Pope Benedict, Theistic Evolutionist

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain. "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said. "This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.

I'm not too concerned about Pope Benedict not having a full technical appreciation of evolutionary science. What was of more concern to me was whether he was going to come out as an advocate of "intelligent design", which was precisely what the ID creationism advocates were sure would happen in the wake of the Cardinal Schonborn letter published in the NYT in 2005. By the reports, Pope Benedict is content with pursuing a non-conflict model of the interaction between science and religion, which will be a big disappointment to fans of the conflict model on both sides of the aisle.

Pope Benedict is content with pursuing a non-conflict model of the interaction between science and religion

A lot of the coverage has concentrated on Benedict's stance against atheism

Now that I read more than an excerpt, my comments on Talk.Origins were a bit harsh. But that's the problem. If someone like a Pope is going to say anything about evolution, he should expect the media and anti-evolution activists to bend over backwards to twist it to imply that he is friendly to pseudoscience. So someone in his position, regardless of the potential risk of loss of congregation, has a moral obligation to not just unequivocally endorse good science and criticize the spin put on it by atheists, but also denounce anti-evolution scams that simply bear false witness.

At the least I would have appreciated a rebuttal to Cardinal Schonborn's baseless assertion that Pope John Paul II added nothing significant. The phrase "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" (referring to the multiple lines of independent evidence supporting evolution) were strong words, and, intentionally or not, a subtle reminder that anti-evolution arguments are all sought and fabricated, and are lately diverging into "don't ask, don't tell".

Pope Benedict's previous comments on evolution illustrated the absurdity that Wesley mentions above. Instead of expanding on how well the evidence supports common ancestry of species and a timeline that renders Genesis a mere allegory, he chose to dwell on how he rejects atheism. Just in case anyone wasn't sure.

Now that I read more than an excerpt, my comments on Talk.Origins were a bit harsh. But that's the problem. If someone like a Pope is going to say anything about evolution, he should expect the media and anti-evolution activists to bend over backwards to twist it to imply that he is friendly to pseudoscience. So someone in his position, regardless of the potential risk of loss of congregation, has a moral obligation to not just unequivocally endorse good science and criticize the spin put on it by atheists, but also denounce anti-evolution scams that simply bear false witness.

At the least I would have appreciated a rebuttal to Cardinal Schonborn's baseless assertion that Pope John Paul II added nothing significant. The phrase "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" (referring to the multiple lines of independent evidence supporting evolution) were strong words, and, intentionally or not, a subtle reminder that anti-evolution arguments are all sought and fabricated, and are lately diverging into "don't ask, don't tell".

Pope Benedict's previous comments on evolution illustrated the absurdity that Wesley mentions above. Instead of expanding on how well the evidence supports common ancestry of species and a timeline that renders Genesis a mere allegory, he chose to dwell on how he rejects atheism. Just in case anyone wasn't sure.

So someone in his position, regardless of the potential risk of loss of congregation, has a moral obligation to not just unequivocally endorse good science and criticize the spin put on it by atheists, but also denounce anti-evolution scams that simply bear false witness.

Interesting, I haven't seen any of that.

A pope is as good a source on the validity of scientific theory as a theoretical physicist is on matters of Catholic theology.

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.

very interesting how the human mind can adapt an argument to suit its dogma... i guess that can only go so far before it becomes ridiculous. how many trilobites died for our sins?

This is a very UNsurprising story.

The current pope is drawn to the political right at times. (He went as far as to endorse the idea that reproductive/sexual issues should be "prioritized" over Catholic opposition to war and the death penalty in the 2004 US election. The pope and "conservative" bishops thus pretty much openly campaigned against Kerry and for Bush, even though Kerry is a practicing Catholic and the immediate prior pope, no "liberal", had preached perhaps even more strongly against executions and war than against reproductive/sexual issues. It is mathematically possible that Kerry would have been elected if he had not lost the Catholic vote to Bush.)

However, the Catholic hierarchy is full of very intelligent and educated men. It includes people with full understanding of evolution. They all know perfectly well that denying scientific reality is not a good long term strategy. If the pope were dumb enough to throw the lot of the Catholic church in with that of a transient, politically-motivated US pseudoscience movement (a movement which accomplished nothing and whose political "allies" are becoming very unpopular), the pope could not have been elected pope in the first place.

