Cardinal backs evolution and "intelligent design"

Where I come from, half the Catholics think their church is "against evolution." The Pope's statement a few years ago was marvelous, but somehow the word never quite filters down to the grassroots. Why can't the Church publish a statement for the laiety in clear and simple language? Maybe something like "The Catholic Position on Evolution, Physics, Astronomy and Other Modern Sciences." Ooh! Ooh! How about one of those Jack Chick-type tiny comic books?

The waters were further stirred by a July 9th news article on the Times' front page, whose authors report that in a telephone conversation the cardinal "said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories" ("Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution"). The article also connects the cardinal's essay with the personnel and general mission of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA, whose Web site states that it advocates teaching "scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory, not alternatives to it." According to the Times article, Cardinal Schoenborn was in contact with the Institute prior to writing his essay, and the essay was submitted to the Times by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm whose clients include the Institute.

Just as it didn't matter, scientifically speaking, what the cardinal thought about evolution last July, it still doesn't matter today.

Since he always only expressed a personal opinion, and not Church policy, this is really completely inconsequential. At most, I could say I am glad for him personally that he took the time to think it over and come to grips with evolutionary science, but that's pretty much it.

Andrea, I agree with you scientifically speaking but the ID/DI people had gotten quite some mileage from Schoenborn's comments.
Additionally, while scientifically speaking Schoenborn's comments may be irrelevant, his comments could have caused much damage in the socio-political game of ID.

Why can't the Church publish a statement for the laiety in clear and simple language?

"the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." (from the General Audiences of January 24 April 16, 1986 emphasis added)

Pius XII "already stated [in Humani Generis] that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one [does] not lose sight of several indisputable points."

theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

No, David, they're not. As several different posts in the past few months have adequately demonstrated. If you REALLY think different, let's see the links to the threads that you claim did all this omitting.

And, even if "PT" (who exactly is that, David?) did omit these details--which doesn't really happen, so you're not REALLY being honest here, are ya?--under PT's post'n'comment policy, you and others would quickly set the record straight, right?

Like you just did (or so you seem to think). So how could such an omission really stand?

As you well know, that kind of open door transparency doesn't apply across the board of blogdom, does it, David?

*sigh*

Mr. Heddle, once again you demonstrate a staggering inability to read English, even when you quote it directly. No genuinely scientific theory of evolution has anything to say about the emergence, nature or existence of "spirit" - whatever the heck that's supposed to be. So the quotation about "theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man" ipso facto cannot refer to SCIENTIFIC theories of evolution.

Evolution as a scientific theory also does not in any way affirm or deny "divine providence any truly causal role" in anything - because evolution is not a theory about God in any way. As a theory about organisms, evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of organisms as a class and the structure of particular organisms, but does not address anything so vague and ethereal as "the development of life in the universe."

Looking ahead: When a fully developed theory of abiogenesis (a theory of the origin of life from non-living matter, which is not the same as evolutionary theory as such) is articulated and supported with ample evidence - and like it or not, it's only a matter of time - that STILL won't matter one whit with respect to the Pope's fencing off of theological/metaphysical claims from science. One might still believe that God made the universe in such a way that abiogenesis was possible, or even necessary, or one might believe that there is no God, and it wouldn't effect that SCIENTIFIC theory one jot or tittle.

Pope John Paul II understood the difference between science and theology. I don't hold out much hope that you'll ever understand the difference, Mr. Heddle, but hopefully some less pig-headed reader won't be confused by your obfuscations.

Well, one would hardly expect a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church to allow for non-theistic anything, but it would be at least as likely as for the DI to tell the truth about science.

David, you now seem to be firmly in the Ken Miller camp. Welcome. Science is truly a catholic enterprise (small c, obviously).

"the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." (from the General Audiences of January 24 April 16, 1986 emphasis added)

Cardinal Schoenborn is now stating that his original NYT article was misunderstood.

