Pope will lead conference on Evolution and Creation

[Canuckster1127]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 005a5.html

Should be interesting.

[sandy_mcd]

Should be interesting.

I agree. But I wonder what we will hear?

... these are closed-door events ...
Four speakers have been invited to lead the discussion of evolution during this year's gathering of the Schülerkreis.
One will be Schönborn himself, a longtime member of the group. (In fact, Schönborn was not really a graduate student of Ratzinger, spending just a year in Regensburg with him in the late 1970s doing post-doctoral work. Yet Schönborn has always been considered part of the Schülerkreis). The other three are: Jesuit Fr. Paul Erbrich, emeritus professor of natural philosophy from the University of Munich; Professor Robert Spaemann, a political philosopher; and Professor Peter Schuster, President of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

[Canuckster1127]

Should be interesting.

I agree. But I wonder what we will hear?

... these are closed-door events ...
Four speakers have been invited to lead the discussion of evolution during this year's gathering of the Schülerkreis.
One will be Schönborn himself, a longtime member of the group. (In fact, Schönborn was not really a graduate student of Ratzinger, spending just a year in Regensburg with him in the late 1970s doing post-doctoral work. Yet Schönborn has always been considered part of the Schülerkreis). The other three are: Jesuit Fr. Paul Erbrich, emeritus professor of natural philosophy from the University of Munich; Professor Robert Spaemann, a political philosopher; and Professor Peter Schuster, President of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

True. I bet some of it will come out in some form.

John Paul II was a very solid theistic evolutionist. This new Pope seems a little more open to ID anyway.

[Byblos]

John Paul II was a very solid theistic evolutionist. This new Pope seems a little more open to ID anyway.

True.

Personally I think the church needs to stay out of the whole evolution/ID debate anyway. IMO it is irrelevant to the faith.

[Turgonian]

But our faith is built on Christ's redemption, which was possible because one man (Adam) fell. How would it be if humans slowly evolved from apes? Then you get into a muddle about who sinned, or did all sin, or was there a half-ape named Adam who was the first human?
Did God want to walk with a half-ape? Was he clever enough to understand God's commandment?

I think evolution can detract people from faith in the Bible and from the Christian faith itself. Some people will find ways to cope, others won't.

[godslanguage]

"e has said that he does not disagree with Darwin's theory per se, but with its use to mount ideologically driven attacks against the existence of a creator-God."

And this is the problem, isn't it?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I do enjoy how the news can't seem to define intelligent design properly.

"intelligent design" — the notion that the world is too complex to have come about through natural events alone

They keep on ranting that ID is simply a negative argument.

[Canuckster1127]

But our faith is built on Christ's redemption, which was possible because one man (Adam) fell. How would it be if humans slowly evolved from apes? Then you get into a muddle about who sinned, or did all sin, or was there a half-ape named Adam who was the first human?
Did God want to walk with a half-ape? Was he clever enough to understand God's commandment?

I think evolution can detract people from faith in the Bible and from the Christian faith itself. Some people will find ways to cope, others won't.

Well, I am not an evolutionist. I am an Old Earth Creationist.

The Theistic Evolutionist position however does not necessarily reject the existence of Adam nor the fall, nor original sin.

Evolution in that regard is simply seen as the methodology God chose to use to progress life.

You're right that evolution can and often does serve as a methodology in people's minds to eliminate or reduce the need for God. To use that as a basis to reject it is somewhat circular reasoning however.

It stands or falls on its own evidence. God's establishment or involvement of the process is not an issue that can answered scientifically.

[Turgonian]

You're right, Canuckster. I was just attacking the idea that the church should keep out of the discussion, because I think the church is directly involved. For many people, Neo-Darwinian evolution has become a stumblingblock to the faith. You're right when you say that it should still be investigated rather than completely thrown out of the window; I wasn't disputing that.

[angel]

AttentionKMartShoppers
I do enjoy how the news can't seem to define intelligent design properly.

Can you provide for me a definition on your own?
I'm looking for it.
I'm ready to follow you on a separate thread...

[Turgonian]

Maybe simply, 'the idea that the world was made by a conscious designer rather than by random events'...?

[angel]

I would not describe evolution as
"the idea that life came by chance".

I mean, you can use the definition you please. Though i expect that you provide support and evidences for the definition you use.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

AttentionKMartShoppers
I do enjoy how the news can't seem to define intelligent design properly.

Can you provide for me a definition on your own?
I'm looking for it.
I'm ready to follow you on a separate thread...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/id-defined/

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

The media says ID says "I can't understand how this complex object came into existence, therefore God" when in fact it's "this appears designed for reasons A B and C, therefore the best conclusion is it was." (more or less).

[Turgonian]

I would not describe evolution as "the idea that life came by chance".

But evolution works with random events, whereas ID does not -- that's the main difference.
And one of the points of Neo-Darwinian evolution is the idea that life came by chance (abiogenesis, life coming from non-life through random processes).

[sandy_mcd]

IN BRIEF / VATICAN CITY
'Intelligent Design' Foe Replaced at Observatory
From Times Wire Reports

August 22, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has appointed a new director of the Vatican Observatory, replacing the Rev. George Coyne, a vocal opponent of "intelligent design" theory who had held the post since 1978.

It was unclear whether the move reflected disapproval over Coyne's opposition to the theory that the world is too complex to have been created by natural events alone. He has attacked the theory as a "religious movement" lacking scientific merit. He could not be reached for comment.

There was no mention of Coyne in a brief Vatican statement Saturday announcing the appointment of a new director, the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes.

Sounds fraught with possibilities.