Pope Says Evolution Can't Be Proven

[mortify]

"BERLIN - 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."

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution_1"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_...ope_evolution_1[/url]


You can use the fossil record to demonstrate a gradual change from simple organisms to more complex ones (generally speaking, not always the case) but to suggest that all of this is accidental and by chance is the truly preposterous claim.

[Maggyie]

Even the most devout atheistic evolutionist would have to admit that his theory can not be proven. Unless we invent a time machine or something!

[Megz]

thats dumb....evolution is a proven fact! It can work side by side with creationism but its not completely bunk

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Pope Benedict does not read the first chapter of Genesis literally. He is just saying evolution cannot be proven, a claim that I assume the vast majority of scientists would agree with. It can still be the best model for explaining the current state of life on earth, but there is no way to show definitively that it is what has/is taken/taking place. The multiple thoeries of evolution change continuously as new observations are made. God bless!

[Sanvean]

There are few things more subjective than science. Show me a scientist who thinks that science is capable of proving things... and I will show you a scientist who doesn't understand the scientific method.

The thing is, most people who are not, in fact, scientists believe just that. Who hasn't heard the tired ramblings of every other "scientist" out there about objective "knowledge" and all that jazz? It's one of my pet peeves. Of [i]course[/i] we can't prove evolution, just like we can't "prove" gravity or the fact that the sun will rise in the morning; science deals with probabilities, not certainties.

I'm thrilled by the Holy Father's new book! Scientific theories, like the many associated with evolutionary biology, were never [i]meant[/i] to answer philosophical questions. People forget that all the time, which leads so many of my peers to assume that a [i]real[/i] Philosopher or a [i]real[/i] scientist can't possibly have faith. It's foolishness- the reality is actually quite the contrary.

Authentic science, like authentic philosphy, can't help but lead us [i]towards[/i] faith.

I love the Holy Father. :

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Megz' post='1242355' date='Apr 13 2007, 10:57 PM']thats dumb....evolution is a proven fact! It can work side by side with creationism but its not completely bunk[/quote]

It's called Darwin's [b]Theory[/b] for a reason. I don't believe Papa B is trying to de-bunk it, and I certainly won't attempt to it, but I think he is saying we can't just stop at the theory and say that's all, nothing more.

To quote the article:

[quote]In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"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.[/quote]

Especially on that last line, I don't think any true scientist would disagree with what he is saying.

Edited April 14, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Ash Wednesday]

I think he's basically saying to keep an open mind about our origins.

I've never really had a problem with evolution to a certain extent but people often abuse science, and try to use it to assert their own personal agenda and deny God.


I loff ze pabst.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1242305' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:38 AM']"BERLIN - 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."

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution_1"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_...ope_evolution_1[/url]
You can use the fossil record to demonstrate a gradual change from simple organisms to more complex ones (generally speaking, not always the case) but to suggest that all of this is accidental and by chance is the truly preposterous claim.[/quote]

We do need to have an understanding of what is meant by "proven." Unfortunately, there can be confusion in the context.

* Will we ever have absolute, precise knowledge of the exact process of evolution? No--that is beyond the purview and abilities of science.
* Does evolution somehow disprove the existence of God? Of course not--science is not competent to discuss or evaluate the question of the existence or nature of God.
* Is evolution [i]as a general statement[/i] proven? Yes--it is a fact with sufficient evidence and extensive study.

In a scientific context, a concept is generally considered "proven" if it conclusively matches all evidence available, and has been extensively tested. However, science is not in the business of absolute proof, [i]and never has been[/i]. In science, there is always the possibility that tomorrow's research will overturn today's "proven" theory.

Il Papa, however, deals with theological concepts, that (according to his beliefs) are absolutely "proven," and are immutable. His use of the word in its theological context, and the use of the word in the scientific context, do not actually mean the same thing.

But [i]in the sense that Pope Benedict means the word[/i], he is correct--evolution cannot be "proven," because it will never have that absolute foundation of revealed truth that he ascribes to the theological truth that he holds to.

[Winchester]

Darwinism and evolution aren't synonyms.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242894' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:21 PM']* Is evolution [i]as a general statement[/i] proven? Yes--it is a fact with sufficient evidence and extensive study.

In a scientific context, a concept is generally considered "proven" if it conclusively matches all evidence available, and has been extensively tested. However, science is not in the business of absolute proof, [i]and never has been[/i]. In science, there is always the possibility that tomorrow's research will overturn today's "proven" theory.[/quote]

Justin,

No scientist worth her salt would ever, [b]ever[/b], say that evolution is "proven." Rather, she would tell you that it has, as of yet, not been disproved, and there is sufficient evidence to indicate a reasonable level of probability in favour of her evolutionary theory of choice. It's highly misleading to use the term, "prove," in this context.

All of this has to do with the nature of deductive and inductive validity. Research science can only really aim for positive establishment of premises in an inductive sense because, by nature, science relies on [i]a priori[/i] reasoning; we are extrapolating from past events to make causal inferences. Outside of mathematics, induction does not offer us what, in the English language, we commonly understand as a "proof."

