[PatrickHenry]

Everybody be nice.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 340 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[wallcrawlr]

Well, at least if youre going to read Catholic Online maybe youll learn something about Jesus.

[agere_contra]

This is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for posting.

[CobaltBlue]

Thanks for posting that. I love the smell of rational thought in the morning!

[phantomworker]

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

OK, I kind of like this one. Is it Valentine's Day yet? LOL!!!But this says it better:

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves."

[Pyro7480]

I'm Catholic, and I respect Fr. Coyne's scientific contributions, but he is confusing ID and creationism. They are not the same.

[narby]

I'm still amazed that there are so many people out there who can "see God's hand" in any little natural thing. But somehow in their mind God isn't strong enough, or patient enough, to have done His work over a long period of time.

I believe they worship the words of the Bible more than they worship the God of creation.

[Aquinasfan]

Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory

The opinion of a priest. Nothing more or less.

But I did like "Vatican Director" in the headline. Cute.

[plain talk]

three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;

So does he believe evolution was guided and planned? After reading this I'm not entirely sure. But if he believes that evolution was guided and planned then he believes in a designer also.

[Kirkwood]

Very true in the sense the intelligent design advocates are trying to fit God into a humanistic framework. This will never work and is an insult to God, IMO. They are approaching the origin and expansion of life from their (flawed) human perspective and assuming God designed the universe according to their narrow, human viewpoint. At least science respects religion enough to never make any conclusion about the role of God, leaving that to one's faith.

[Sensei Ern]

This is coming from the same group that persecuted those that said the earth revolves around the sun.

For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.

[Stultis]

“[Creationism] is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.”

Excellent short definition of (real) Creationism.

Of course popular antievolutionary creationism is not pantheistic or naturalistic either. Instead it is deistic. It wants to point to a God who is "needed" to explain certain phenomena in the natural world, on the presumption that natural causes are inadequate because they lack or exclude God. But the corollary to a God who is occasionally present is a God who is occasionally ABSENT; which is deism. Likewise the assumption that natural causes exclude God, or can be sufficient (even of limited sufficiency) without God, is to exile God from portions of reality, which is again deistic as opposed to theistic.

[Salman]

What are they actually saying? That evolution took place but God pushed it in a certain direction?

If so, it's still not a scientific theory, but they're not claiming it is.

[Vaquero]

Thank you Pope Benedict et al. some common sense from religion for a change.

[TXnMA]

In case you missed it: a crevo discussion that starts at a fairly high level of rational discourse...

[Theo]

He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.

In other words, the Vatican believes God is not omnipotent, and that God is weak (and not intelligent, apparently). I'm grateful I don't believe in such an aloof and frail God.

[jwalsh07]

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

Oyvey. This Jesuit has lost his mind.

[FourtySeven]

Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”

Why is this such an anathema to so many here on FR and elsewhere? Is it "evil" to believe that science (as we know it today) and religion (or faith if you recoil in disgust against the term religion) are incompatible? Why must the two be conjoined in some bizarre amalgam?

More to the point, and I'm starting to sound like a parrot on this issue I'll admit, but no one on any of these Crevo threads ever responds to this point, so I'll keep putting it out there until someone does: If the Bible is meant to be taken literally ALL the time, and you're a Christian who's not a Catholic, then why don't you take John 6:51 literally when Jesus CLEARLY says that his FLESH is to be eaten? The Bible is meant to be taken LITERALLY, ALL the time, right?

Or, if you don't like that, then: If the Bible is meant to be taken literally ALL the time, then why doesn't anyone here who's a Christian ever cut your right hand off when it offends you (takes part in a sin you commit), as Matt 5:30 CLEARLY instructs (if one is to take the Bible literally, ALL the time)?

Without getting into an exegetical argument about these verses (since this isn't a religion thread) the only answer one can give (if one rejects that these verses are to be taken literally, which I'd agree with such an analysis regarding Matt 5:30) is that they are meant to be taken SYMBOLICALLY, or METAPHORICALLY, which absolutely demolishes, therefore, any "need" to take Genesis literally, as there's no other reason to do so other than the (now clearly) weak argument that "the Bible is literally true, all the time".

[MEGoody]

Nice opinion, Father Coyne. I don't agree.

[Logophile]

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

I am an engineer and a lover too.