so the pope doesn't understand evolution

Waking-Dreams

Surprise, surprise.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/the-damn-pope-doesnt-understand-evolution/

Richard Dawkins wrote:

We are told, over and over again, that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible, that sophisticated theologians understand this perfectly well and it is only fundamentalist wingnuts who have a problem with evolution. Well, here is the Pope, presumably a sophisticated theologian if ever there was one, demonstrating that he doesn't understand the first thing about evolution, even going so far as to think it is random. Well, the next time anybody dares to tell you sophisticated theologians have no problem with evolution, thrust Benedict XVI in their face.

Donatello

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I see nothing in the Pope's comments to indicate that he doesn't understand. I think he understands quite well.

Yer man didn't even, by his own admission, attempt to refute any of the Pope's comments on that linked page. If you wish, you can try.

strobe

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory.

Edit: Actually, never mind.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

As is cell theory. And germ theory. And atomic theory. And relativity, quantum-field theory and plate tectonics.

But, they don't really mean much. As you say, they're just theories.

rccaulfield

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I see nothing in the Pope's comments to indicate that he doesn't understand. I think he understands quite well.

Yer man didn't even, by his own admission, attempt to refute any of the Pope's comments on that linked page. If you wish, you can try.

So is gravity and electromagnetism. Wht part of evolution do you think doesn't have 100s of thousands of facts behind it hmmmm?

Gregor Samsa

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

Gravity is still just a theory. Fallers ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

Now the serious reply. You seem to imply that you think that "theory" is on the low end of the epistomological scale - something akin to a guess - with, presumably, "fact" at the top. But actually, science starts with facts - the stuff that can be readily observed and confirmed, and works up to theories, the attempt to explain the facts.

That different animals and plants exist is the fact. Evolution is the theory that explains it. Theories have to have evidence behind them to keep them going, otherwise, they stop being theories and become quaint discarded notions.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has enough evidence behind it to explain most of the observable facts in sphere of biodiversity, even after (or because of) 150 years of intense scrutiny.

But you're right; evolution isn't a super-dogma like creationism. Dogmas rely on unquestioned authority and irrational faith. Theories rely on facts and observation.

Cool Mo D

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I see nothing in the Pope's comments to indicate that he doesn't understand. I think he understands quite well.

Yer man didn't even, by his own admission, attempt to refute any of the Pope's comments on that linked page. If you wish, you can try.

Evolution is a theory. But it is also a fact. We can watch evolution happen: i.e. it is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it works.

Like gravity. Gravity is a fact. But there is also a theory of gravity. There is no conflict there.

liamw

Good points Donatello..



(courtesy of Galvasean)

Velvety

Could someone explain to me what the Pope said that makes people think he doesn't understand evolution?

What was so wrong? Is it that natural selection isn't random?

fatmammycat

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I see nothing in the Pope's comments to indicate that he doesn't understand. I think he understands quite well.

Yer man didn't even, by his own admission, attempt to refute any of the Pope's comments on that linked page. If you wish, you can try.

When you say stuff like this it just shows how shockingly ignorant you are. A scientific theory≠ guess.

Undergod

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. How it works is a theory.

kylith

Velvety wrote: »

Could someone explain to me what the Pope said that makes people think he doesn't understand evolution?

What was so wrong? Is it that natural selection isn't random?

Whilst genetic mutations may be random the survival and spread of beneficial mutations is not random.

Doctor DooM

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I don't think you understand what the word theory means, in scientific terms as opposed to the colloqual.

Also, I think you'll find most atheists don't really care about evolution all that much, save when it's derided for the purposes of religious advancement.

raah!

It's not inaccurate to declare that evolution is in some sense random. Even when taking natural selection into account it is random compared to the deliberate this or that of the guided kind of evolution I imagine the catholic church would espouse.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

I see nothing in the Pope's comments to indicate that he doesn't understand. I think he understands quite well.

Yer man didn't even, by his own admission, attempt to refute any of the Pope's comments on that linked page. If you wish, you can try.

Sure. Darwinian evolution is not a random process. Anyone who thinks it is a random process doesn't understand Darwinian evolution (anyone who thinks it is "just" a theory doesn't understand science to begin with, but as strobe suggests it is probably not worth bothering explaining that to someone who is so far removed from basic scientific understanding yet thinks themselves confident enough to make such a claim)

Therefore the Pope, if he claimed that Darwinian evolution is random, doesn't understand evolution.

Not to worry, I would imagine the stuff the Pope doesn't understand could fill a the Pacific Ocean.

The Mad Hatter

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory.

You need a better dictionary. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how it works, in the same way that the theory of music explains how music works, the theory of linguistics explains how languages work and legal theory explains how law works.

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

Not to worry, I would imagine the stuff the Pope doesn't understand could fill a the Pacific Ocean.

The Pope doesn't understand water?