Science can, however, [b]disprove[/b] things with certainty; this is the concept of falsifiability that often gets thrown around, and is a function of deductive logic. A universal statement obviously cannot be true if we have evidence that flatly contradicts it.

Anyway, it's because of all this(although the above is really a very brief summary; epistemology and philosophy of biology are my primary areas of study and, as anyone who knows me know, I can really go on about this issue [i]ad nauseum[/i]).

Anyway, more clearly: scientists don't like the the word "prove," and generally don't use it. A theologian might say that a thing is proven, and he can get away with that: to a large extent, theology is very axiomatic, and depends on [i]a priori[/i] reasoning. The word itself, however, really does mean the same thing to a philosopher, scientist, and theologian. To call a hypothesis about the external world "proven," is simply a way of putting a layperson's gloss on technical language, and that's never a good thing.

[quote]
But [i]in the sense that Pope Benedict means the word[/i], he is correct--evolution cannot be "proven," because it will never have that absolute foundation of revealed truth that he ascribes to the theological truth that he holds to.[/quote]

Obviously, I haven't read the Holy Father's latest book (as I understand it, it's not available in English yet, but I may be wrong). However, I daresay that he meant precisely what he said regarding the provability of evolutionary biology.

[Moneybags]

I would like to congratulate the Holy Father for this! I've written a post before called [url="http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/05/catholics-and-theory-of-evolution.html"]Catholics and the Theory of Evolution[/url] and it's clear that the Church does not teach evolution. From Pope St. Pius X to Pope Pius XII, evolution has not been endorsed. I'm so glad the Holy Father wrote what he did.

[mortify]

Evolution is a dogma in its own way for modern people. Questioning it, even in the subtle way the Pope did, is very taboo.

Personally, learning about the systems in our bodies leads me to believe it's more likely they somehow appeared fully formed at the same time. These body systems are incredibly complex, to move blood in a constant single direction under changing circumstances of biological stress requires unimaginable mechanisms. To think this and other systems gradually evolved is unthinkable (to me). I can't imagine how the blind processes that govern evolution knew that only veins require valves while arteries don't, or that veins are to be of one particular composition of muscles and flesh and arteries another. If these things didn't exist the way they do we wouldn't survive. Only God could have orchestrated such perfection, and to me, believing that we are created by God is the more plausible explanation.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Sanvean' post='1242937' date='Apr 14 2007, 03:02 PM']Justin,

No scientist worth her salt would ever, [b]ever[/b], say that evolution is "proven."[/quote]

Dearheart, we've discussed this--I'm aware of the difference. I'm trying to translate the technical usage of the scientific community from jargon to clear English. While I understand that you feel this is a bad idea, I feel that a limited understanding is better than no understanding at all.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1243277' date='Apr 14 2007, 10:03 PM']Dearheart, we've discussed this--I'm aware of the difference. I'm trying to translate the technical usage of the scientific community from jargon to clear English. While I understand that you feel this is a bad idea, I feel that a limited understanding is better than no understanding at all.[/quote]

Yes, I know what you're intending to do. It's not that I think it's a bad idea to explain technical language. In fact, I advocate it- I just think it's important to be precise in our translations, and "proof" is a misleading term.

Why not just give proper definitions of terms?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1242986' date='Apr 14 2007, 03:46 PM']Evolution is a dogma in its own way for modern people. Questioning it, even in the subtle way the Pope did, is very taboo.[/quote]

Um, Mortify, while such statements are very popular amongst the anti-Evolution crowd, it is flatly false. People question evolution every day--not only in its specifics, but the general body of knowledge. There is a difference, however--when someone just flatly says "I don't believe evolution because it goes against my belief," no one in the scientific community cares.

Science is not at all concerned with beliefs--such things are outside of the purview of science. Indeed, I do not state that I "believe" the theory of evolution, though it is true that I accept it as the best [i]material[/i] explanation for the biological diversity present on earth. The fact that I believe that God guided that evolution is utterly and totally irrelevant to the scientific revelance of the theory.

[quote]Personally, learning about the systems in our bodies leads me to believe it's more likely they somehow appeared fully formed at the same time. These body systems are incredibly complex, to move blood in a constant single direction under changing circumstances of biological stress requires unimaginable mechanisms. To think this and other systems gradually evolved is unthinkable (to me). I can't imagine how the blind processes that govern evolution knew that only veins require valves while arteries don't, or that veins are to be of one particular composition of muscles and flesh and arteries another. If these things didn't exist the way they do we wouldn't survive. Only God could have orchestrated such perfection, and to me, believing that we are created by God is the more plausible explanation.[/quote]

I'm happy for you. Now, such beliefs as yours are admirable ... but they do not, and cannot, contradict the facts.

I was raised in a Biblical-literalist church, and was taught that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four hour days right around 4004 or so. Now, that belief [i]does[/i] attempt to contradict the facts--it fails miserably, because facts are stubborn things, and they don't go away if you ignore them or believe something that contradicts them. But fundamentally, no one in the scientific community cares what you believe.

Well, let me amend that--Richard Dawkins cares, but (IMrhO), he's a moron anyway for thinking that evolution somehow "disproves" God.