Vatican: Evolution and faith in creation are complementary; cardinal rejects atheist's theory

[moobu2]

Cardinal Says Atheist's Theories "Absurd"

A Vatican cardinal said Tuesday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as "absurd" the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reiterated church teaching about faith and science at the start of a Vatican-sponsored conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Levada said the Vatican believed there was a "wide spectrum of room" for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

"We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things," he said.

If they believe "God is the creator of all things" and "creation has come about and evolved" then why not just call that what it is? It’s creationism aka intelligent design..

Vatican officials later made clear they did not believe intelligent design was science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only created confusion.

link to the story

[trotsky]

1. Evolution doesn't prove there is no god, it just proves that a god is not necessary...

to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Someone needs to provide Levada with a summary of the "God of the Gaps" concept.

[pinqy]

2. It's not Intelligent Design...

Intelligent Design is the contention that it can be shown/demonstrated/proven that Evolution MUST have had a Designer, and that Naturalistic Evolution models are at best incomplete.

The Church doesn't make that claim. Their position is better described as Theistic Evolution which doesn't argue at all against Naturlistic Evolution except for the Theological position that a Creator must have been involved. The key difference is that ID claims that it is scientifically demonstrable that a Creator was involved, while TE holds it as a metaphysical positon.

The basic positions as I see them are:

Atheistic Evolution: Evolution is a natural process, and disproves the existence of any gods. This is a minority opinion because the conclusion of no gods goes beyond the boundaries of science. Creationists and IDers try to claim this is the only non-ID belief of Evolution.

Naturalistic Evolution: Evolution is a natural process. No further claims. This is the majority belief.

Theistic Evolution: Evolution is a natural process that does not conflict with religious beliefs and is the tool God used. No claim of evidence that this is true and is held as a theological belief. This is the Catholic belief and generally the belief of mainstream Protestants, the Orthodox churches, and liberal Islam and Judaism.

Intelligent Design: Evolution sort of occurred, but did not and cannot occur as a natural process and requires the intervention of a Deity and this can be demonstrated scientifically. In my opinion, some people are sincere in this belief, and others are simply Creationists in disguise.

Creationism: Goddidit like the Bible said, and Evolution is wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Couple of problems there -

As an atheist myself, I do not hold to, nor have I ever read, the contention that evolution 'disproves' god. There is NO scientific basis for that conclusion, and no rationalist I've ever met will make a claim that is unprovable. Anyone who says that is not an atheist, but an anti-theist which is just a religious flip of the coin.

Your ID definition says they believe "this can be demonstrated scientifically". It cannot. It never has been. There is no provable, repeatable test that has ever been offered up by IDers. That means it is not science, but is instead just a different take on creationism. Unless God comes down to work as your lab partner, nothing attributed to Him can possibly be called science.

Your other three definitions are spot on, though.

[pinqy]

5. Clarifications

I guess I wasn't clear that the label "Atheistic Evolution" wasn't meant to describe the position of most atheists. There are some, a minority as I stated, who do go so far as to say Evolution disproves God(s), but the position of the vast majority of non-theists is simply Naturalistic Evolution.

I hesitated to even use the label, but that is how most IDers/Creationist label the position (though they make the false claim that it is THE position of atheists) and I was at a loss to come up with a better descriptor.

"Your ID definition says they believe "this can be demonstrated scientifically". It cannot. It never has been. " Well, of course not. But that doesn't change their belief. They do believe it can be demonstrated scientifically, so that claim is a valid and necessary part of the description.

[struggle4progress]

4. Science, by definition, does not consider any supernaturality in any sense: it is concerned

purely with natural explanations

It is confused thinking, to imagine that science could prove or disprove the existence of some supernaturality -- because science never even considers the possibility of any supernaturality

One might discuss what "supernaturality" meant, what standards one could adopt for deciding whether or not to believe in a "supernaturality," and whether any part of our experience met that standard -- but by definition it will not be a scientific discussion

[skepticscott]

9. Supernaturality is a meaningless, invented concept

invoked only by people who need to believe in "something" that those damn scientists can't question. I would argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as the supernatural, except in our imaginations.
There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If such things as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same inviolable natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending these laws would be simply that-appearance. A ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "supernatural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered.

[struggle4progress]

10. My point is simply this: it is circular reasoning to claim that "because science does not find

anything supernatural, there is nothing supernatural." The claim begs the question it pretends to answer, because science (by definition) does not accept supernatural explanations. Regardless of what stand you take on "the supernatural," you should be able to recognize that claim "because science does not find anything supernatural, there is nothing supernatural" implicitly assumes what it purports to prove

I myself am not very interested in "the supernatural" (whatever the term might mean) -- but I also dislike sloppy reasoning

[skepticscott]

11. I wouldn't put the assertion quite that way

although you're right, some people do, because they can't divorce themselves of the idea of the supernatural, and it is a sloppy way of thinking.

I would say instead that there is no need for the concept of the supernatural, because it's always possible to define "nature" in a way that is sensible and that includes those things (like gods, or angels) that some people try to place outside its boundaries. If things that some people like to refer to as "supernatural" actually exist, then they are, in fact, natural, and are potentially comprehensible as explanations for natural phenomenon. The fact that science can find no evidence or need for something says more about whether it actually exists in the first place than whether it fits some people's arbitrary definition of "supernatural" or not.

[struggle4progress]

12. What I'm saying requires no opinion regarding existence of "the supernatural":

the particular sloppy thinking, to which I object here, is the view that science has found no evidence of "the supernatural" and therefore there is no such thing: that is circular reasoning, because, by definition, science simply does not consider "the supernatural" but only "the natural"

It is, of course, true that scientific inquiry has often found natural explanations for phenomena ignorantly alleged to be "supernatural" -- but it can never happen that that a truly scientific inquiry concludes that an allegedly "supernatural" phenomenon really is "supernatural", because by definition science seeks only natural explanations

Science, by definition, will find no "supernatural phenomena": Any "supernatural phenomena," by definition, lie beyond the scope of any scientific inquiry; whether or not there are any "supernatural phenomena," cannot be addressed by scientific methods or arguments

[sakabatou]

6. Evolution doesn't prove there is no god

It says nothing on it.

[Occam Bandage]

7. The claim that evolution proves there is no God is indeed absurd. Few make such a claim, though.

If they believe "God is the creator of all things" and "creation has come about and evolved" then why not just call that what it is? It’s creationism aka intelligent design.

Well, no. They believe in natural selection. "Intelligent design" is the claim that God directly interfered with the evolutionary process. Creationism is the claim that God created the world in something roughly similar to its present state. The Catholic Church believes that God created the universe and all its physical laws, and that the evolutionary process occurred through natural selection. That is entirely in keeping with science. It is not a scientific belief, but it is not a belief that is at odds with science, either.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a religion that says, "you know what, science? If you say it happened a certain way, then it happened that way. God's behind everything, but I ain't gonna argue with the facts of what he's done or how he did it."

[SarahJohn]

8. I see no

problem with faith and evolution. We don't know the complete story on either. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the whole creation was simply awesome.

[AlphaCentauri]

13. Here is a book that explain the Catholic point of view in the relation of God and science

http://www.spiritusmedia.org/To_save_you_book.pdf

[Random_Australian]

14. Atheist notion that they can't go together? He means creationists, right? n/t