Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism

[The Big I]

I found this little article on the net this morning it's a good start: heres the link as I don't know how to make the boxy thingy for the full article

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... s-cre.html

Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism
Andy Coghlan

"What we mean by evolution is the world as created by God."

Did I say this? No. It was reportedly said on Tuesday by none other than Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture. In effect, the Roman Catholic Church, the dominant Christian faith, is saying that Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christian faith.

After all these years, even the Pope and his pals are on-message, Darwin-wise. At least the admission came a bit sooner than for poor old Galileo, but better late than never.

Furthermore, they're going to be discussing the relationship between evolution and faith next month in Rome at a special conference to mark the 150th Anniversary of Darwin's Origin of Species which, as we know, changed forever our views about how we came to be here on this little planet.
Organisers of the event, hosted by Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University on 3 to 7 March, said at a press conference last September to announce the event that supporters of creationism and its alter-ego, intelligent design (ID), would not be invited. Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc of the Gregorian University said at the time that arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level".

So creationists could be forgiven for beginning to feel marginalised even among their co-Christians. This coming weekend, 929 churches in 14 countries will be holding special services to celebrate the compatibility of Christianity and evolution at "Evolution Weekend" events launched in 2005 by an organisation called the Clergy Letter Project.

As a passing thought, Ravasi said that Darwin's theories had never formally been condemned by the Roman Catholic church. Pope Puis XII said in 1950 that evolution was a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. John Paul II said in 1996 that it was "more than a hypothesis".

So maybe it is time for creationists and supporters of ID to abandon their futile hunt for scientific evidence to support the literal account of creation in the Bible. That's what so many other Christians, including now the Catholics, have already done.

They've realised that being a good citizen, kind and considerate to other people, is far more important than trying to prove the Bible is literally correct. If there is a God, being good is sure to earn you far more brownie points than trying to prove every single word in the Bible is fact.

Now, what was that thing about treating your neighbour as yourself?

The "box thingy" is made with quote tags:

Code: Select all

[quote]Neat box thingy[/quote]

becomes

Neat box thingy

Added one for you. Next time, you are able to do it yourself, eh? ~S[/color][/b]

[Samuel]

This is old news- the Vatican has been okay with evolution since the last pope. They are good at the compartmentalising knowledge- they haven't really thought out what their position means. Remember the examples of really evil son of a bitches in evolution?

[The Big I]

Thanks for the help with the boxy thing But your right it is "old" news but this the first time they have officially said it it which is a very good thing

[General Zod]

"What we mean by evolution is the world as created by God."

They're not backing evolution. They're backing intelligent design.

[CarsonPalmer]

"What we mean by evolution is the world as created by God."

They're not backing evolution. They're backing intelligent design.

Theistic evolution would be a more accurate description.

[General Zod]

"What we mean by evolution is the world as created by God."

They're not backing evolution. They're backing intelligent design.

Theistic evolution would be a more accurate description.

"Bullshit" would be the most accurate description, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point.

[ray245]

Well, a more 'moderate' stand for them to adopt is saying god created the first living thing, and don't give a damn about what happens next to that living thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"Bullshit" would be the most accurate description, but I'm probably nitpicking at this point.

You are. Theistic Evolution is a strictly theological position that does not pretend to be anything but that. Intelligent Design has pretensions at actually being a science.

[Akkleptos]

Yes, it is old news. And, yes, it's sort of "Theistic Evolution". I remember having heard, somwhere, that there was, in fact, no contradiction between the teachings of the Bible and scientific findings backing evolution, since the Bible's account should be taken in a metaphorical sense. That would pretty much make the cut, in my book, only short of saying "Sorry, guy's, we've been kidding you this whole 2000 years!"

But John Paul II did say something interesting before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on October 22, 1996, on the matter of evolution:
Relevant excerpt:

Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than 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 favour of this theory.

(Emphasis mine)

The condition John Paul II talks about is:

If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Well, it's a beginning, right? This the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, after all.

It would have been cool if he had declared something like that ex cathedra, since that's when the principle of papal infalibility applies, as follows:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding.

That would mean you could tell any Catholic priest or nun to shut their pieholes when they argue with you about evolution... Sweeeeet.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, it is old news. And, yes, it's sort of "Theistic Evolution". I remember having heard, somwhere, that there was, in fact, no contradiction between the teachings of the Bible and scientific findings backing evolution, since the Bible's account should be taken in a metaphorical sense. That would pretty much make the cut, in my book, only short of saying "Sorry, guy's, we've been kidding you this whole 2000 years!"

That would mean you could tell any Catholic priest or nun to shut their pieholes when they argue with you about evolution... Sweeeeet.

It's unlikely that the Pope would ever say anything about evolution ex cathedra, since the whole question is not really that important theologically to warrant such attention. It's theologically really important only to literalist protestants, who combine the Protestant theological principle of sola scriptura to literal interpretation of the said scriptures.

[CaptJodan]

I've always wondered what kind of modifications or justifications would have to be reexamined and remade if a major religious power such as the Catholics or major protestants adopted evolution as a legitimate explanation for how humans came to be (along with all the others). Coming from an SDA background, I'm reasonably confident that some major revisions in how they approach it would have to be made.

I once asked a (non SDA, but still protestant) friend of mine who happens to believe evolution is on the up and up where original sin comes in if we accept evolution. Did the first Homo sapiens piss god off, and if so, why so much suffering and death PRIOR TO their arrival? Did it go back further, with the first hominids? Were the dinosaurs responsible? Did a single celled organism get it on with another single celled organism of the same sex, the proverbial forbidden fruit if you will, and as a result we're all punished for what is essentially the actions of something with no brain?

He admitted he couldn't answer, but that he'd probably be able to answer me in a year's time after he's been to church enough and studied the Bible enough, which of course is another way of saying "I need more indoctrination before I can answer you, because your questions scare me". But I can't help but wonder what justifications they'd come up with to deal with that, the flood, and a whole bunch of other nonsense that doesn't track with the theory.

[CarsonPalmer]

I've always wondered what kind of modifications or justifications would have to be reexamined and remade if a major religious power such as the Catholics or major protestants adopted evolution as a legitimate explanation for how humans came to be (along with all the others). Coming from an SDA background, I'm reasonably confident that some major revisions in how they approach it would have to be made.

I once asked a (non SDA, but still protestant) friend of mine who happens to believe evolution is on the up and up where original sin comes in if we accept evolution. Did the first Homo sapiens piss god off, and if so, why so much suffering and death PRIOR TO their arrival? Did it go back further, with the first hominids? Were the dinosaurs responsible? Did a single celled organism get it on with another single celled organism of the same sex, the proverbial forbidden fruit if you will, and as a result we're all punished for what is essentially the actions of something with no brain?

He admitted he couldn't answer, but that he'd probably be able to answer me in a year's time after he's been to church enough and studied the Bible enough, which of course is another way of saying "I need more indoctrination before I can answer you, because your questions scare me". But I can't help but wonder what justifications they'd come up with to deal with that, the flood, and a whole bunch of other nonsense that doesn't track with the theory.

I don't know how the Catholic Church phrases it exactly, but the way I was taught in Catholic high school is that Genesis is true (in the religious sense) whether it happened or not. The priest who taught me religion argued that it may have happened on a sort of soul-type plane. I know of a second priest in the school who argued that Adam's sin triggered the creation of the world as it is today. That particular interpretation has been Catholic for a long time, though; it goes back as far as Augustine, who said that Genesis is probably not literal. I don't know how much that helps, though...

[Kanastrous]

This 'dual truth' bullshit, when the two positions are mutually exclusive, is just maddening.

[EarthScorpion]

This 'dual truth' bullshit, when the two positions are mutually exclusive, is just maddening.

Or when they start claiming about how "Truth" and "Actually Happened" are not synonymous. Because, like, the story of a global flood that killed almost everything apart from a extremely packed boatload of animals with inadequate food stores may not have any evidence to support it, has a lot of evidence to oppose it being possible, and was just stolen from Babylonian mythology anyway may not have happened, but it's still True!

[CarsonPalmer]

This 'dual truth' bullshit, when the two positions are mutually exclusive, is just maddening.

Or when they start claiming about how "Truth" and "Actually Happened" are not synonymous. Because, like, the story of a global flood that killed almost everything apart from a extremely packed boatload of animals with inadequate food stores may not have any evidence to support it, has a lot of evidence to oppose it being possible, and was just stolen from Babylonian mythology anyway may not have happened, but it's still True!

Just to be fair to the Vatican, Genesis is a special case. Everything else (Noah, Job, Jonah) can be myth, as long as one regards it as a parable that expresses some moral lesson.

[Samuel]

This 'dual truth' bullshit, when the two positions are mutually exclusive, is just maddening.

Or when they start claiming about how "Truth" and "Actually Happened" are not synonymous. Because, like, the story of a global flood that killed almost everything apart from a extremely packed boatload of animals with inadequate food stores may not have any evidence to support it, has a lot of evidence to oppose it being possible, and was just stolen from Babylonian mythology anyway may not have happened, but it's still True!

Just to be fair to the Vatican, Genesis is a special case. Everything else (Noah, Job, Jonah) can be myth, as long as one regards it as a parable that expresses some moral lesson.

Respectively, God enjoys genocide so don't push him.
Gambling is good if you insure it is rigged.
Intimidation is good, but when it fails go with violence.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't know how the Catholic Church phrases it exactly, but the way I was taught in Catholic high school is that Genesis is true (in the religious sense) whether it happened or not. The priest who taught me religion argued that it may have happened on a sort of soul-type plane. I know of a second priest in the school who argued that Adam's sin triggered the creation of the world as it is today. That particular interpretation has been Catholic for a long time, though; it goes back as far as Augustine, who said that Genesis is probably not literal. I don't know how much that helps, though...

Exactly. In fact the idea that the whole bible including the Genesis is literally truth instead of allegory or parable is rather young and emerged in the 19th century as a religious counter-movement for modern geology and theory of evolution. This of course does not mean that the theory of evolution was easily accepted by the traditional churches. It obviously was not, but the main problem they had with it was that it basically said that Homo sapiens was just an intelligent primate and not a special case created to the image of God. In other words they were not so much against the idea that the Creation took millions of years and happened gradually in general.

Therefore, the Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox Church and liberal Protestant churches still maintain that the Man is a special case who in some stage of the evolution received his special nature from God and it was God's intention to make the Man that way from the beginning (i.e. theistic evolution). Usually they do not comment on when the Man became more than a animal and an "image of God", and say that it is theologically not very relevant to place that event on certain moment of the evolutionary history. Theistic evolution of course is not falsifiable or verifiable, so it is not a valid scientific theory, but it does not present the same kind of philosophical problems as Creationism, which requires people to ignore a huge array of factual evidence against it.

[Rye]

Exactly. In fact the idea that the whole bible including the Genesis is literally truth instead of allegory or parable is rather young and emerged in the 19th century as a religious counter-movement for modern geology and theory of evolution.

So why is it 5769 in the Hebrew calendar?

This of course does not mean that the theory of evolution was easily accepted by the traditional churches. It obviously was not, but the main problem they had with it was that it basically said that Homo sapiens was just an intelligent primate and not a special case created to the image of God. In other words they were not so much against the idea that the Creation took millions of years and happened gradually in general.

This is true. Geological principles were accepted by the time Darwin came out with his theory, and it's a lot easier to rationalise an old earth in comparison to the horror of humans not being special. Of course, it also raises issues with ideas like original sin and the parts where Jesus asks stupid questions like "Did not God create the world in 6 days?" to add authority to his statements.

Therefore, the Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox Church and liberal Protestant churches still maintain that the Man is a special case who in some stage of the evolution received his special nature from God and it was God's intention to make the Man that way from the beginning (i.e. theistic evolution). Usually they do not comment on when the Man became more than a animal and an "image of God", and say that it is theologically not very relevant to place that event on certain moment of the evolutionary history. Theistic evolution of course is not falsifiable or verifiable, so it is not a valid scientific theory, but it does not present the same kind of philosophical problems as Creationism, which requires people to ignore a huge array of factual evidence against it.

True enough, it just rejects parsimony for a "politically correct" compromise, rather than outright nuttiness. Darwin's thoughts are more than just an explanation of biodiversity, though. The principles of natural forces shaping natural objects into impressive formations is a solid foundation for a whole naturalistic way of looking at the world, and they absolutely hate this, as do other supernaturalists in general. They claim it's "reductionist" and associate it with social darwinism for good measure.

[Vultur]

This is old news- the Vatican has been okay with evolution since the last pope.

Actually, there was an official statement (an encyclical, I think?) that evolution wasn't incompatible with Catholic beliefs in the 1940s (I think 1944), because in the first few decades of the 20th century there was a lot of preaching against it (largely because of ideological issues involved with the Modernists.)

This is true. Geological principles were accepted by the time Darwin came out with his theory, and it's a lot easier to rationalise an old earth in comparison to the horror of humans not being special. Of course, it also raises issues with ideas like original sin and the parts where Jesus asks stupid questions like "Did not God create the world in 6 days?" to add authority to his statements.

Just to be nitpicky, Jesus never mentioned that, according to the Gospels; his only reference to the creation account is a mention of humanity being "created male and female" when he was talking about marriage.

[Vultur]

I once asked a (non SDA, but still protestant) friend of mine who happens to believe evolution is on the up and up where original sin comes in if we accept evolution. Did the first Homo sapiens piss god off, and if so, why so much suffering and death PRIOR TO their arrival? Did it go back further, with the first hominids?

That's only a problem if you accept that non-sapient creatures experience suffering in such a way that its existence constitutes a moral issue.

[Rye]

Just to be nitpicky, Jesus never mentioned that, according to the Gospels; his only reference to the creation account is a mention of humanity being "created male and female" when he was talking about marriage.

True enough, I was paraphrasing (well, mis-remembering) stuff like "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6) and "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:45-47) That sounds to me like he believed in the stock jewish cosmology. I don't see any reason for him to believe otherwise, frankly.

[Vultur]

That sounds to me like he believed in the stock jewish cosmology. I don't see any reason for him to believe otherwise, frankly.

Oh, yes -- I'm just pointing out that there's nothing Jesus said that requires a literal reading of Genesis.

(I'm both Catholic and studying biology, so this is something I have a personal interest in.)

[CaptJodan]

That's only a problem if you accept that non-sapient creatures experience suffering in such a way that its existence constitutes a moral issue.

Wanted to respond to this last night, but didn't get the chance.

It still causes a problem. Evolution, as I understand it, works on populations, not individuals. How do you/god determine what is sentient, and at what time was that established? Presumably, these newly sentient hominids (only 2 of them, if you take that literally) had a period of time where they were immortal and free of pain and suffering, but the differences between those two slightly different and "higher" evolved hominids are probably minute, meaning the slightly dumber, but probably still aware (let's say) neanderthal is still sitting there suffering and dying.

Morality is at the core of the argument, really. What kind of God creates beings of any flavor to suffer needlessly? My dog isn't sentient by, I assume, your definition. According to myth, her kind didn't do anything to piss god off directly, and as a servant of man, she does her job well. Why is a creature that caused no harm to god, that only acts in the way he "created" (or allowed to evolve) it, subject to the same rules as humans for crimes it didn't commit? Why allow animals to suffer in the same way we do prior to our arrival and "sin"?

From a supposedly omnipotent god, I would actually expect things to go somewhat as they go in genesis, where humanity is created first, because that's the new toy god wants the most, then the animals come after to satisfy the humans' poor loneliness. The convoluted path that evolution takes to reach man makes no sense from a god wanting only humans to be special, and all other creatures to be given automatic sin points from the moment of their creation.

[General Zod]

Morality is at the core of the argument, really. What kind of God creates beings of any flavor to suffer needlessly? My dog isn't sentient by, I assume, your definition. According to myth, her kind didn't do anything to piss god off directly, and as a servant of man, she does her job well. Why is a creature that caused no harm to god, that only acts in the way he "created" (or allowed to evolve) it, subject to the same rules as humans for crimes it didn't commit? Why allow animals to suffer in the same way we do prior to our arrival and "sin"?

There's an example I like to use for this kind of argument that really sums up the whole debacle neatly, I think. What kind of "loving" deity creates fish that can drown?

[kinnison]

The doctrine of original sin, and the problem of evil, and the apparent immortality of Adam and Eve, can all be wrapped up in one solution. The Tree was the Tree of Knowledge. So if Adam and Eve (and there have to be a limited number of first humans) were the first to realise that certain things were wrong, and that they were going to die, then nothing in the Bible on this subject contradicts the scientific truth.

To put it another way; let's say that there was a population of pre-humans, and that whatever they did could not be a sin because they were incapable of moral distinction. (For another example, most philosophers would say that when a lion kills another lion's offspring - which male lions often do - which if a human did it would be called murder, then the lion has not committed a sin because it is incapable of moral distinctions and is simply being a lion.) Similarly, they did not know death - which IIRC is the actual wording of the Bible. This does not mean that they didn't die; it simply means that they didn't know in advance that they were going to. Adam and Eve were simply the first of those protohumans to cross the dividing line.

Incidentally, this also neatly disposes of the problem of where Cain's wife came from. She was a not-quite-human. One might also say that the start of humans having souls coincides exactly with their knowledge of good and evil and of death - which in fact is the precondition of having a soul in the fist place.

There is, however, a problem with this approach. And the problem is - humans who can't distinguish between good and evil or know they are going to die are thereby defined as soulless. This includes foetuses, babies and young children. Does a 3-year-old know he is going to die someday? I doubt it. Solution; change the definition of "human" to "some living thing, born of a human or growing inside one, that either can or is someday going to be able to make those distinctions".

Of course, one could really cause trouble by missing out part of that definition - the "born of a human or growing inside one" part. The Catholic Church has no opinion, yet, on whether non-human sapients have souls or can receive salvation - at least AFAIK. Does a self-aware computer have the rights and responsibilities (or similar ones) of a human, or not? Give it maybe 30 years, and that choice is going to have to be made.