I'll take him at his word. In fact, I took that tack when the article first appeared, explaining with some difficulty what I *thought* the article meant.

But that still begs the following questions.

(1)I don't think there is any denying that the language used in Schoenborn's NYT article was at least problematic, if not downright careless, coming as it did from such a highly placed person. Who was responsible for that 'loaded' language? Could the wording have been suggested by Mark Ryland, the VP of the Discovery Institute, who played some behind-the-scenes role in producing the article?

(2) Schoenborn could have avoided any "misunderstandings" by having the original article vetted by *responsible scientists*, rather than bowing to the 'urgings' of someone affiliated with the Discovery Institute. There are plenty of scientists around, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who would have gladly reviewed his article if given the opportunity. In fact, the Vatican maintains The Pontifical Academy at least in part so that clerics with little scientific background do not get into hot water when commenting on scientific matters. Why was this careful review not done?

(3) Why was the article submitted to the NYT through a PR company affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a very strange route indeed for even a Catholic bishop, much less a Cardinal?

Schoenborn said: ''Such misunderstandings can be cleared up.''

In fact, JP II is not ok with the purely naturalistic form of evolution we find here.

The Cardinal Schoenborn story is clear.

He thought he could score some points with somebody by endorsing, albeit in a rather weasel-worded way, the talking points of the DI.

It's possible he was tricked, and perceived the DI as a benign institution preaching the idea that science and religion don't need to be in conflict. They're good at tricking people. Many casual observers initially assume that a belief in "intelligent design" is the same thing as simultaneous acceptance of a religion and of scientific reality (which is the actual position of the Vatican, however one may disagree with them on other issues).

It's also possible he saw exactly what was going on, but thought that, with a new "conservative" pope, he could advance himself by kissing up to the American right wing. However, he says he was misunderstood, which favors the former hypothesis.

At any rate, science supporters in the Vatican saw EXACTLY what was going on, and Schoeborn has had to "clarify" his remarks.

David Heddle - don't respond to this post - you've got some questions to answer.

Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) on creation and evolution:

"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities."

Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) on "intelligent design":

"Now let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. They are constantly penetrating deeper into the inmost mysteries of life, attempting to decode its secret language and to understand what life really is. In so doing they brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common. For both of them realize a project, a thought-out and considered plan, which is itself coherent and logical. Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design....It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love."

From Ratzinger's commentary on Genesis 1-3 titled In the Beginning.... (originally published 1986)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

And of course the Catechism on science and faith:

159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." [citing Vatican II GS 36:1]

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

Summary: science is wonderful and tells us when and how we got here, faith tells us why we are here (which goes beyond the domain of the natural sciences).

Cardinal Schonborn was the general editor of this text, back in 1992 (in French, 1994 in English translation). No, he hasn't changed his mind.

Phil P

Lenny should understand that it is for people such as David Heddle that Kevin Trudeau exists in order to cure his diseases with faith based practice.

Of course, given that whole "Galileo" thingie, I'm not sure why any sane person would *care* what the Pope says about . . . well . . . anything scientific. (shrug)

While the pope may not be a scientific authority, his opinions still carries a lot of weight. I think Ratzinger's and Schonborn's statements are quite eloquent and insightful. They were attempting to reconcile their faiths and scientific reason, without destroying scientific reason in the process. I think the IDers mostly exist because they are not able to make the reconciliation. Schonborn's NYT op-ed was a DI talking points memo, but I'm willing to believe that he was reacting to what he perceived as hostility toward religion from science rather than informed support for ID, which he seems to be retracting unequivically. Part of the DI's strategy, and that of all creationist's, is to label science as "materialist" and thus atheist and a refutation of God. In these charged political times a lot of Christians feel, however unjustified it seems to us, that they are under attack. It is important that they know science would more accurately be called "agnostic" than "atheist," and we aren't claiming to answer those questions. If people want to believe in ID that's great, as long as they don't call it science.

