Pope Says Evolution Can't Be Proven

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.

In a new book, "Creation and Evolution," published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.


Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/11/international/i144748D65.DTL

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. Maybe he can prove god exists? nt

[montanacowboy]

19. From grown men wearing pointy hats and dresses

STFU Ratso

[saigon68]

31. Maybe he can ReBurn Galileo at the stake

After all the Sun revolves around the earth



Galileo facing the Catholic Inquisition

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Threedifferentones]

71. Didn't Galileo die under house arrest?

Maybe Copernicus was burned?

[saigon68]

101. Galileo died under house arrest

February 17

Giordano Bruno Burned for Heresy (1600)

It was on this date, February 17, 1600, that Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned to death for his religious opinions at the Campo de' Fiori in Rome

Two scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

[SammyWinstonJack]

116. ..

:rofl: Who believes in an invisible sky daddy, and can't prove it's existence. . :rofl:

[eleny]

2. Well, Mr. Pope - I have faith in it. Okay?

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

5. I have faith that the scientific community isn't out to undermine religion

I have faith that most scientists are working in good faith, and that what they seek is simply the truth.

[eleny]

8. Amen

[chchchanges]

14. Problem is that the truth usually collides with the interests of the Church...

It is harder to control an educated/rational populace than a flock of submissive sheep.

The bible was written by committee, that alone is enough for me to mistrust it...

To this day, not a single Christian friend/teacher has been able to give me an adequate answer to the Epicurean paradox.

[IndianaGreen]

3. A giant step backwards from what even John Paul II believed

Shall the Vatican now condemn Gallileo again?

[David Zephyr]

38. Amazing. The one thing Catholics had going for them was science.

Until Ratzinger came along.

[barb162]

50. "Science has opened up large dimensions of reason...

and thus brought us new insights," the pope wrote.

[Fovea]

4. Ja, Herr Ratzenburger

show me a single quote, documented by two independent eyewitnesses that Jesus made in the New Testament, and you might have room to talk.

[texastoast]

6. That's not what my anthropology professor said

There's this little white moth that lived as a white moth in England before the Industrial Revolution. Its habitat was on trees with white bark (can't remember the species).

When the coal fumes started staining the trees, the moth lost its camo. Because of the short life cycles, the moth morphed its color to match the tree bark before the moth became extinct.

Now my fundie relative says, "God made that moth special to be able to do that, but it has nothing to do with other species."

:eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Pepper moth.

http://web.nmsu.edu/~wboeckle/biston.html

But it's all the work of Satan, I tell you.

[Igel]

26. Yeah, but there's a problem.

It wasn't light moths having dark offspring, it was dark moth's offspring surviving.

Now, this looks like evolution, but just "proves" a crucial subcomponent that was already fairly well proven by other means. For evolution proper, one of two additional things needed. Either the dark and light moths must stop interbreeding, so as to establish two different species (which is happening with some butterflies that I read about)--then you have another component of evolution, speciation. Or, the idea situation, the starting point had to be all light moths, a mutation to produce dark moths, and then the extinction of the light moths.

What you had was a shift is proportions, not an innovation or the loss of a characteristic in the population or formation of a new species. At least that was the state last time I read about it, and that was a while back.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. "...all light moths, a mutation to produce dark moths..."

That was actually the case. The moths started white, their natural habitat being the white barked trees, and there was a common recessive gene that produced occassional dark moths. As the trees grew darker, exposing the light colored moths to predators, those with the recessive gene became more numerous until it was no longer a recessive gene, but a dominant gene. Genetic differentiation is the hallmark of evolution.

I wonder what follow-up has been done on them, since the coal-dust pollution has abated in the last 150 years. Are the populations more equalized now? Have the light colored moths regained the advantage? Or does it matter, since English housecats have killed off all the bird predators that the camouflage protected the moths from in the first place?

[sutz12]

83. I believe I read somewhere that they are changing back. nt

[texastoast]

102. Yep, they changed back

When the coal stopped staining the trees. I believe she said the "species" changed back to white. I dont' recall any mention of interbreeding.

[Botany]

7. The Pope's God can not be proven but evolution can .....

Evolution = the change in gene frequency over time. That is it.

Genes are not static and sex "shuffles the deck."

Quick example of evolution is the common dandelion mow your grass
and it blooms at 1" or less .... don't mow and it blooms @ over 1'.

