The Economist has a special report on the debate in some quarters about creation vs evolution. Of particular interests to Catholics is the report on the split within the Church about evolution. On the one hand are scientists such as Father George Coyne, who insist that natural phenomena (such as evolution) have natural causes, and others in the Church hierarchy who believe that Coyne and other Catholic scientists have gone too far in accepting the scientific viewpoint. Pope Benedict is portrayed as trying to carefully navigate these two points of view, accepting the empirical viewpoint of science but insisting that is an incomplete description of human origins.
According to the article, evolution skeptics, such as Father Joseph Fessio, in the Catholic Church argue that there are 3 ways to learn about reality-empirical science, direct revelation from God and natural philosophy which attempts to use reason to discern the hand of God in the universe. I was particularly interested in the split between Roman Catholic thinkers and Orthodox Christian thinkers on natural philosophy, the Orthodox insisting that mystical communion with God is not comparable to the results of reason.
Here I find myself much more attuned to the Orthodox position. For me natural philosophy leads to the temptation to reduce God to a scientific formula which seems to me the very antithesis of what faith is ultimately supposed to be about. That sort of reduction also leads to the temptation to try to let theology do the job of science(i.e. turning the Bible into a science book) and we historically know the outcome of that tact-religion only looses credibility.
By the way there is an interesting defense of the compatibility between Orthodox Christianity and evolution by Fr. Andrey Kuraev. The article defends his belief in the consistency of evolution with Orthodox Christianity. He argues for instance:
"The very essence of the process of the unfolding of Creation remains the same regardless of the speed with which it happens. The view of some, that if we extend the process of Creation in time, "God will become unnecessary" is as naive as that of others who think that creation in anything more than six regular days diminishes the glory of the Creator. We must only remember that nothing stood in the way or limited the creative action, and everything happened according to the will of the Creator. We do not know whether this will consisted in creating the world in one moment, or in six days, or six thousand years, or billions. For "who can number . . . the days of eternity?" (Sirach 1:2)."
Technorati Tags:
Catholicism
Evolution
Religion
5 comments:
WE know you despise all religion.
Catholics, Jews, whatever.
Its what atheists do.
But pretending that you are just promoting science when you are using science as a front to promote your own anti religious agenda is a huge deception.
I wonder how you know that. My religious beliefs may not be the same as yours but that doesn't mean I don't have any. If you are looking for an anti religious blog to poke a stick at, you've come to the wrong blog.
It's really sad that even the clergy have doubts about Creation.
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Thank You anonymous,
You are absolutely right when you note that we do not understand the origin of life. Further I suppose it is possible we never will. That said in science, remember that the point of a theory is not only to make predictions but also to highlight big questions such as wherre the heck did cells come from in the first place?
Evolution though, empirically is supported by evidence all through out biology and I suggest you consider taking a good general biology course and try to understand why scientists take the position they do namely that evolution is the best explanation we have for the the origin of the diverse forms of life found on "Mother Earth".
A good geology course or astronomy course might help you as well.
Good and well-reasoned responses, Paul!
I have to admit I'm glad I haven't attracted such commenters to my blog, but the time may come!
Post a Comment