As for the broader question of whether "theistic evolution" conflicts with "science", or whether "science" and "religion" inevitably conflict, I would suggest that these terms are far too imprecise and generalized to form any such conclusion, particularly the terms "theistic" and "religion".

I would leave it up to each individual to decide whether his or her personal religion conflicts with some aspect of science.

As for the Catholic religion, Ken Miller and two popes have now assured me that it does not conflict with evolution. They're the Catholics, they're experts on biology and theology respectively, and so that's good enough for me as far as that specific question goes.

My typically complex personal relationship with Catholicism is not very relevant here, but for disclosure, I was not raised Catholic, I am adamently opposed to Catholic teachings on birth control and sexual orientation but agree with them on the death penalty, poverty, and war, some branches of my family are culturally Catholic, and I am proudly the godfather of a nine month old nephew who was baptized in a Catholic ceremony.

I don't practice a formal religion but perceive dharmic religions, especially some forms of zen, as reflecting reality, for me, better than Hobbesian atheism. This causes me to be more tolerant of the idea that formal religion, for all its obvious harmful effects, may reflect an approximate striving for a universal "truth" (for want of a better word) than some other posters.

I am also a massive proponent of human rights, which means that I respect the right of others to believe and express themselves as they wish, as long as they, too, respect the rights of others.

I think the question of whether we would be "better off without religion" is highly similar to the question of whether we would be "better off without too much technological progress". Neither is answerable in an objective way, and both refer to human behavior patterns which are so ingrained, it is meaningless to conjecture whether we would be "better off" without them or not.

The Pope seems to have adopted a nonconflict position with regard to science. A wise idea.

One of the low points in the Catholic church was burning Grigorio Bruno at the stake for among other things, claiming that the earth circles the sun. They almost did the same thing to Galileo. This sort of thing results in bad PR that can take centuries to live down. One hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

JC said, "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and unto god what is gods." Meaning don't try to overthrow secular authority in the name of religion. Good way to get yourself crucified or tossed to the lions. The basic principle is sound.

He could have said, render unto science what is science's and unto god what is gods. It is bad religion to knock heads with reality. The two don't overlap that much in subject and have coexisted without many problems for hundreds of years.

It's really only a modern fundie cultish wing that is having problems. The Catholics and mainstream Protestants have better things to do than dumb down science classes.

"Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain."

I agree. "purely random selection" could not reasonably be expected to produce anything. Just like the purely random dealing of cards in a poker tournament provides no information as to who will win. Funny how the same names always seem to end up on top in poker tournaments. I wonder why that is. Maybe the "selection" is not really random!

You have to admire a guy who can walk such a fine line as the pope. Not denying the truth of evolution while still trying to keep the faithful in line is not an easy task. Still, he should really have someone check for technical errors before printing something so absurd.

"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain. "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said. "This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.

One interpretation of Glen's last quote is that if there had not been divine guidance, creatures may not have climbed the ladder of evolution that led to humans. And that's a very fundamental and important misunderstanding of evolution.

... "The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory. "We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he said.

I appreciated his remarks. But the statement that "evolution is not completely provable" was a little concerning for me. It's true, you can't absolutely prove it, just as nothing can absolutely be proved in science. But I would wish he'd clarified that more, instead of making it sound like retrodiction is not as valid a method of discovering truth as an experiment in a lab. Too often the layity gets the impression that, to be scientific, it must be in a lab. We see this kind of reasoning all the time from the ID folks.

It's looking like this Pope is kinda sorta trying to waffle between the perfectly sensible position of JP-II, and the irrational right-wing zealotry that's gaining power among Catholics in AFrica and other places. Pope Palpadict has always been strongly for traditionalism and against liberalization (the political upheavals of the '60s terrified him), and has tentatively offered bits of red meat to the irrational right before; so I would be scared, but not surprised, to see him doing the same on any other hot-button topic, including evolution.

He's still in the right place, but he's slowly drifting in the wrong direction.

I adamently abhore anti-Catholic bigotry, but I do feel that some very specific statements about the observed behavior of the current pope are in order. These comments are not intended to reflect on the Catholic faith, nor on the spiritual role of the pope, but rather on his human behavior.

With apologies to anyone who may be offended, the current pope is generally quite "sneaky" in the way he expresses himself.

His current statements are an obvious attempt not to deny evolution, while saying everything he can to mollify wingnuts who desperately wish he would.

The pope can't end his shifty love affair with the American right wing. Everything he ever says seems to be designed to claim that Catholic-incompatible right wing politics is actually okay when some contortions are applied. Note for example that he recently "lamented the waste" in Iraq but wouldn't condemn the war.

But in the end, he didn't endorse ID, nor actually deny evolution.

That may actually represent a major nail in the coffin of ID. This is a pope who is perceived as dedicating himself to supporting the American domestic right wing; he's often referred to as the "Domino's Pope" because the founder of Domino's Pizza is a major right wing Catholic Bush donor in the US.

If this pope wouldn't overtly support ID, it's never going to happen.

(Note on the terminology "right wing" - the current combination of authoritarianism, pseudo-theocracy, militarism, cronyism, and corruption can hardly be called "conservative". It's true that these policies are perceived as "wrong" not "right" by many of us, and it's true that there's no longer a viable extreme, communist "left wing" to speak of in the US. But "right wing" is a very well understood term that expresses reality quite succinctly.)

Raven said: "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and unto God what is God's." Meaning don't try to overthrow secular authority in the name of religion."

Actually, Jesus was referring there more to the idea that money is unimportant and should not be the thing that people of the Kingdom of God strive for.

The Pope hauls out the "Only a Theory" card, Wesley R. Elsberry applauds.

I'm not sure how much the Pope is trying to balance here, between evolution's truth and his followers. It's not like there's a lot of Catholics out there who are against evolution- they are an extreme minority within Catholicism.

Actually, Jesus was referring there more to the idea that money is unimportant and should not be the thing that people of the Kingdom of God strive for.

Wikipedia: Hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman occupation. The trap was that if he advocated tax-paying, he would lose his credibility as a Messiah (if not his life to a lynch mob), but that if he advocated nonpayment, the power of the Roman state could be turned against him. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus first called them out on their attempt to trap him, then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying such a tax. One of them handed such a coin to him, and he held it up and asked them to tell him whose name and inscription were on it. They answered that these were Caesar's and he responded "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." His interrogators were flummoxed by this, and left without having succeeded in pinning him down.

I surprised at how quick some posters here are to criticize Benedict's book given that 1) they haven't read it and 2) how little information about it is available in the linked article. Most of the article constitutes paraphrase, and little context is provided for what few actual quotations are given. Furthemore, it's obvious the author of the article does not have a good grasp of evolution or theology, so it's very likely his account of Benedict's views is not accurate.

May I humbly suggest that people lay of Benedict until they actually read his book, or at the very least, read a more trustworthy review of it?

Jedidiah: Actually, Jesus was answering the question "Should we pay tribute to Caesar?" Which went to the loyalties and political duties required of Christians. And Jesus' answer -- far from being a dodge -- was to say that Christians (like everyone else) must decide their political loyalties based on their own judgement of their respective situations and their worldly moral duties therein. Today, it may make sense to support Caesar; tomorrow, civil disobedience, defection or revolution may be in order. In either case, the Bible is not about politics, and Jesus talks to Christians on all sides of all worldly conflicts.

Of course, from Jesus's POV, he was advising Jews, not Christians, on their relationship to secular authority.

/nitpick

See a visual commentary on the Catholic Church's inability to evolve...here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/04/the_evolution_of_catholicism.php"

Raging Bee -

It seems that we share a similar opinion of the pope, except that you see him as "moving" in a certain direction, while I think that he's already there. And you see him as being motivated by views indigenous to Africa, whereas I see him as primarily concerned with the politics of the US - he gave up on Italy long ago :-) - and simply promoting of the same policies and people in Africa as everywhere else.

It may actually have been quite painful for this pope - who found a contorted way to support a right wing, war-making, execution-loving Protestant over a practicing Catholic for president - to have to deny the wingnuts their joy.

Incidentally, when I refer to the current president as a "Protestant", I mean in terms of public presentation. I don't mean to imply any actual adherence to "Christian" values. I can't read minds, but the policies of the last eight years have not been consistent with any traditional concept of "Christian values", stem cell ban notwithstanding.

That should be seven years - I'm giddy with anticipation - but whatever.

I would have to say that I was disappointed in what I read because the current pope gave indications in the past that he would be an ardent supporter of good science. The International Theological Commission, which was headed by Benedict before he became Pope had issued statments that were much less equivocal and straightforward in their support of science, while simultaneously claiming, in their view, the role of the divine. Consider these statements which came from the Benedict (then Ratzinger)-led commission:
"God is...the cause of causes....Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation."The comission also referred to evolution as a "radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation", but concluded "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation."
That seems to me to be the best case scenario for science and theology to overlap without being in utter conflict. Perhaps he didn't really endorse those statements, or perhaps he allowed them to be published because they were what he thought his predecessor wanted to hear.

After reading PZ's post, I have to agree with him more on this one. BXI seems clearly loath to do what he should have done, which is to trust the intelligence of the general population and remind RCs of what Thomas Aquinas called 'the doctrine of secondary causes' and that there's no need to doubt the scientific accuracy of evolution. Instead, too much of what he said does sound like Dembski, channeled by Schonborn during their Labor Day conference, at which, as I recall, only one scientist, and an elderly one, was invited.

(sigh)

PB--exactly. Why didn't the pope just reiterate the commission, and have done with it?

About a quarter to a third of the article I linked to concerned that topic.

But the statement that "evolution is not completely provable" was a little concerning for me.

May I humbly suggest that people lay of Benedict until they actually read his book,

And we know from William Dembski that "intelligent design theorists" are no friends of theistic evolution

"Directed evolution" properly falls under ID.

If you asked the pope whether he thought the natural world was the product of a designing mind or just a product of itself, he would answer a designing mind of course. Thus he is a proponent of at least what we might call, a design explanation. However, does he think that design in nature is detectable? (or to put it a bit more theologically, does he think the heavens declare the glory of God or that the invisible attributes of God are known by what people can see in nature?)

If the pope holds to this view that God's handiwork can be seen, then he inadvertently supports the general idea behind Intelligent Design.

If evolutionist want to claim him and the catholic church among their supporters, then they must redefine the word evolution as just referring to a mechanism that may or may not have been designed by God. Theistic Evolution and Darwinian Evolution are not synonymous right?

MS

"evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Then name one that is.

Mark Studdock said: If evolutionist want to claim [The Pope] and the catholic church among their supporters, then they must redefine the word evolution as just referring to a mechanism that may or may not have been designed by God.

Theistic Evolution and Darwinian Evolution are not synonymous right?

Is there a substantive difference?

"evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." Then name one that is.

Why would God use such a time consuming, inexact process such as evolution as a vehicle for creation? Is God dumb as a fence post? Impotent?

Using dust and a man's rib (to creat the broads) seems much quicker than sitting on your ass for a few million years waiting for this trait or that trait to catch on.

Saying "I am a theistic evolutionist" is like saying "I am dumb as a brick, I just don't want to admit it"

Nutty.

Why would God use such a time consuming, inexact process such as evolution as a vehicle for creation? Is God dumb as a fence post? Impotent? Using dust and a man's rib (to creat the broads) seems much quicker than sitting on your ass for a few million years waiting for this trait or that trait to catch on. Saying "I am a theistic evolutionist" is like saying "I am dumb as a brick, I just don't want to admit it" Nutty.

True, God may not have to wait, being "outside time and space" and all, whatever the hell that means. However, it still would remain true that the process God chose to produce us, took many millions of years (the exact figure depending on your choice of intervention moment). And the question remains: why in the universe would he do that if he could in fact make it happen far more directly and far more quickly. The passing of time may not be a problem for his Holy Timelessness, but is that reason to construct the equivalent (from a Designer's perspective) of a Rube Goldberg machine to make it come about? God must have quite a sense of humor, and not just with the platypus.

Science Avenger,

I am glad that you are willing to consider God's timelessness, even if maybe just as a thought experiment. However, I am not quite sure if you have absorbed all the implications. For a being that can see everything in an instant, concepts like "millions of years" and "more directly and more quickly" cannot at all have any of their usual meaning for us human beings.

I don't know about God's humor, but I could imagine that it is sort of "fun" to make the world make itself, instead of just making the world. If you were a timeless being and had the ability to create the world, might you not find it much more (intellectually) satisfying to pre-set exact initial conditions and watch the processes of physical and biological evolution grow (doesn't cost you time, given that you can see every slice of it in an instant), than just to "put stuff there and that's it"?

I personally find the processes of evolution awesome ones (and I find the physical evolution of the universe from the big bang to the formation of later-generation stars and planets just as fantastic as biological evolution). Since I have started to study these things more deeply, the concept of God has become for me even greater than it already was.

(BTW, I liked your blog entry "Debating as the lone atheist vs. the true believers".)