Evolution does not say there is or is not a God. Matter of fact some of the
people who worked in the foundations of evolution were very active in the
church. Gregor Mendel was a monk and Darwin was a Deacon in the Anglican
Church.

[chchchanges]

10. It is easier than that: Dogs.

Pure breed Dogs have evolved following human selective breeding, it is not natural selection but humans make the part of fitness criteria for selection. Same for racing horses, farm animals, etc. For example many modern farm animals have developed a symbiotic relationship with the farmer: a modern farm pig may not last much out in the wild, but a wild pig may have no problem (un-muffled instinct).

[NickB79]

90. I've argued that some dogs could be considered seperate species

For example, try to cross a 5-lb teacup Chihuahua with a 250-lb English Mastiff.

Physically, there is no way a male Mastiff could breed a female chihuahua. Even artificial insemination would kill her, as the pups grew inside her or during birth.

A male chihuahua would have a hard time breeding a female Mastiff, but artificial insemination is possible. At birth, though, the pups mouths would be so small they couldn't nurse on the Mastiff's nipples, and would starve.

Since we know they descended from the same common ancestor (humans were the ones that controlled the breeding selections from that ancestor), we can now conclude they are now unable to reproduce and create viable offspring. That is one of the defining characteristics of evolution.

[central scrutinizer]

9. When he gets pneumonia,

let's make sure it gets treated only with penicillin. It's not like the pneumonia germs are capable of mutating into resistant strains, right?

[yardwork]

75. Exactly. We can observe the evolution of germs because their lifecycles are short compared to ours

It's more difficult for us to observe the evolution of say, primates, because their lifecycles are similar to our own. That's where the fossil record helps. But the "proof" of evolution lies in every petri dish containing bacteria and viruses, mutating happily away within days.

[nolabels]

118. The plague was often blamed on those suspected of witchcraft

People who put belief before facts should be ignored as much as possible

A Very Brief History of Medicine
By Jon Didymus DSH PhD
http://www.jondidymus.f9.co.uk/articles/history.html

[Pale Blue Dot]

11. God does not exist. Prove I'm wrong. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. and god can be proven?

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Somebody always beats me to my lines.

Skål. :toast: :toast: :toast:

[mahina]

59. Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

Formerly: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence
Originally adapted from a forum on the Internet Infidels.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
1. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

8. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

9. MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known Atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

10. MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

11. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

12. ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that. (3) Therefore, God exists.

13. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1)
(2)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

14. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

15. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

16. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

17. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

18. PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

19. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

20. ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

21. ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
(1) God exists, you bastards!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

22. BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

23. DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

24. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

25. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

26. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

27. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

[yardwork]

76. LOL! Very good.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Pope is a moron...

That at least has been proven definitively.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I guess he better have Saint Peter tell Charles Darwin that.

Because the guy went ahead and proved it a hundred and sixty years ago.

[MGD]

18. More importantly, it can't be disproven Mr. Pope.

Incidentally, I have personally observed strong evidence which supports the theory of human evolution. While observing neonatal babies and testing their newborn reflexes, I observed both plantar and palmar grasp reflexes which caused me to question why a neonatal infant would instinctively/reflexively grasp with both fingers and toes when their palmar and plantar surfaces were lightly touched. Those primitive humans that were best able to grasp their mother's fur would be more likely to survive, reproduce and, most importantly, pass on their genes for this reflexive grasping behavior to succeeding generations which would use it as their own edge to survival. Eventually, as we left the trees and began to walk upright, we lost the opposable thumbs that were undoubtedly located on our feet; however, the neonatal reflexes, ingrained into our genome over a period of millions of years remained intact to this day. We were once simians with opposable thumbs on both hands and feet clinging to our furry ape like mother as she dwelt in trees to avoid ground dwelling predators. As our environment changed, so did we yet we have retained aspects of our primitive heritage. Make no mistake, it is the Pope who can not support his positions with evidence, not the evolutionary biologists.

[lakercub]

54. Not quite...it can be disproved

Just no one has managed to do it. But that is why the theory is science...it is indeed falsifiable. Finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock is a classic example of something that would throw evolution on its ear. Again, however, no one has done it.