Science teaches how the heavens go. Religion teaches how to go to heaven.

the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality

Lenny

To give the Catholic Church its due, it seems to have learned from Galileo (eventually). The current and previous pope have made it very clear to any sane person, that the the pope does not pontificate on science.

Who cares? I expect you can understand why RC's might feel the need to respond when a pope, cardinal etc is quote mined to support fundy creationism.

The the theory of evolution advocated here does not support divine causality. Where does your TOE permit God to intervene in the process? Tell me where an explanation "God did it" is fine with you and I'll isolate that step and call it--guess what--Intelligent Design.

The theory of evolution advocated here cannot say any intelligent species on earth was a certainty. The RCC probably (one can infer from her statements) demands that any TOE must include the idea that, at a minimum, God intervened to ensure that our species came about. Even if you say the Catholic Church is fine with the idea that God would have imbued whatever species (e.g. whales) that first reached a threshold of intelligence with a soul (I doubt this idea has RCC approval, but I cannot say I have ever seen an ex Cathedra statement on the matter) the TOE cannot say that any such species was predestined, for pure naturalism cannot deny the possibility that something might have happened to wipe out all life on the planet.

In short, does Rome, which affirms a sovereign God whose plans cannot be thwarted, allow for the possibility that no species such as man (or its equivalent) was a certainty, a species for God to carry out his plan of redemption? Of this I am certain: it does not.

It is here on PT, and even on Miller's letter to the Pope on his website, where the pope is quote mined. Where his affirmation that evolution may indeed be God's secondary means is morphed into a blanket endorsement by leaving out the caveats that JP II included.

The the theory of evolution advocated here does not support divine causality. Where does your TOE permit God to intervene in the process?

— David Heddle

While the pope may not be a scientific authority, his opinions still carries a lot of weight.

The the theory of evolution advocated here does not support divine causality. Where does your TOE permit God to intervene in the process? Tell me where an explanation "God did it" is fine with you and I'll isolate that step and call it---guess what---Intelligent Design.

Comment #50988 Posted by David Heddle on October 5, 2005 05:00 AM (e) (s) ... Tell me where an explanation "God did it" is fine with you and I'll isolate that step and call it---guess what---Intelligent Design. ...

— David Heddle

No, the Catholic Church, as I understand her writings, will not fall for this ruse: We don't rule God out, but we don't need him. (My view of God or ID is not relevant here, what we are talking about is whether Rome is fine with evolution as advocated on PT.)

Once again, the acid test is the inevitability of man (or some man-like species) with which God could work out his plan of redemption upon. Any ToE that says "no guarantees about that, maybe God will be waiting in vain" will, in my opinion based on JP II's writings, be unacceptable.

No, the Catholic Church, as I understand her writings, will not fall for this ruse: We don't rule God out, but we don't need him. (My view of God or ID is not relevant here, what we are talking about is whether Rome is fine with evolution as advocated on PT.) Once again, the acid test is the inevitability of man (or some man-like species) with which God could work out his plan of redemption upon. Any ToE that says "no guarantees about that, maybe God will be waiting in vain" will, in my opinion based on JP II's writings, be unacceptable.

— Heddle

Well, the Cardinal's NYT article, being encouraged by a DI member and submitted via the DI's PR company, almost certainly meant what it said. It wasn't misunderstood at all. If it had been in support of theistic evolution, the DI people wouldn't have been so fast to help get it published, given how much the ID lot seem to despise theistic evolutionists. It would appear that the Cardinal has been given a reality check by someone inside the Vatican and is rewriting history a bit.

Heddle, you at first claimed that PT (in some collective sense) deliberately omitted the full "richness" of the Vatican's view every time "it" (us? the collective "PT"? try selling that to any of our feisty advocates, who disagree with each other on many points as or more lustily than they unite in defiance of ID/creationism/YECism/evil anti-science) had occasion to reference the RC's "official" view. That, of course, was either a lie or the lazy, dishonest, unresearched and unsupported equivalent.

