Vatican-sponsored Evolution Conference Snubs ID

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,174
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Discovery Institute Miffed by Vatican Snub

ROME (AP) — A Vatican-backed conference on evolution is under attack from people who weren’t invited to participate: those espousing creationism and intelligent design.

The Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design research, says it was shut out from presenting its views because the meeting was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a major U.S. nonprofit that has criticized the intelligent design movement. ...

Organizers of the five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

While there are some Darwinian dissenters present, intelligent design didn’t fit the bill, they said. “We think that it’s not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one,” said the Rev. Marc Leclerc, the conference director and a professor of philosophy of nature at the Gregorian. “This makes a dialogue very difficult, maybe impossible.”

But the Vatican didn’t only dismiss “intelligent design.” In his opening address, one of the Cardinals in charge of the event also had strong words for young earth creationism:

In addition to intelligent design, creationism has come under disdain at the conference. In his opening address, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke dismissively of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. who want schools to teach biblical creationism alongside, or instead of, evolution.

So, the Vatican is essentially admitting that the Bible isn't really true?
:popcorn1
 
I remember hearing something about this awhile ago when the Vatican first announced that they were doing something like this.

I also remember that they didn't want Atheists to attend.
 
"Some bits" are metaphorical. Indeed. Have they ever issued a definitive list of which bits are metaphorical and which bits are actually true? That would interesting. :D

Actually, they're big on avademic theology, I wouldn't be surprised if such a list existed more or less.
 
Actually, they're big on avademic theology, I wouldn't be surprised if such a list existed more or less.

Is everything "miraculous" to be taken as metaphor then?
I think that the dead coming back to life would violate the law of entropy, so I suppose that those bits would be metaphorical. Or is the "resurrection" to be downgraded to a "near death experience," which are fairly commonplace occurences.
 
Is everything "miraculous" to be taken as metaphor then?

No. But for example the feeding of the 5000 will be translated as the feeding of rather a lot and they may have had food all along everyone was just hideing it.


I think that the dead coming back to life would violate the law of entropy,

No. The laws of entropy say that it is unlikely but if you wait long enough it will happen. In this case long enough is rather a lot of orders of magnitude greater than the expected life of the universe.

so I suppose that those bits would be metaphorical. Or is the "resurrection" to be downgraded to a "near death experience," which are fairly commonplace occurences.

The church still goes in for the literal truth of the resurrection.
 
Discovery Institute Miffed by Vatican Snub

So, the Vatican is essentially admitting that the Bible isn't really true?
:popcorn1

The RC church has always held that tradition (mainly as espoused by the various early "Doctor"s of the church) are at least as important as the Bible. That is one of the main theological breaking points that Martin Luther had with them. That stance has always made the church appear somewhat slippery and unpredictable - for example, contrast the mood of this statement on evolution with what the Viennese cardinal wrote in the New York Times op-ed about five years ago, which said that evolution could not be squared with church theology (which may have been authored by the DI, as it happens). The head of the Vatican's observatory was particularly vehement about that statement, and I'm sure there has been considerable backstage maneuvering, particularly from the Jesuits, since.

You won't find any definitive list of bits. The church's position is mainly that evolution is certainly within god's power, and all they require of him (!) is that he drop an immortal soul into the race of mankind at some point that differentiates us spiritually from the rest of creation. For the RC's purposes, Y-chrome Adam (since the church is based on Jewish patriarchialism) or any of his patriarchial ancestors would do nicely.

That is not to say there are not fundamentalists within the RC, but they are usually tied up in arguments about using Latin in the mass and such.
 
Catholics were from the very beginning saying that most of the Bible is a mystery that can't be understood by human minds, you need the priesthood to tell you what it really means, and reading it yourself would just confuse you and lead you to wrong conclusions. A few centuries ago, the Bible was actually on the index of forbidden books. I'm not kidding you.

And one of the earliest catholic saints was St Augustine Of Hippo, who wrote that only an idiot would take the Genesis literally. In fact, he made a whole book out of that. He got sanctified for his efforts.

Of course this created the situation where Vatican could invent any doctrine it wanted, and not care less about whether the Bible says so or says the exact opposite. The Purgatory or the wholesale-scale sale of indulgences are probably the most widely quoted examples of this.

The idea of taking the Bible literally is a fundamentally protestant position. In fact, that's how protestantism got started in the first place and that was its thrust: screw the Pope, if it's not in the Bible, it's just Bull ;)

Basically you can't paint all christians with the same brush. Especially if you go debunking it, it really helps to know what you debunk. Because trying to treat catholicism as biblical literalism isn't really going to get you anywere. Those guys don't believe in their own bible (or in its exact literal text) to start with.

Still illogical, yes, but it's a very different kind of illogical.

But to get back to the actual topic, the catholic church has coexisted pretty well with the Aristotelian "science" before, and in fact endorsed it. Then eventually, during the counter-reformation, it learned to live with the normal science too. The Jesuits for example are pretty much a science order sponsored by the Vatican. Those guys run universities and research labs. And, yes, teach evolution.
 
This is awesome!

"We think that it’s not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one,” said the Rev. Marc Leclerc

OUCH!

The Catholic church called ID and by extention Discovery institute Bollocks.
 
This is awesome!



OUCH!

The Catholic church called ID and by extention Discovery institute Bollocks.

Thats rather the point. The catholic church knowns competition when it sees it.
 
...snip...

So, the Vatican is essentially admitting that the Bible isn't really true?
:popcorn1

At the heart of the Catholic faith is that the Church itself is the source of revelation and the guide to getting your halo and wings, what some old book says has always been a bit of an embarrassment for the RCC! ;)
 
Thats rather the point. The catholic church knowns competition when it sees it.
I don't care about what debate may/may not exist between "true christians". I'm happy that another group is calling DI out for what it is, non-science.
 
"Some bits" are metaphorical. Indeed. Have they ever issued a definitive list of which bits are metaphorical and which bits are actually true? That would interesting. :D

Which raises the obvious question - can we take bits of the list as metaphorical?
 
Maybe there is an element of cutting their losses.
The RCC already have alot of fairy tales, and don´t need to add ID to it.
Particulary since ID got some pretty loud opposition in science.
Resurrection is safer, there is not enough people that cares.
 
Which raises the obvious question - can we take bits of the list as metaphorical?

If you're the Pope.

Seriously, it all goes back to the same idea that got us the papal infallibility: the Pope is personally guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine, and thus can tell you exactly what was meant there or if God changed his mind. If you're not the Pope, you don't get the same direct line to heavens, so you don't get to pick what's metaphor and what isn't.
 

Back
Top Bottom