The Pope is technically correct...evolution has not, and cannot, be proved. Big deal. Nothing really can be proved. Proof is an abstract or mathematical concept. Who out there can prove we weren't all created last Monday with memories and history created alongside? No one can. No one can disprove it either, but there is no evidence for it.

What the Pope is probably screwing up however is that evolution research is not about hard proof, it is about a preponderance of evidence. ALL the evidence points to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Small aspects of the theory are occasionally found wrong after much research, but the theory is then amended as new science shows the proper operation and application of the theory. The overall theory has, however, been found to be startlingly bulletproof. Try as scientists might to disprove the theory no one has been able to do it...and scientists try harder than anyone. The fundies (and this pope apparently) always seem to miss this.

Now...a challenge for the Pope (and the fundies). Develop a theory of creation or intelligent design that has testable claims, can have observations that support the hypotheses, and is falsifiable. And when that is done, realize that strike one has already been found for the biblical 6 day creation and flood story. All the scientific observation and evidence thus far show the flood story to be almost entirely implausible and impossible. Until you do this...stay the hell out of science. You haven't earned a place.

[Zenlitened]

78. Excellent post!

:hi:

...evolution research is not about hard proof, it is about a preponderance of evidence. ALL the evidence points to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Small aspects of the theory are occasionally found wrong after much research, but the theory is then amended as new science shows the proper operation and application of the theory. The overall theory has, however, been found to be startlingly bulletproof. Try as scientists might to disprove the theory no one has been able to do it...and scientists try harder than anyone.

[MGD]

79. Why didn't I think of that..

:eyes:

[hughee99]

88. Well said...

but how exactly has the flood story been shown to be "almost entirely implausible and impossible"? Based on what I've read about global warming theories, it seems to be almost an inevitable conclusion that we will face in the not too distant future.

[NickB79]

91. The commonly thrown around number is 200 ft if all the polar ice melted

Even if it were twice that amount, it in no way comes close to the claim of "covering the highest mountains" like the Bible claims. Mount Everest, for example, is 29,000+ ft tall, so we'd need more than 29,000 ft in sea level rise to match the Bible's claims.

[hughee99]

96. The bible certainly exaggerates from time to time...

but the people who wrote it (whoever they may be) only really had knowledge of their local surroundings. As far as they could tell, a 100 foot flood that covered the local hills was a flood that covered the earth. I agree that their is certainly sufficient evidence to prove that Mt. Everest (and any other peak) isn't going to be covered in water, there is some evidence that could point a localized flood in a lowland area giving some people the impression that the world was flooded. I'm not saying the flood happened at all, just that it's not necessarily made up from whole cloth.

Oh, god, I can't believe I'm sitting here trying to defend the outrageous claims made in the bible... it's been a long day, what is happening to me? :crazy:

[lakercub]

103. Actually you are probably right.

It most likely was a localized flood. The Greek myths have flood stories as does the Epic of Gilgamesh. But I meant that the idea of a global flood, and by extension, the absurd story of Noah's Ark has been shown to be sorely lacking. For instance, if all the creatures on Earth died in a global flood at the same time, how come we do not find their bones on top of one another? How come Dinosaurs are always in a different rock strata then mammals. The global flood would have been one large group burial, not an ordered categorization of death...as the fossil record shows.

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. It's like the old joke --

it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the most terrible rain in memory, 10' a day, covering all the mountains under 400' high.

Costner's Waterworld just ain't gonna happen, and never did happen. There isn't that much water in the world. But a rise of tens, or even a couple hundred feet is not impossible.

[bklyncowgirl]

20. This guy's determined to set the Catholic Church back to the 16th century

The Catholic Church has long accepted the theory of evolution with the idea that natural processes are part of God's plan since the days of Teilhard de Chardin. This Pope seems to be backtracking on all of this.

Next up "We should have burned Galileo."

[Ilsa]

27. My husband will say, "Too late. The cat is out of the bag, and the

words of this one guy in a funny hat and robes won't turn back the clock for science." Sure, a few idiots will do their best to try and convince school kids and other idiots of this, but they will hopefully die off due to their own stupidity. If they don't die off, they'll turn into republicans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Well, officially it hasn't been all that long.

1996, the last pope, declared that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the bible. That was the first time a pope had said such a thing, no matter what the general thinking in the church as a whole may have been.

I kept the article pinned to a wall for years, with a note below it "Now we just need to convince the Baptists".