Now you've backed down to the claim that the official Vatican view is different from "evolution as advocated on PT."

Dang, dude, why aren't you ever honest?

Or at least consistently dishonest?

Once again, the acid test is the inevitability of man (or some man-like species) with which God could work out his plan of redemption upon. Any ToE that says "no guarantees about that, maybe God will be waiting in vain" will, in my opinion based on JP II's writings, be unacceptable.

Posted by Wayne E Francis on October 5, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s) How small is your view of your "God" anyway?

"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said. Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict. "It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.

Now you've backed down to the claim that the official Vatican view is different from "evolution as advocated on PT."

..except that science has exactly zero to say about "divine causality", as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has perfectly understood while our current troll-in-residence, "my-legs-are-exactly-long-enough-to-reach-the-ground-oh-what-a-miracle" David Heddle has so far failed to appreciate.

Oh well, reading one of your reversals of reality is always good for a smile, Mr. Heddle.

..except that science has exactly zero to say about "divine causality",

If it doesn't exclude it, show where it permits it and I'll show you an ID theory.

Mr. Heddle,

"reversal" refers to your well-established propensity to take a situation and claim that the opposite is true, e.g. your calling everybody else "troll", when your MO is typical of a troll; your accusing people of "quote mining", when you yourself are consistently guilty of that; and so on and so forth. In other words, if David Heddle says something is black, there is at least a very good chance that something is snow-white.

Science neither excludes "divine causality" nor includes it; "divine causality" is only meaningful outside of science, if at all.

Quod erat demonstrandum... et demonstratum ad nauseam.

Hey, that's Stevie-little "p"-pinhead to you, Muddle-head.

And now--once again, Muddle-mouth!--it's your allegation, so it's your burden to show me where you ever *proved* that the PT'ers have a track record of not correctly quoting the pope.

There've been some pretty prominent discussions of this whole issue, with whole threads devoted to it, so if you're right, it shouldn't take you that long.

But while the proof is pending, I'll just go with my default assumption where you're concerned: you've got one very warm pair of pants.

Steviepinhead,

Not until you ask me politely, without insults, like a gentleman.

Aureola,

So is JP II's statement meaningless?

Gosh, Dave, your powerpacked *proof* of PT's popely perfidy fails to even whelm me, much less overwhelm. But maybe it's just me (and aureola, and Lenny, and steve and ...).

I'll go aureola one better. For those who do not yet know our very own curmudgeon, not only is Dave likely to call black white, but he's then likely to reverse himself, and call white black, sometimes repeatedly, and often all in the same thread...

Not until you ask me politely, without insults, like a gentleman.

Mr. Heddle,

it depends. As a statement of faith, it is evidently meaningful for the late Pope and a billion or so Catholics (and some more millions of non-Catholic Christians). As a scientific statement, it is clearly meaningless. We've jumped through this hoop so many times already that your trick has grown very boring by now.

Lenny,

For you anything. Just do the appropriate google search on the PT front page. You'll find many cases where the claim is made that JP II or the Catholic church supports evolution--without bothering to add JP II's condititions.

Here is a typical example

Here is a another, which claims "Some time ago, Pope John Paul II visited with biologists to discuss evolution and then ended official Catholic Church opposition to evolutionary theory. "

Many more are easy to come by, in fact I saw some, Lenny, that referred to you!

buddha: "So, now, the Catholics have some questions to answer."

OK, I'll give it a shot. Really take this to the Catholic Answers boards for more complete answers from many knowledgeable folks.

http://forums.catholic.com

buddha: "How do you reconcile the "irreformable" teaching of Pius IX, the IDiotic pope, with the teaching on evolution of John Paul II, the backtracker? Was John Paul II a heretic?"

