Vatican Policy: Not Evolving

Nor is Benedict XVI really an advocate of "intelligent design" in the American sense, since intelligent design theorists typically assert that data from biology and other empirical sciences, by itself, requires the hypothesis of a designer. Benedict may have some sympathy for this view; he has questioned the evidence for "macro-evolution," meaning the transition from one species to another on the basis of random mutation and natural selection.

Benedict's deepest concern is that Darwinism has promoted scientific positivism, holding that only empirical science can produce certainty, and hence that religion, if it survives at all, can only do so as a subjective, emotional consolation against the cold indifference of the universe. In response, Benedict argues that Christianity relies on truths deeper than empirical observation, chief among them that life has purpose. In this sense, he believes in "intelligent design" -- not necessarily as the product of scientific observation, but as a metaphysical principle. In In the Beginning, Ratzinger writes: "We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. ... The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. ... Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me."

Enough concern has the church with matters related to the human condition and its results to embrace an effort (ID) that at best is deceitful. Let science to pursue real science and the church to pursue matters of the spirit. It would work better for both.

Its actually dangerous for the Catholic Church for the Vatican to get too close to American style ID positions. This would run the danger of conceding or implying that the doctrine of Biblical literalism is correct. This would mean abandoning centuries of Catholic tradition and endanger the basic Catholic doctrine that the Church possesses a set of extra-Biblical traditions and teachings that are uniquely valuable. Benedict is no dummy, clearly a more rigorous thinker than the DI folks, and their appearant expectation that the Vatican would break with tradition is another example of their sloppy, wishful thinking.

I note that the CC doesn't understand positivism. In particular, they seem to forget that Bellarmine was, in essence, a Catholic positivist who seemed to deny that science could discover anything about the world. It is scientific realism (defended by Galileo) that is their enemy, and it is that which actually undermines religious authority.

Anyone in Mr. Ratzinger's job has a professional obligation to believe that "life has purpose" and that the source of this purpose is "a Creating Intelligence." As long as he and his co-professionals are willing to stand on the ground that these are "truths deeper than empirical observation," these alleged truths are compatible with any empirical science whatsoever and, logically, this puts the Church out of the science evaluation business altogether.

They can still bemoan the tendency of science to lead people to what they believe are bad philosophical or theological views (the tendency is undeniable and many of us favor it), but at least if Mr. Ratzinger is serious, the Church will fight that battle and stay out of fights over science itself.

They can still bemoan the tendency of science to lead people to what they believe are bad philosophical or theological views (the tendency is undeniable and many of us favor it), but at least if Mr. Ratzinger is serious, the Church will fight that battle and stay out of fights over science itself.

I note that the CC doesn't understand positivism. In particular, they seem to forget that Bellarmine was, in essence, a Catholic positivist who seemed to deny that science could discover anything about the world.

— Keith Douglass

Unless those fights involve blastocysts.

— Coint

Adam:
You can accuse scientists of many things, but not that they are positivists. It is an old and inaccurate philosophical attempt at a unified description of science. Science is at the very least methodological naturalism, reductionism (fundamental theories) and emergentism (complementing models, effective theories) by method, and many scientists are realists.

"The fight over embryonic stem cells is a fight about ethics, not science."

It is a fight about ethics and science. There are ethics positions that refuse scientific information about biology and life. Those positions doesn't save lives. They give inferior science or stop it altogether, a science that will improve or save lives.

I'd like to see more detail on how Schoenborn distanced himself specifically.

It seems that the Pope is claiming the road that there is an ingelligent designer, namely God, however He designed. It's a shame that the ID movement has appropriated the phrase "intelligent design", so that it now means design through only one particular means, that of the Discovery Institute and their ilk. Were the Pope to now make the claim that he believes in Intelligent Design, many would misunderstand that as support for the DI, rather than simply a statement that God is intelligent and has a design- a statement that the Christian Church and many other religions have long held since their beginnings.

Bellarmine, of course, didn't believe that Galileo had sufficient evidence to challange the prevailing interpretation of the relevant scripture passages , but he did aknowledge that someone in the future might come up with such evidence."

It is a fight about ethics and science. There are ethics positions that refuse scientific information about biology and life. Those positions doesn't save lives. They give inferior science or stop it altogether, a science that will improve or save lives.

Were the Pope to now make the claim that he believes in Intelligent Design, many would misunderstand that as support for the DI, rather than simply a statement that God is intelligent and has a design- a statement that the Christian Church and many other religions have long held since their beginnings.

Benedict's deepest concern is that Darwinism has promoted scientific positivism, holding that only empirical science can produce certainty

But in case anyone asks, I'm not certain of that. :-)

"Perhaps someone should tell him that empirical science doesn't deal in certainty, and in fact certainty --- which is a mental attitude --- is strongly discouraged by the scientific method."

I don't think he is concerned that all scientists have become ontological materialists. I think he is concerned that too many non-scientists have done that, thereby leaving the church in the lurch. I think he is also concerned that fundamentalism is driving us all to forget the distinction between ontological and methodological materialism.

I think the Pope, like the last two or three before him feel more comfortable discussing the limitations of finding truth and certainty with scientists over the typical layman or especially fundamentalists.

I don't think he is concerned that all scientists have become ontological materialists.

Perhaps someone should tell him that empirical science doesn't deal in certainty,...

— Popper's Ghost

I see 3 major issues, the last of which I didn't notice from a quick read of the comments on this thread:

1. Is there an intelligent designer? No one expects the Vatican to change on that point, so it's useless to even speculate about it.

2. Is evolution the accepted explanation for the origin of species? They can either repeat their ~56 year position, add that it is better supported than ever, or perhaps expand on Pope John Paul II's observation that the evidence supporting evolution is - in stark contrast to ID/creationist arguments - "neither sought nor fabricated."

3. This is their chance to state in no uncertain terms that anti-evolution activism has, in recent decades, become first and foremost a misrepresentation of both science and religion. While it may once have been a collection of honest, if misled beliefs, it is now fully based on bearing false witness.

3. This is their chance to state in no uncertain terms that anti-evolution activism has, in recent decades, become first and foremost a misrepresentation of both science and religion. While it may once have been a collection of honest, if misled beliefs, it is now fully based on bearing false witness.

Frank- Well said on #3. It's a heresy and high time that Christian groups step up to the bat to speak that truth.

Frank- Well said on #3. It's a heresy and high time that Christian groups step up to the bat to speak that truth.

This is a test