The Dembski-Ruse Road Show Continues

I never said he didn't support evolution. Ken Miller believes that evolution wasn't at all directed. Actually, Ken Miller is as confused as they come- he believes that God isn't to be found in the gaps, but then says that God should be right there in the gaps. He says that evolution is purely undirected, without a goal, etc. - a trillion happy accidents lead to humans, yet he says that God made it where it was inevitable that humans would come about- a total contradiction. The Pope made it clear that evolution was fine, in general, but it HAD to be directed by God. The Darwinian model would not fit with Christianity, or with the Catholic view of the world according to The Vatican. The link itself- the author goes piece by piece of what Gould says about the Pope's statement, and shows how he distorts it. John Paul made it totally clear that the Darwinian model, based on chance plus natural selection to kill off those who didn't survive wasn't compatible.

"Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

God put spirit into man, God had a purpose in all of this, and humans were not an accidental outcome of happy accidents, but that God ordained that man would exist, that he would be in fellowship with God. So, evolution in the general sense can fit, but the Darwinian model based on an ultimately mindless process that never had man in mind doesn't fit with Christianity. Ken Miller would claim otherwise, but his theology is so muddled and confused, I don't think even HE truly believes it.jboze3131

January 15, 2006

January

01

Jan

15

15

2006

08:01 PM

8

08

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

jboze3131, As an agnostic, I don't personally care what the Popes say about evolution, but because I was under the impression that John Paul II had supported evolution, I checked out the article you linked to at leaderu. The article quotes from John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [of Pius XI], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory." "A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them....Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like evolution complies with the need for consistency with observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy." "And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations." What is it about these quotes that makes you believe that John Paul's view was incompatible with Ken Miller's, or that John Paul did not support evolution?woctor

January 15, 2006

January

01

Jan

15

15

2006

07:15 PM

7

07

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Actually, in regards to Pope John Paul II and Darwinism, he explicitly denied that it could fit with the Christian religion. Stephen Gould did a nice job of completely twisting what the pope said. Here's a nice rundown on what the Pope said and how Gould twisted the statements: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evo-pope.html I was fascinated by this, because I've always heard from many people that John Paul did endorse Darwinism. He didn't- not in any way. Ken Miller's odd theology and science don't fit with Catholicism according to John Paul, nor do they fit with Pope Benedict's views either- as he made clear with his statements on intelligent planning in the universe, backed up by Schonborn's statements.jboze3131

January 15, 2006

January

01

Jan

15

15

2006

04:12 PM

4

04

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Just what is a humanist cuase?evoluck

January 14, 2006

January

01

Jan

14

14

2006

03:38 PM

3

03

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Isn't Michael Ruse a theist?Xavier

January 14, 2006

January

01

Jan

14

14

2006

03:37 PM

3

03

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Say, what's up with all of these macroevolution supporters who are also active in humanist and atheist causes? Couldn't be that evolution has something to do with atheism, and humanism could it?russ

January 13, 2006

January

01

Jan

13

13

2006

05:53 PM

5

05

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Well, when Catholic churches start having evolution debates I might have to start thinking so.clbell

January 13, 2006

January

01

Jan

13

13

2006

10:04 AM

10

10

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Pope John Paul said it was okay for Catholics to accept Darwinian evolution. According to your logic that means Darwinian evolution has something to do with religion too, doesn't it? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_associationDaveScot

January 12, 2006

January

01

Jan

12

12

2006

09:33 PM

9

09

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Say..what's up with all of these forums and debates held at churches. Couldn't be that ID has something to do with religion could it?evoluck

January 12, 2006

January

01

Jan

12

12

2006

09:10 PM

9

09

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link