I reconcile by suggesting you don't understand what Pius IX means. I don't see Pius IX and John Paul II disagreeing in any of those statements you quoted.

You might want to read the article in the online Catholic Encyclopedia on Pius IX and his "Syllabus of Errors"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

Each of the "errors" condemned have to do with several groups of erroneous teachings (according to Catholicism): Pantheism, Naturalism, Absolute Rationalism (1-7); Moderate Rationalism (8-14); Indifferentism and false Tolerance in Religious matters (15-18); Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Bible Societies, Liberal Clerical Associations, Errors regarding the Church and its rights (19-38); Errors on the State and its Relation to the Church (39-55); Errors on Natural and Christian Ethics (56-64); Errors on Christian Marriage (65-74); Errors on the Temporal Power of the Pope (75-76); Errors in Connection with Modern Liberalism (77-80).

The content of any one thesis of the Syllabus is to be determined according to the laws of scientific interpretation (e.g. finding the papal document connected with each condemned thesis, and reading it in context). I'm afraid you haven't done that. But looking forward to it on the Catholic Answers boards.

buddha: "Do you believe the heresy that the public education system should be free from religious interference by the popes? Do you believe the "insanity" that freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be protected?"

Um, can I suggest that "indifferentism" is not freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Indifferentism (condemned by Pius IX, John Paul II, all the popes, Church Fathers, or Church Doctors you can mame) means basically "one religion is as good as another." That's always been an error according to Catholic teaching. There is one true religion according to Catholicism, and we Catholics are it. See also the article defining the various forms of "religious indifferentism" in the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

Phil P

David: "many cases where the claim is made that JP II or the Catholic church supports evolution -- without bothering to add JP II's conditions."

We know his conditions. He is a theist who believed in a personal, transcendent, Creator God. Obviously he doesn't accept the idea that God had nothing to do with the creation. I'm the Catholic apologist here with a very large Catholic apologetics site, so please don't say I quote mine the pope. I've already quoted Benedict XVI and the Catechism. You've probably seen John Paul II's 1996 evolution statement, but maybe you haven't seen this earlier statement, also written to the Pontifical Academy of Science:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

That has "theistic evolutionist" or (if you prefer) evolutionary creationism written all over it. Furthermore:

"....Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God's action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation....In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life....But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." (Cardinal Ratzinger's International Theological Commission, document July 2004 Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, paragraphs 68, 69)

Again, theistic evolution, with the emphasis on evolution. :-)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Phil P

Wow, Dave, this is it? This is you great *proof*? Sheesh, now I'm distinctly underwhelmed: two isolated comments on two threads, neither of which had anything to do with the RC's posture regarding evolution in the first place. And neither of which says anything that could remotely be called "quote-mining" (neither comment even purports to quote the pope directly and certainly neither does so in such a way as to intentionally represent the pope's position).

Dave, as you well know, there have been several recent threads which analyzed the RC's position in great detail. And which directly tackled the religion-evolution "debate." Go look at or cite to one of them, why don't you.

(Time passes in Dave's just-right world.)

OK, your reading assignment's done, and you're back again. (Sigh.) Now, do you continue to seriously claim that there is some sort of "official" ongoing PT attempt to distort the Pope's position, much less to consistently and intentionally "omit" the part of his statement that talks about God's purpose for His creation?

I mean, kid "us" all you want, Dave, "we" do kind of enjoy it in a way, given "our" rather warped sense of humor, but it's honestly not good for you to kid yourself...

For you anything. Just do the appropriate google search on the PT front page. You'll find many cases where the claim is made that JP II or the Catholic church supports evolution---without bothering to add JP II's condititions.

— Heddle

Once again, the acid test is the inevitability of man (or some man-like species) with which God could work out his plan of redemption upon. Any ToE that says "no guarantees about that, maybe God will be waiting in vain" will, in my opinion based on JP II's writings, be unacceptable.

— David Heddle

If it doesn't exclude it, show where it permits it and I'll show you an ID theory.

— David Heddle

The content of any one thesis of the Syllabus is to be determined according to the laws of scientific interpretation (e.g. finding the papal document connected with each condemned thesis, and reading it in context). I'm afraid you haven't done that.

* The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. * If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Um, can I suggest that "indifferentism" is not freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

* For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

Where does the theory of special relativity permit divine causality?

JP II's statement shows that catholic faith has no problems with the theory of evolution.

Leaving out JP II's conditions---which amount to an acceptance of theistic evolution and a certainty that man would arrive on the scene.

— David Heddle

Mr. Heddle,

I wonder. You've been told - repeatedly - by several contributors to Panda's Thumb and by many visitors to this site, that no scientific theory rules out divine causality and no scientific theory, contra your opinion and William Dembski's, rules it in.

Why are you still here arguing that this "divine causality" of yours, towards which all of science - and not merely biology or cosmology, nor certainly not the ToE alone - is justly indifferent, makes any difference to what a sceintific theory says or doesn't say?

You love to claim that you can admit mistakes; but this enormous mistake still stands uncorrected.

Aureola (and NDT),

How difficult is this? It is not "my" insistence on divine causality we are talking about, but JP II's. Do you think him an idiot? Do you think when he stated as long as it does not exclude divine causality that, if you were standing next to him and leaned over and whispered, "your Holiness, no theory excludes divine causality," he would have smiled, blushed, and said "Oh--is that so?--well then, what I am saying here is much ado about nothing! So sorry to take up your time, now just, well, just go for it!"

Of course not. He meant the theory had to have a real place for divine causality. That God had the power be involved to ensure than his sovereign plan was not thwarted. The God didn't just watch but nurtured and controlled his creation. That "oops, didn't reckon on that mutation. I guess there will never be a species worthy of a soul. Bummer." would never be something God would have to say. He meant theistic evolution.

Mr. Heddle,

you are reading whatever you want in JP II's words. Well, I've got news for you: three people - one who says "the Theory of Evolution is fine, provided it does not exclude divine causality"; one who says "the Theory of evolution is fine, provided it does not include divine causality"; and one who says "the Thoery of Evolution is fine" - are saying one and the same thing, from a scientific point of view.

They are clearly not saying the same thing from a religious point of view; but that is no concern to scientists qua scientists.

So, from a religious point of view, the late Pope's words are very important (duh!); from a scientific point of view, they are nice to hear (because they show that the Pope has no beef with the ToE - the real ToE, not David Heddle's strawman depiction of it) but entirely immaterial, as "divine causality" is not a scientific concern.

Your unsupported claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Aureola,

You avoided my question. Do you think the pope, perhaps unaware, said something utterly meaningless when he added his caveat? That is was no more substantive that saying "evolution is fine, as long as it doesn't exclude mauve from becoming the new pink?"

No, I think you know quite well that the pope meant it as a restriction on the ToE, if it is to enjoy Rome's endorsment. And that he meant a restriction that could not be dismissed by a wave of the hand a la "no theory excludes divive causality, so no worries JP."

No, Heddle, the Church doesn't mean that there has to be a "real place" for divine causality in evolution, any more than in any other scientific theory (and no theory does). In fact, as one of the quotes above, from Ratzinger himself, makes explicitly clear, the Church states that even a "truly contingent natural process" (i.e., the one postulated by evolutionary theory), is compatible with "God's providential plan for creation". There is really nothing to add to that. ID, in any shape or form, does not postulate contingency, indeed it claims to identify the opposite. Case closed.

Unlike ID supporters and Creationists in general, who like you insist that every theory has to have a "real place" for God, an expressed reference to the possibility (or the certainty) of physical, direct Divine causation, the Church is not concerned with the content of scientific theories (the got burned a few times trying to do that), but with their metaphysical interpretation. A perfectly mechanistic theory, even one based on true contingency like the theory of evolution, is compatible with Church doctrine as long as it is not interpreted ("understood") to deny metaphysical divine causation. That's what the Pope meant in that sentence. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, does not do that, although of course some of the people who support it attach to it their own metaphysical interpretation, from atheism to theistic evolutionism.

