Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze on the Pope’s recent statement on evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Laszlo Bencze:

“God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

I believe the Catholic church became hyper sensitized to issues of science vs. religion as a result of the Galileo debacle. This became a huge embarrassment to Catholicism. It was a clash that no pope wished ever to repeat. Post Galileo the church moved ever closer to uncritical acceptance of scientific theories. This accommodation posed no problems so long as the theories were actually physical rather than metaphysical. Thus Newton’s mechanics, Boyle’s law, and Lavoisier’s oxygen theory of combustion meshed uncontroversially with church doctrine.

Unfortunately Darwinism appeared mid 19th century posing as a normal physical theory about how the world works when in fact it was metaphysical speculation. Gun shy Catholicism accepted its claims at face value without doing the careful study that discernment demanded. As a result it was saddled with a fundamental contradiction: belief in a creator god who science had divested of all creative power. To say that science was wrong was to align the church with Protestant fundamentalists who protested in a style that was unseemly and tainted with an anti-science stance the church had long abandoned. Yet to unreservedly endorse evolution was clearly to abdicate all authority to an atheistic secularism.

So the church in its struggles to avoid the two ends of the spectrum eventually cobbled together a compromise solution perhaps best exemplified by Teilhard DeChardin’s The Phenomenon of Man. God let things run their course according to the “laws of evolution” interfering only on three occasions—the beginning of life, the creation of man, and the birth and resurrection of Jesus.

Though DeChardin did not receive official approval of that book, it now seems to have become the defacto stance of the Catholic church. The pope genuflects to Darwin because not to do so is to seem irrelevant and foolish in a world which has accepted Darwin as the Messiah. Yet the pope also reserves a few strongholds for god in a self-referentially incoherent system known as “theistic evolution.”

Anyone looking for logical consistency in the Pope’s statements should apply elsewhere. On the other hand post-moderns, mainline Protestants, and weak kneed evolutionists are free to derive solace as they may wish.

Eventually, the Church will be forced to grapple with the metaphysical naturalism that underlies Darwinism and allows it to br considered the “science” of biology. Many denominations will merely go under first.

See also: Pope on evolution? Wait, what? The Church published an encyclical 64 years ago saying exactly what Pope Francis said yesterday? You don’t say!

