: homo erectus, and before that LCA(h.e. + neandertal),
>> > and before that LCA(chimp + human), and before that LCA(gorilla + human),
>> > and before that ... LCA(primates) ... LCA(placental mammals) ... etc.
>> > At no point were any of our ancestors a hybrid of two different types,
>> > except way back at the endosymbiosis that formed the first eukaryotic
>> > cell. (I'm ignoring horizontal gene flow via virus vector, whereby even
>> > an individual human could suddenly become a hybrid of mostly human and
>> > an itty bit a bird that had the flu before we got it.)
>>
>> Actually it's not as simple as that. The Church means a first _pair_,
>> literally Adam & Eve. The basis for this is the implication of a first
>> pair in the definition of Original Sin at the Council of Trent.
>
>Now that alone puts them in the class of fundamentalists.
No, it does not. Putting the vast majority of Christians into the
fundamentalist category makes it useless. At a minimum fundamentalism
requires literalism.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"