[damntexdem]

21. Yeah, just like any and every other scienrific theory, evolutionary theory cannot be proven.

But scientific facts can, such as the fact of evolution. That doesn't make them absolute or certain -- many things once accepted by science as 'fact' were later shown to be incorrect.

But evolution, and the rest of science, can get just fine along using scientific methods, Benny. Philosophical reason can be useful to science; but science and religion MUST BE KEPT APART. We especially don't need another Urban VIII, stating religious limits to what science can think or do.

[NickB79]

32. Exactly. Even gravity is still "just" a theory and technically unproven

The Pope should start proclaiming "Science can't prove the theory of gravity either" and prove it by stepping off a Vatican rooftop......

[Forkboy]

22. Which Pope are we up to? Is it John Paul George Ringo yet?

They're all so wacky and fun it's hard to keep track.

[El Supremo]

23. What school did he go to?

These are NOT species who lived at the same time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. Makes me feel old.

When I learned it there was Equus and Eohippus.

[StarryNite]

124. Impossible

The earth is only 6,000 years old. God just threw those old bones in as a test of faith.

[El Supremo]

24. Sure there are gaps.

It is very hard to become a fossil. The Pope should know that from experience.

[chknltl]

25. Yeah but what's his position on IMUS?????

:popcorn:

[Solly Mack]

28. Though I stopped sucking my thumb years ago

I still make sure my feet are covered up and that neither my hands nor my feet dangle from the bed...we all need a little comfort, I guess.

[MGKrebs]

29. Faith.

Are humans either inherently evil and therefore need Gods' intervention, or not?
Perhaps my "faith" is that humans can be good without help.

God (Good) is within us.

[olddad56]

30. The truth is all in the good book, even though it was written when the world was flat.

[Arugula Latte]

33. Thank goodness we have CONCRETE things to believe in -- like

a dude who was the ONLY magical man in the 4,000- or 6-billion- year history of the planet -- or, hey, I guess by extention the entire universe of billions and billions of entities -- who died and then was nailed up and then put in a cave and then rolled a rock away and came back to life to SAVE is from our sins and so therefore we have to kowtow to old celibate guys (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, pay no attention to that alter boy) who wear pointy hats and tell us to refrain from sex. Now THAT makes so much sense.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

39. I believe in the Bible and that Noah had a couple of T-Rex inside the ark

and that when Moses raised his arms to the heavens, the Sun stopped its motion in the sky.

One either believes in science or in Bible jumble!

[Synnical]

34. Cool - move onto the myth zone, please

Be gone with the Catholics, whose business is, maybe, hopefully, about to become bankrupt.

[smirkymonkey]

35. Oh. But Jesus's birth to a virgin CAN be proven, as can his

rising from the grave, turning water into wine, and all those amazing miracles. :hide:

[olddad56]

43. did he walk on the water before or after be turned it into wine?

I know people have walked on grapes to turn them into wine.

[Zhade]

36. Uh, it's been observed in the lab, dumbass.

It's ALREADY proven, you stupid fuck.

[KansDem]

37. That means then it has the potential to be *disproven*

Which, as I remember by science, makes it a "scientific theory," as in "theory of evolution."

So the Pope has acknowledged that evolution is indeed a scientific theory. Scientists can't ask for much more than that!

I say score one for the Darwinists! :woohoo:

[Nevernose]

40. There are no "gaps" in evolutionary theory.

To paraphrase Dawkins on the matter:

What's wrong with these people and their obsession with "gaps in the fossil record?" The really frustrating thing is that, to a creationist, every time we find a new fossil to fill in a so-called gap (not in the the theory, just in the record), a creationist merely points out that there are two new gaps to be filled in.

[UTUSN]

41. Evolution says pope can't be proven

[DKRC]

56. He looks familiar...

:evilgrin:

[Vinca]

62. ROFLMAO! A perfect likeness. nt

[olddad56]

42. "and then there was light" how much more proof do you need?

[deucemagnet]

44. Pope says Catholic church entirely irrelevant in the 21st century. n/t

[johnnyrocket]

45. and the earth is the center of the universe. Move along...nothing to see here.

