[extropy-chat] Prelate: Catholicism incompatible with neo-Darwinism

[Samantha Atkins]

As disgusting as this is, where exactly does it dismiss genetics or  
evolution plus genetics?   Genetics is the ultimate proof of common  
ancestry and relationshiip among species.  It is also the means by  
which change comes about.   But I don't see where the screed denies  
genetics per se.

- samantha

On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Amazing scenes: just when you think Christian dogmatists have  
> realized it's not safe to get in the ring with science, we learn  
> that divinely directed evolution is the truth, and Darwin plus  
> genetics is just plain wrong:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html? 
> th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
>
> July 7, 2005
>
>
> Finding Design in Nature
>
> By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN [Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of  
> Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the  
> Catholic Church.]
>
> Vienna
>
> EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term  
> he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of  
> neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or  
> at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they  
> defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
>
> But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science  
> many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by  
> the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly  
> discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the  
> world of living things.
>
> Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but  
> evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned  
> process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any  
> system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the  
> overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
>
> Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his  
> rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always  
> and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from  
> a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
>
> "All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a  
> similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which  
> science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism,  
> presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This  
> finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not  
> responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is  
> its inventor, its creator."
>
> He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the  
> Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper  
> mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which  
> presents such a complex organization in its elements and such  
> marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the  
> search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In  
> fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a  
> cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus  
> refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
>
> Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical  
> term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at  
> another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is  
> clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed  
> to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos  
> as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance  
> and necessity."
>
> Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church  
> agrees: "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." It adds: "We believe that God created the world  
> according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity  
> whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
>
> In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists  
> recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a  
> satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common  
> ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological  
> Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the  
> commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem  
> with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists -  
> that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
>
> The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial  
> teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in  
> nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996  
> letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter  
> cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of  
> evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which  
> explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the  
> development of life in the universe."
>
> Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary  
> process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence -  
> simply cannot exist."
>
> Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago,  
> Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless  
> product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.  
> Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
>
> Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith  
> given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church  
> is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as  
> well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world  
> newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason  
> alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause,  
> the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
>
> Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific  
> claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in  
> cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose  
> and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again  
> defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident  
> in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the  
> appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are  
> not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of  
> human intelligence.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>