Thanks Andrea. If only Heddle realized how silly his wordplays appear...

By the way, Mr. Heddle, I did not avoid any question.

"Utterly meaningless" would mean,I understand, devoid of meaning in any context. The late Pope's words, on the contrary, have a clear religious meaning, so they aren't "utterly meaningless".

You, on the other hand, want them to have an actual scientific meaning; which they haven't. I had already told you this, so your claim that I somehow "avoided" your loaded question is baseless, like most of what you write about the ToE.

For you anything.

The only reason the pope felt the need to add "as long as it does not exclude divine causality" is because for 150 years certain hard-core Christians have been spreading the lie that the scientifically accepted theory of evolution does exclude it. They, as we all know, were and are mistaken, but they have still managed to get that idea out there.

You seem to think that "does not exclude" is synonymous with "include". It is not. If ANY scientific theory included or excluded divine causality it would radically redefine what "science" has meant for 2500 years.

Can you show us an example of any scientific paper that excludes, or even addresses "divine causality"?

buddha: "This clearly is de fide, and it is my opinion that this teaches intelligent design. If this does not teach intelligent design, could you please tell me what it does teach?"

I agree Vatican Council I is De Fide (i.e. infallible), but I'm not sure what you've quoted is equivalent to modern "Intelligent Design." All these statements are saying is that God can be "known with certainty" from his creation (a reference to Romans 1:19-20 is made), and that God can be "known with certainty" from reason. Something that St. Thomas Aquinas believed as well. The claims of the modern Intelligent Design movement go much farther than this it seems to me. Catholics obviously believe in an intelligent designer, no doubt about that, but how that intelligent designer "designs" we leave mainly to science (see e.g. Catechism 159, 283-284, and Ratzinger's statements I've quoted).

buddha: "I am posting this at PT because it has been claimed here that the Catholic Church does not teach intelligent design - but obviously it does, and as infallible dogma, no less!"

I'll admit I would have to look more deeply into Pius IX's 19th century teachings (e.g. the Syllabus of Errors, etc), but the modern Church does not teach modern "Intelligent Design" is clear from the statements I've quoted. What is infallible Catholic dogma (De Fide) I've cited here before:

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

However, none of these are scientific statements and the Church doesn't claim they are. They are statements of faith and revelation, not science. I am with the Catechism, Benedict/Ratzinger, John Paul II, and Ken Miller on this.

Phil P

Catholics obviously believe in an intelligent designer, no doubt about that, but how that intelligent designer "designs" we leave mainly to science (see e.g. Catechism 159, 283-284, and Ratzinger's statements I've quoted).

Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, [Cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § I: DS 3026] even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear." [Heb 11:3] [32, 37]

What is infallible Catholic dogma (De Fide) I've cited here before: [...]

buddha: You'll need to add this one, "God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason." (De Fide)

OK, I'll add it. Most of these De Fide statements are found in the source Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, the Jesuit theologian, and he says the following on evolution:

"The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.....The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 93-94, 95)

He originally wrote this in the 1950s. It is a standard orthodox theological source. The version I am using is by Tan Books, 1974.

Phil P

Is the TOE compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church? The Church says that it is when properly considered. We need to consider what "proper consideration" involves.

The TOE, qua scientific theory, is incompatible with the CC. As a demonstration and explanation of how all living species evolved by entirely natural processes from an original elementary form of life it omits any mention of what is most necessary for the CC - God, of course. The CC has to consider what the bible says on these matters whereas science does not. It necessarily must omit any mention of God; it must exclude God as being any part of the explanation - as a matter of method.

Science is methodologically naturalistic: it can never assume or infer the existence of a creator God; nor can it infer the occasional or continuously acting intervention or guidance of God. God is not a scientific explanation.

Science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena. Theistic evolution is a scientific oxymoron. The scientific TOE demonstrates that the assumption of an intervening or guiding God is superfluous for an understanding of the evidence of natural history; and also, that the inference of God's existence from any natural fact is unwarranted. To do otherwise is not to do natural history, it is to do natural theology.

That said, there is nothing to stop anyone from believing that evolution is the method which God has used to create life. After all, if evolution is true, and a creator God exists, then either God has occasionally acted - poof! - poof! - poof! - at different times and places, or He/She has been guiding the process continuously throughout. All of which has precisely nothing to do with science. Science can no more demonstrate or refute the one form of creation than the other.

Those who believe in God must necessarily produce some form of evolution which incorporates the action of God (or deny it all together). In this way evolution is rendered compatible with CC. Thus the theistic theory of evolution is designed to make evolution - not the scientific theory of evolution - compatible with faith. The theistic theory of evolution is incompatible with the scientific account. One must rule God out of consideration, the other must rule God in.

I won't repeat what Leigh Jackson said above
but the conclusion that I naturally draw and I presume so do the DI crowd is "God can not be scientifically proven to actually exist" is just the same as saying god doesn't exist unless you are told to believe it by whichever religion, faith, belief system, hearing voices, magic, miracle and no amount of pontificating by any religion can get around this.

That scares the pants off the DI and the Heddles of this world. Who are driving themselves mad trying to find a real (not magic) god you could buy in a (gun)shop.
They just don't understand that magic has no influence on natural events or maybe they do and all this self generated "conflicting evidence" is a lie ...shock horror.
They know the real real problem for them is it usurps their social and political power, it confounds their worldview [which is actually self view].

They equate faith,in their brand of faith-magic, to something that is diminished by science simply because science has such a good name and can be trusted more that anything you can buy in a shop. They want some of that trust to shore up their support base.

Much to the disgust of the cc this brings into focus all religious faith as nothing more than a bunch of neurons firing in the recipients brain since science (which is highly trustable because of its rigor and absolute lack of magic) explicitly excludes faith,magic etc. and the world doesn't explode, endure the wrath ...I could go on but you get the picture.

The CC at least, as has been pointed out above, is modifying its dogma, how times have changed.

Specifically allowing science to push back the unexplained and hence what appears to be magic, to as far as it can, now and in the future and still claim compatibility and the upper hand by saying the Grand Old Designer still did it.

It is still magic though and the DI has done the cc no favors by "misrepresenting" Schoenborn, no wonder the Vatican had conniptions and "cleared up the facts" so as not to bring them too much critical viewing.

They seem to be doing a better job (mostly) on PR than the DI. But they are in a similar position, having to justify themselves.
If anyone has had the misfortune to see the inner workings of a PR firm you will know how spin is the next best thing to magic i.e plant a plausible story in the minds of your target audience.

The cc will try to get as much distance as it can from the DI mob while still having a side bet so as not to loose the the already converted.

In the UK the cc has even gone as far as saying (as reported in the London Times---its on PT somewhere) that some stories in the bible can't be taken as being real[gospel, in the vernacular]. Expect more of the same.

I can't imagine the DI saying that.

The cc is going for differentiation another great marketing term to ensure brand loyalty which in my view is not that much different to religious faith, it gives you a good feeling, you trust it and so on.

Anyway claiming an exclusive franchise on a supreme being is so ingrained into their power structure that to give it up now would be unthinkable and they have to differentiate themselves from competing religious belief systems that don't have the same limitations.

This is wishfull thinking I know but could the cc in another 350 years or so say we were just pulling your leg on the god thing. Then they could just get on with the job of saying how JC was a great guy etc etc which is what I thought Christianity was all about... I must be more deluded than Heddle.