[burrowowl]

46. This Pope is a real ass

compared to John XXIII!
And Teillard de Chardin

[slowry]

47. Science has indeed narrowed our view.

Inversely:

[6000eliot]

48. It can, on the other hand, be proven that he was a Nazi.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. And can it be proven that he not still a Nazi? nt

[The Flaming Red Head]

51. And what else does he deny (hint, hint ) n/t

[cambie]

52. Witches exit,

and we should kill them. It says so in Exodus. What should be the balance between faith and reason in that case? I suggest that it should be to discard 100% of the religious garbage. Sad that the Church was once a refuge from the Bible underliners and un-intelligent creationists.

[ProudDad]

53. Darwin says, "A Search for intelligent life at the Vatican,

would be a waste of time."

Evolution will be proved a hell of a lot sooner than the myths and fables of the catholic church will.

[lakercub]

55. science absolutely should exclude faith

I know it is not entirely true, but science is almost the exact opposite of faith. Science absolutely must be grounded in the natural world where all claims can be tested, where evidence for and against hypotheses can be observed and gathered, and where NOTHING is left to faith. If it can't be tested or somehow observed...it ain't science. Note to the fundies: this does not mean anyone must have been around millions of years ago to actually see dinosaurs. Finding dinosaurs in the same layers of rock time after time...and not finding mammals in that same layer is a scientific observation that is evidence that dinosaurs predate mammals, Carl Baugh's ridiculous dinosaur-man footprints notwithstanding.

[tom_paine]

57. THAT'S why Jesus put a rabbit in charge!

[mahina]

58. Then I'm sure he's perfectly happy to take penicillin from the 40's.

Because bacteria couldn't possibly have evolved immunity to it. Right?

[Donnachaidh]

60. I'll bet he has no problem proving miracles

After all, don't they have to be proven for someone to achieve sainthood? :sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

61. Whoa! Major departure for the Church!

They've stated many times that Evolution is scientific, and does NOT negate God.

The Jesuits, etc. will not be happy about this.

[Bridget Burke]

63. I doubt any Catholic colleges will be changing their curricula.

Let the theologians discuss "why?"

[NuttyFluffers]

65. isn't it though? it ain't the Catholic church i remember

a visible step back, and after so much progress last century with the Vatican Councils...

oh well, at least he didn't speak ex cathedra, from what i can gather in the article.

there's going to be quiet riots in quite a few orders, particularly those actively involved in education.

[LostinVA]

66. You better believe it

[dogfacedboy]

64. Neither can most of what's in the "Bible". n/t

[Catfight]

67. the pope is a talking example of evolution since he's still in the dark ages. nt

[davepc]

68. Well it is the "theory" of evolution

but just like the theory of relativity, its based on good science.

even if it cant be expressly proven.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edhopper]

77. Pope Benedict

has one of the great minds.......
......of the 14th Century.

[Massachusetts]

80. Is the pope catholic?

does a bear shit in the woods?

[jollyreaper2112]

81. hands off the science, popie

Don't think in my school and I won't pray in your church.

[happyslug]

114. So we should go with Darwin attitude to Vaccinations?

Darwin stated that Vaccination permitted the "Weak" to survive therefore made the Human race weaker. Darwin thus opposed vaccinations because it defeated the "ideal" situation of the survival of the Fittest. Eugenics would stay closely allied with the Theory of Evolution till the Nazi took it to the ultimate step, then Eugenics fell into disfavor. If you look at the history of the Theory of Evolution from Darwin to Hitler, it is almost a logical step by step change from theory advocating that the strong should live and the weak should die, to the killing off of "undesirables" in the death camps.

This path was NOT just restricted to Germany, the US adopted many of the same aspects including the sterilization of the "Unfit" (The US never went the next step, but there were people advocating it the period from the late 1800 to the 1940s). William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Monkey trial fame opposed the theory of Evolution more do to its tendency to be used by people who advocated Social Darwinism (which included NO social Safety net for the poor) than any true opposition to the Theory itself (Bryan actually only wanted to ban the teaching of Human Evolution, Evolution as a theory he was willing to be left taught, but he feared teaching HUMAN EVOLUTION would harden people attitude to helping their fellow man).

Since WWII, Eugenics have been dead, but the logic of Eugenics remains. Science is cold, it is amoral (Note I use the term amoral not immoral, immoral means the opposite of Morality, amoral means the absence of morality). Science being amoral can be used for good or evil. Evolution has been used for both good and evil. For example the German High Command during WWI justified the introduction of Gas warfare, the Flame thrower, unrestricted Submarine Warfare and bombing of Civilians based on the concept of the survival of the Fittest (And upon reading about this William Jennings Bryan became more convinced that the teaching of Human Evolution was causing moral problems, and by moral problems he was NOT talking about sex, but how people treated each other and thought of each other). The sterilization of people against they wills in the US was justified on grounds that such people were "unfit" to reproduce. Even segregation was justified in some people minds on the grounds blacks were "Less fit" than whites to rule (Through the religious argument were also used when it came to race relations). "The White Man's Burden" to rule what is now called the third rule was based on the theory that whites were more fit to rule than other races (Even if this required the mass murder of natives who objected to white rule).

Thus the Pope's concern that Science, without faith (the Pope's basis of Morality even if it is not yours) can lead to problems. We have to look at Science as something that can do both good and evil, and as such must be watched and judged on a case by case basis. Even something that looks "Good" can become "Evil" (i.e. the concept of eliminating the "Weak" to make a country "Stronger" lead to the elimination of "Evil" people i.e. the Jews by the Nazis who use Science to Justify their anti-Semites).

My point is all the point is saying is that Science (like religion) can be used for both good and evil and we have to judge ANY part of Science like we do religion, philosophy or politics based on whether it is good as a whole over a period of time. That has to be base don some basis of morality and in the case of the People Morality is based on Faith.

[bill]

82. Bull!

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains are textbook proofs of evolution. There is no scientific evidence, however, of an invisible cloud being.

fundie asshats!

[truthisfreedom]

84. "scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith"

Yeah, right. How about "religion must preserve its support for reality-based science"?

[sutz12]

85. There is a semantic quirk in there...

>>"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.<<

Evolution does not "cover over its own gaps." It acknowledges them and seeks to close them.

The difference between evolutionary theory and ID or Creationism is that when a scientist sees a "gap" in the data, he postulates a rational path to bridge the gap, based on physical evidence available and science based speculation. He will then continue investigating and searching to fill that gap. If his postulate is proven false, he really doesn't care, as long as he finds how to "fill the gap." He seeks the true answer to close the "gap" in knowledge.

When an ID proponent sees a gap, he tends to say "God did it" and ceases reseearch or investigation, because, after all, God did it. To him, that is a sufficient explanation.

To a true scientist, that is never sufficient.

[reprobate]

86. The perfect arguement against Intelligent Design:

George W. Bush


Seriously, folks, you gotta feel sorry for the church. They've been fighting an uphill battle ever since the wholly Babble was translated from the latin. That's when the people could finally read it for themselves and no longer felt the need for the priesthood. After all, if you could read and understand it for yourself, why should you need an entire hierarchy of upper class to tell you what it said?

[fshrink]

87. The whole point of reason is to exclude faith.

Logos vs mythos. Nobody is half-pregnant.

[chang0]

89. would you let the Pope babysit your children?

[FiveGoodMen]

93. Not without a nanny-cam!

And, no, I don't mean he'd abuse them sexually, I mean I'd want to know what the hell he said to them while I was out of the room.

(This is all hypothetical since I don't have kids.)

[Jacobin]

92. Who would want to have a scientific discussion with a soothsayer?

I mean, wtf is the point?

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

94. Artificial selection is proof of evolution. What more need be said?

I just cannot comprehend how people fail to understand this simple concept. It's so fucking simple! GOD!

[Sapere aude]

95. Jesus can't be proven either yet there is a whole institution built on his name.

Imagine if you will the leader of one of the world's biggest superstitious cults bashing a scientific theory as not provable. Pot meet kettle.

[DFW]

97. He says evolution can't be proved, BUT

...then in the same breath, he wants me to believe that some guy, who was
born although his mother was a virgin and had no artificial insemination,
became a famous philosopher/preacher/troublemaker, got executed for his
efforts, got buried in a cave sealed by a multi-ton rock, reanimated
himself, pushed aside the rock like it was a pebble, gathered his
closest pals around and said, OK, I'm back but just for a little while,
then I'm off to heaven to check in with my Dad, who is God, then he rose
up into space and proceeded to do just that.

Evolution is just a theory, but this story is the unquestionable truth?

