Evolution and the Pope

Here:

http://www.cnet.com/news/pope-says-evolution-doesnt-mean-theres-no-god/#ftag=CAD590a51e

That's not a bad view, and is several orders of magnitude preferable to the largely American protestant view that evolution is a mere guess (you know, "just" a theory). And better still than the "young creationist" idea that the Universe is under 6,500 years old, complete with fake evidence to make it look older (I call this the Joker as god theory).

But the Pope is still wrong. He claims the deity set up organisms to evolve in order to reach some kind of fulfillment. All the evidence known contradicts this. not only is evolution unpredictable, but natural selection isn't aiming for some goal. Evolution isn't even "progress," except in the sense of moving along in time. Traits which get discarded may reappear, such as the human eye's third pigment which is absent from most mammals. "Advanced" traits (meaning traits that build upon other traits over a lot of time) may disappear as well (I can't think of an example).

Still, I much prefer a religious leader who accepts evidence to those who do not. This means that, in time, the Church should come around to sveral points of view which they now regard as anathema.

I'm curious what these anathema positions might be. I am also curious as to when science will open itself up in realizing that philosophy, theology, and ethics can alone take the facts observed and discovered into the realm of purpose, meaning, and morality.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm curious what these anathema positions might be.

You could start with me and work your way down.

Quote:

I am also curious as to when science will open itself up in realizing that philosophy, theology, and ethics can alone take the facts observed and discovered into the realm of purpose, meaning, and morality.

Science has little to do with purpose and meaning and morality. The people who try to use science to refute religion are missing the point. It's like using math to refute art, or music theory to refute a political position. In all three cases what one needs is philosophy, not science.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm curious what these anathema positions might be.

BTW I am not using anathema in its strict ecclesiastical sense. But rather in its more widely known, common sense.

Quote: Nareed

Science has little to do with purpose and meaning and morality. The people who try to use science to refute religion are missing the point. It's like using math to refute art, or music theory to refute a political position. In all three cases what one needs is philosophy, not science.

You are after my own heart! What an awesome post!

Quote: FrGamble

when science will open itself up in realizing that philosophy, theology, and ethics can alone take the facts observed and discovered into the realm of purpose, meaning, and morality.

When hell freezeth over? When swine sprouteth wings
and take flight? When the cows cometh home?

Quote: Nareed

Science has little to do with purpose and meaning and morality. .

Explain that to FrGamble who wants to prove
there is sin with science. With science you
can prove what's true, with religion you can
prove absolutely nothing. Name one thing
Christianity proves in the factual world.

Just one.

That you are not perfect but you long to be.

Quote: FrGamble

That you are not perfect but you long to be.

We love imperfection. I love my dog
because he's not perfect. My house
and my car and my hobbies are far
from perfect and need constant
tinkering with. The universe is imperfect.
Perfection does not exist, it's yet
another concept. Concepts are always
perfect, they have no choice..

Quote: Evenbob

Explain that to FrGamble who wants to prove
there is sin with science.

Just to get us back on track I am in complete agreement with Nareed. Science could never prove what it is woefully unqualified to show, namely philosophic, theological, or moral truths.

I'm worried that you don't think there are any truths that science can't prove.