Comments
Laszlo
But what is certain is that the Catholic church is bent on ignoring wise counsel in favor of accommodating a worldview that is defiantly opposed to orthodox Christianity.
Yes, indeed. And witness the pro-Darwin Catholics who slander St. Thomas Aquinas by attempting to legitimize their error with the cachet of his intellectual authority.StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Typo @4. Indeed, the very fact that a church leader would "comprise the truth" should be ..."compromise the truth." Normally, I don't comment on small errors, since obvious context solves most problems. However, in this case, the wrong word militates against the context.StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
I don't want to keep hogging this thread, though I haven't done too badly up to now. But the spin-offs for the Church as regards the defence and spread of the faith in other areas would surely be enormous, particularly in terms of the Catholic universities and hospitals, if and presumably when eventually the Church declares the truth of the matter - not just negatively in respect of evolution, but positively in respect of the, at minimum, theistic implications of quantum mechanics. As for the politics of economic justice (and frankly, competence) in our societies, ... I'm in enough trouble already, so I won't go there!Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Well then, Mr Bencze, you are performing an absolutely priceless service by publicizing it, as a philosopher. 'On the other hand post-moderns, mainline Protestants, and weak kneed evolutionists are free to derive solace as they may wish.' Your hilariously biting turn of phrase can't do your cause any harm either.Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
I should also have made the point that QM represents the absolute limit of our understanding of matter, rather than QM being one among a number of equivalent rival paradigms; or that classical mechanistic physics is the one for people to take seriously in trying to understand science and our life on earth, but, rather, QM positively bellows our sovereign dignity and unique destiny as human beings, in the overall scheme of things. It confirms the Singularity as the non local, supernatural origin of space time via the Big Bang, more than validating the imponderable mysteries of Christian belief.Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I am very aware of the complexities involved in the Galileo affair. However, my words were not meant to address the truth of the matter on a historical basis. Rather what I described is how the affair was and is viewed by the popular mind. It's a huge misunderstanding but we're stuck with it. StephanB hits the mark on this one. Indeed why is the wise counsel of Pius XII so roundly ignored? I've given my best shot at answering that question. Others are free to form their own speculations about the cause. But what is certain is that the Catholic church is bent on ignoring wise counsel in favor of accommodating a worldview that is defiantly opposed to orthodox Christianity.Laszlo
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to tell me I am megalomaniacally insane, when I say that the entire scientific community and the entire philosophical community have been extremely derelict in failing to refute the oft-repeated assertion that all scientific knowledge is provisional and is never definitive. Surely, if the maths produces a scientific finding, granted the validity of its assumptions, it can NEVER be refuted; no empirical test will even be required for the truth of it to be established beyond all peradventure. Yes, the implications of it may always remain open, but THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER ALL TOGETHER. According to BA77, it has even been mathematically proven that quantum mechanic is the ultimate paradigm, the final one in the history of science, since it has been proved mathematically that it can never be improved upon. HOWEVER, classical Newtonian physics has not been shown to have been mistaken; its validity just being limited to its own proper scale. Now, imagine how much many evasions and how much obfuscation the materialists have been able to get away with by invoking that sorry canard about all scientific findings only being provisional. I suspect it is the main reason why the materialists still get away with jokingly, if dismissively, disparaging the findings of QM as 'ever so slightly' crazy. However, it surely also has massive implications for how they are still able to get away with the absence of any mathematical support for evolution by random chance and the triage of natural selection. Indeed, in the teeth of the MATHEMATICAL PROOF that it would be an impossibility.Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
There is a big difference between what the Catholic Church officially teaches about evolution and what heretic cardinals and bishops say about it. The official teaching can be found in "Humani Generis," by Pope Pius XII
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
So, the question is this: Why do so many church leaders ignore this teaching and try to persuade the pope to issue politically correct statements about evolution in an unofficial capacity. The sad fact is that many of these treasonous leaders have lost the faith. That is why they tolerate and sometimes even encourage the anti-catholic corruption that has been offered up as catholicism. In fact, most catholic universities and many of its seminaries are corrupt. That was the main reason for the priestly sex scandals. Why didn't Catholic bishops and cardinals correct the problem?--anti-Catholic corruption. Why did they try to provide a bureaucratic solution to a moral and spiritual problem?---anti Catholic corruption. Why did Church leaders organize the infamous and Darwin-friendly Vatican Conference on evolution few years ago?---anti-Catholic corruption! Why did the the university of Notre Dame invite Obama to speak?--anti-Catholic corruption. Why did last weeks Synod on the family allow a secular document on homosexuality to be printed and distributed to the press?--anti Catholic corruption. Why do so many Catholic educators try to marry Christ and Darwin?---anti-Catholic corruption. Does Galileo anxiety play a role? Perhaps, but I don't think it is the main reason for this irrational romance with evolution. Indeed, the very fact that a Church leader would comprise the truth in order to create a favorable impression is, itself, a sign of corruption. So what is the truth? Here we go again: ...."this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Denyse, You seem to have some channel into Bencze's writings on this. You should tell him that in the Galileo affair, the pope was in the right and the bad guy was Galileo. We have discussed ad nauseam what really happened and how it was used in the 19th century against the Catholic Church by some of its enemies. Here is a link to a long discussion on Galileo over 7 years ago where a few of us have it out with Barry over his take on Galileo https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/epistemology-its-what-you-know/#comment-161224 The pope was the good guy in the episode. Not the conventional wisdom but it does say something about who gets to write history.jerry
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Unfortunately, many others have called, before, and still the prize hasn't been awarded.Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Bingo!Axel
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply