Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

thisislondon.co.uk ^ | 04 September 2006 | Staff

[wtc911]

Pope "failed"?

Does he owe you anything?

[curiosity]

Surprise, surprise. The Vatican doesn't change its stance. Yawn. Amazing how the MSM loves to hype non-stories.

[curiosity]

It's funny that it's been all over the media, Pope to address evolution! and then nothing comes of it.

All the major Catholic publications were saying that nothing important would come out of the meeting. Anyone who even has a remote understanding of how things work in the Vatican could have predicted this outcome.

This is a typical example of MSM reporters who no knowthing about the Church or Catholicism trying to hype a non-story. Nothing to see here. Move along.p>

[ToryHeartland]

I learned from my 12 years of Catholic school that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, and that the incurious acceptance of the non-explanation of "just because..." is a sin... of rejecting God's glorious gift of intellect.

Very well put, and bears repeating.

Anglican communion (my own denomination, if that matters) takes the same view. I imagine (but cannot demonstrate) that many if not most Christians would agree.

The ones who don't agree make enough fuss to sound like a mahority, but I doubt that.

[curiosity]

"No knowthing." Yikes, what a typo! Sheesh. You'd think I could spell out "Know nothing."

I guess I need another cup of coffee.

[Gumlegs]

Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

Pope fails to address 'intelligent falling' theory of gravity

Pope fails to address 'intelligent eye rays' theory of vision

Pope fails to address 'intelligent softening' theory of pasta cooking

Pope fails to address 'intelligent decomposition' theory of death

[StJacques]

Patrick, I'm just going to follow up what I posted to you in that other thread yesterday and say just a little more about why the Catholic Church would violate its own doctrine if it were to make a statement in support of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design which, contrary to the speculative reports suggesting that the Pope might be moving in this direction, was never in the cards. And it really does reflect what VictoryGal said when she remembered she learned in Catholic School that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, something doc30 and Vaquero have applauded her for posting. I want to add my own voice in support of VictoryGal here, because I specifically remember learning in my Catechism classes -- I went to public schools -- that I should never fear what science might produce because science was of the material world and was therefore limited in what it has to offer mankind and that it can never bring humanity to an understanding of God.

Though we have seen no official statement coming out of this seminar -- it seems that its participants will post papers on their own -- it should have been obvious from the beginning to anyone who has read Pope John Paul II's "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in November, 1996 that the focus of the Catholic Church when dealing with the Theory of Evolution would be to delineate the separation between distinct epistemological lines of inquiry as they relate to the Theory of Evolution; and especially with the impossibility of establishing a transition from Materialism to Theology based upon observations of material phenomena. In the Catholic view, it is only through Theology, the highest form of Metaphysical philosophy, that we can even begin to approach an understanding of God. As a scientific pursuit, the Theory of Evolution is entirely within Materialistic inquiry, which does not offer anything in the way of approaching God. This is where Intelligent Design runs directly contrary to Catholic Doctrine because it holds, and quite falsely in my opinion, that there is scientific evidence which proves the physical intervention of a designer, who is generally considered to be God. If Intelligent Design were to be supported by the Catholic Church it would represent a departure from its doctrinal assertion that evidence for the existence of God cannot be inferred from observation of specific phenomena because that would represent a transition from and linkage between materialistic inquiry and Theology. Pope John Paul II was very clear on this point when he stated the sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation ("Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," part 6). So the possibility that Intelligent Design could have been endorsed by the Catholic Church was a dead issue even before the inquiry began.

But going back to VictoryGal's statement that science is the way we understand the genius workings of God, it is possible for Roman Catholics to look at the wondrous and systemic harmony in nature as evidence of a Divine Causality which is removed from any direct intervention in the workings of the natural order, and includes within it the contingent materialistic processes upon which the Theory of Evolution relies for its scientific justification. I'm going to quote the Vatican web site document Patrick was kind enough to link me to yesterday to illustrate this point, excerpted from paragraph 69:

. . . The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. . . . 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. . . .

This is why most Roman Catholics who have been schooled in the religious traditions of the Church do not fear the debate over the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Biblical story of creation. We still see the wondrous hand of Divine Causality at work even as scientific evidence supporting evolution and abiogenesis is advanced because there is no conflict between a truly contingent natural process and God's divine plan.

[Torie]

The Pope may be pondering how to fashion some homily or whatever the term is, that is more in tune with both science and the existence of a creator, as understood by Catholic theology, than ID is, as currently postured.

[Torie]

What was the point in having the meeting, in your mind?

[Torie]

"The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. . . . 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. . . ."

This heathen does not have a clue what the above means. There are too many inside baseball terms used - "divine casuality," "true contingency," etc.

[curiosity]

What was the point in having the meeting, in your mind?

The pope wanted to have a intellectually stimulating discussion with people he respects.

[StJacques]

"This heathen does not have a clue what the above means. There are too many inside baseball terms used - "divine casuality," "true contingency," etc."

"Divine causality" means "caused by God." In Catholic doctrine -- you would really need to read that Vatican document I linked, perhaps paragraphs 67 - 70, to get a theological introduction to these concepts -- there are two levels of "divine causality," God as the primary cause, meaning he did it himself outside of any natural process he created, and God as the secondary cause, meaning that is from within a natural process he created but without his direct intervention. "True contingency" is another way of expressing secondary causes and it means a natural process that unfolds of its own accord without the supernatural intervention of God. The implication you draw from this is that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible because a natural process that unfolds of its own accord still does so according to God's plan because it is God's process.

[PatrickHenry]

... there is no conflict between a truly contingent natural process and God's divine plan.

God, as Creator of the universe, can't be contradicted by anything we learn about the universe. If there seems to be a conflict, it's not because there's something "wrong" about the universe, or our explorations; it's due to an inevitable failure in our understanding of God. God is -- by definition -- far more difficult to understand than any aspect of the physical universe.

[StJacques]

"God is -- by definition -- far more difficult to understand than any aspect of the physical universe."

Bravo Patrick!

By Definition!

[andysandmikesmom]

I agree completely with the others on this thread, who have seen what you have posted as being completely sensible, and true...Evolution and Christianity do not need to be at odds with each other...

[Torie]

Thank you for an excellent explanation. But if one accepts that homo sapiens are a splendid accident of evolution, and God was only there to create the processes that allowed it to happen, by accident, than we have a species created in "God's image" or whatever the correct term is, that was an accident. If it was not an accident, and it was part of God's plan, his planned end game, than you are positing mechanisms that inevitably lead to the emergence of homo sapiens, and that gets rather near to ID, does it not?

If I get lucky, and this heathen is fortunate enough to meet the Pope next month, and he seems to have the time, maybe I will ask him myself. :)

[curiosity]

The implication you draw from this is that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible because a natural process that unfolds of its own accord still does so according to God's plan because it is God's process.

Or put in simple language, evolution may have created us, but God created evolution, so ultimately God is still our creator.

This stuff is really not that complicated. While I have high regard for the scholastics, using their fancy terminology often obscures things rather than clarifies, especially in a case like this.