OK, if it works for you, but don't be surprised if some have their doubts.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that it didn't happen, but if a little
skepticism is healthy, then I'm gonna live to be 250.

[krispos42]

110. It's called 'dry-humping'

Assuming a man called Jesus was born of a virgin birth, it was probably because of Joe getting frisky with Mary but maybe Mary didn't want to go all the way yet.

Well, we'll let the Pope get a med-resistant staph infection and see how much he believes things don't evolve...

[enki23]

98. breaking: the pope is just another dumbass. news at eleven.

.

[FiveGoodMen]

99. Perfectly put.

:rofl: :applause: :toast:

[cmkramer]

100. Typical reaction by the usual suspects

Did anyone bother to read what he said?

Somehow, I doubt it. He never said that we need to start believing in creationism or even intelligent design. He didn't say the theory of evolution is wrong. All he's saying is let's not take God out of the equation.

[Doremus]

104. Ratzie sees how much $$$ the Southern Baptist fundies make & wants a piece

What's next?

Father John's Faith Healings?
Catholic Snake Handlers?
Bishop Sheen's Revival Hour?

:rofl:

[Azathoth]

105. In other words, science is good, except when it contradicts what I've already decided is true

Not exactly a new proposition.

{edited for spelling}

[Codeine]

106. The Pope CAN, however,

prove he's a fucking idiot. :eyes:

[bamacrat]

107. Ok. But, neither can creation.

[TriMetFan]

108. Benedict you need to stop sneaking into the

the wine cellar. Next he is going to be telling us Catholics to shut down the Catholic Hospitals, because medicine is science.

[DFW]

109. "All he's saying is let's not take God out of the equation"

Wrong. "Let's" is a suggestion, which is fine.

You follow a suggestion or not, as you see fit.
The Pope didn't say "let's" do anything.

The Pope "said scientific and philosophical reason
must work together in a way that does not exclude faith."

They MUST? Nice. The Ayatollahs say we MUST obey the
Koran, too, or else Allah won't let us into Paradise.

Believe what you wish, and go in peace. But don't go
telling me what I MUST or MUST NOT believe. You're not
an Ayatollah, and I don't live in Iran.

[kiki]

111. Whaaaaambulance for the Pope, please...

Basically he's saying, "Look, you guys have got to try and work my 2,000-year-old book into your rigorously tested scientific observations, because frankly, my shit doesn't look quite as convincing as it used to, and if this whole 'science' fad keeps up, I could be out of a job."

[natrat]

112. fuck the pope

[natrat]

113. pope has no credibility---superstitious pos uses religion to control people

[skipos]

115. The Catholic church has to be dragged kicking and screaming towards progress

Evolution, birth control, the holocaust, etc. It is NEVER at the forefront of progress. And I say this a Catholic.

[kineneb]

119. Pope hasn't looked at a chicken lately.

My pet, Henrietta, has "dinosaur feet", as do all chickens!

Many news reports on subject, but here is a good one:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/bayofplenty/4025299a12.html

CHICAGO: Tiny bits of protein extracted from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur bone have given scientists the first genetic proof that the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken.

"It's the first molecular evidence of this link between birds and dinosaurs," said John Asara, a Harvard Medical School researcher, whose results were published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

-snip-

Contemplate that Mr. Pope, the next time you eat that chicken soup. You are eating T.rex's cousin.

[ozone_man]

122. And that's quite a long evolutionary span.

What, like 65 million years? A lot more than the Biblical 6,000 years. Pay particular attention to the wording Pope.

"Tiny bits of protein extracted from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur bone have given scientists the first genetic proof that the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken."

The god of the gaps just shrunk back one crevice further.

[txaslftist]

120. He's right. Neither can creation be proven.

God could have just created the world in 7 days and included all the fossils. Kinda like writing a book and including a background.

Or God could have designed the world with evolution as an integral part of the process.

The only thing most likely to be true is that the Jewish creation myth in Genesis isn't the way it happened.

[mnhtnbb]

121. What? How does he explain the doctrine of papal infallibility if not through evolution?

Gee, if it took the Catholic Church until 1870 to figure out the doctrine of papal infallibility, that suggests evolution of some sort, doesn't it?


:sarcasm:

[VegasWolf]

123. The Pope should just ask God since he proclaims to know God. Only true idiots

would believe in this Pope nonsense.