Article: "Vatican: Pope slams evolution"

[Kurieuo]

The article, Vatican: Pope slams evolution, can be found at http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/eng ... 28196.html

While I believe there is some misrepresentation, perhaps more implied than anything direct, this article presents an important issue. I feel many misunderstood Schoenborn when his published article regarding evolution caused a storm about a year or so ago. In his articule he essentially said Christianity was incompatible with Neo-Darwinian Evolution (not "Evolution" per se). This article confirms my opinion which can be found in one of the many threads on this board:

Christoph Schoenborn made headlines with a New York Times article a year ago which endorsed the ID theory that has roiled US academic debate and appeared to back full-fledged Creationism, the core Bible story. Just before a brainstorming session with the pope on the eve of his Germany trip, Schoenborn admitted his NYT article had been a little too "cut-and-dried," laying it open to misinterpretation.

Yet, this latest event seems to clarify further what was meant:

Schoenborn responded by clarifying his position, saying that evolution as a body of scientific fact was compatible with Catholicism, but that evolution as an ideological dogma that denied design and purpose in Nature was not.

This was all Schoenborn meant, and at the time I remember his comments being entirely misunderstood and distorted by press and people, even Christians.

This identifying the type of "Evolution" acceptable is also an important issue, and people generally just lump anything and everything into the term. It was also an issue amongst us moderators of recent, and our board purpose was recently updated to include comment regarding it on this board. So I link to it here for others to read, and to stimulate further discussion.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Like everything else, the general population and the media miss the nuances of the subject.

=)

[Byblos]

Like everything else, the general population and the media miss the nuances of the subject.

=)

What is your take on the subject BGood?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Like everything else, the general population and the media miss the nuances of the subject.

=)

What is your take on the subject BGood?

I agree with the vatican.

[Byblos]

Like everything else, the general population and the media miss the nuances of the subject.

=)

What is your take on the subject BGood?

I agree with the vatican.

LOL! I guess there's hope for you still, my friend. Be good now.

[sandy_mcd]

Well, I sure missed the nuances. I read the Italian news article (and some other similar ones) and I do not see enough explicit statements to understand who is saying what.

To me the two major divisions of thought accepting evolution are:
1) Entirely natural process, God does not exist or has no hand in anything.
2) Evolution occurred but was set into motion/run by God.

Category 1 would include people such as R(?) Dawkins or PZ Myers, i.e., atheists.
Category 2 would include people such as K Miller and some ID'ists.

To me, the primary distinction between ID and K Miller's position is that while both obviously hold that God designed everything, the former maintains that proof of this design is present and the latter does not necessarily require such proof. Also, most forms of ID accept a lot more day-to-day intervention than the God-set-everything-into-motion viewpoint.

I did not see enough in the article to base much of an opinion on. I wish the Pope would be a bit more explicit. Perhaps the November publications will be. I also don't understand what Coyne means about freedom.

[Turgonian]

Don't trust the media... People who call full-fledged Creationism the 'core Bible story' will misrepresent anything.