Morbert

I'm no fan of the Pope, but I don't think he is too out of line in this case.

Natural selection is a non-random process, but any given survival strategy, whether it is intelligence, scales, teeth etc. isn't inevitable, and is contingent on random events. If the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs hadn't struck earth, for example, there is a good chance we would still be shrew-like creatures foraging for insects.

Velvety

kylith wrote: »

Whilst genetic mutations may be random the survival and spread of beneficial mutations is not random.

Absolutely. I agree with you. Beneficial biological traits win out. Mutations that make you more likely to survive and reproduce are more likely to be passed on.

I believe in evolution. I don't think humans have a divine place in the universe.

But surely you'd have to agree that it is reasonably random which genetic mutations won out at various stages in evolution. I mean it's not like humans could only have possibly existed as we currently do, is it?

Wasn't it random chance that a comet hit the earth and allowed mammals to prosper once dinosaurs had been wiped out? I don't see where he says that natural selection is random. Natural selection isn't random but evolution has to be considered random to a degree, doesn't it? How a species ends up at it's current state is based on more than just natural selection.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

It's not inaccurate to declare that evolution is in some sense random. Even when taking natural selection into account it is random compared to the deliberate this or that of the guided kind of evolution I imagine the catholic church would espouse.

Darwinian evolution is as "random" as a river flowing down hill to the sea. While a river's path may be very complex and difficult to predict, it is not random. It is the product of an ordered rule based system interacting with an environment. If you had enough data you could predict with increasing accuracy the path of the river and it would always be the same given the same environment.

It is incorrect (and misrepresentative if the person knows better) to equate systems that obey complex but ordered rules, like the path of a river or the evolution of life, with the random.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

I'm no fan of the Pope, but I don't think he is too out of line in this case.

Natural selection is a non-random process, but any given survival strategy, whether it is intelligence, scales, teeth etc. isn't inevitable, and is contingent on random events. If the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs hadn't struck earth, for example, there is a good chance we would still be shrew-like creatures foraging for insects.

I really don't think that is what the Pope is getting at. He is making the common appeal to people that we could not "just happen". Of course the truth is that we didn't just happen.

Velvety

I think it is fair to say that random chance had a lot to do with humans becoming the dominant species on earth.

I really don't think that is what the Pope is getting at. He is making the common appeal to people that we could not "just happen".

You may be right. And if you are, it would definitely demonstrate that the Pope doesn't have a strong understanding of evolution. But I think it's a mistake to take what he is quoted as saying as proof that he doesn't understand evolution.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

I really don't think that is what the Pope is getting at. He is making the common appeal to people that we could not "just happen". Of course the truth is that we didn't just happen.

What makes me give him the benefit of the doubt is he explicitly uses the phrase "random product of evolution", which is a phrase I would agree with on a technical level.

Furthermore, in the context of the what he was saying, it seems he was making the point that we are more than the product of a lucky sequence of events in a corner of the universe. A claim that shouldn't be all that shocking coming from a Christian.

As an aside, I once read a great piece by Gould on how contingent humans really are. Definitely worth a read

http://brembs.net/gould.html

"And history includes too much contingency, or shaping of present results by long chains of unpredictable antecedent states, rather than immediate determination by timeless laws of nature. "

raah!

From that perspective nothing is random, he didn't mean to say that they were random in the way that the decay of radioactive nuclei were. He meant random in exactly the way we could describe that where a certain molecule in a river will end up is random, chaotic and unpredictable. It could be argued that the point mutations which are the stuff of evolution are much less predictable (and in this sense more random) than a river. It doesn't matter though.

The word random is widely used by different scientists writing about evolution. It's obvious how they mean it. This article is just another one of these "I'm smarter than the pope". To say that the word random cannot be used in any sense to describe evolution is completely incorrect.

Velvety

raah and Morbert put it better than I did.

I think it's the word "random" that touches a nerve with some people when describing evolution. Natural selection is not random but the evolution of a species and it's success is certainly random to some degree.

Zombrex

You two have more faith in the Pope to not say something stupid than I do

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

From that perspective nothing is random, he didn't mean to say that they were random in the way that the decay of radioactive nuclei were. He meant random in exactly the way we could describe that where a certain molecule in a river will end up is random, chaotic and unpredictable. It could be argued that the point mutations which are the stuff of evolution are much less predictable (and in this sense more random) than a river. It doesn't matter though.

The word random is widely used by different scientists writing about evolution. It's obvious how they mean it. This article is just another one of these "I'm smarter than the pope". To say that the word random cannot be used in any sense to describe evolution is completely incorrect.

I'm smarter than the Pope. And I agree with you that random has different meanings in different contexts and that we call things random that aren't truly random. But equally I really don't think that applies here. The argument evolution cannot explain us because randomism cannot produce us is not a new argument in religious circules.

Zombrex

expanded text -

http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=41157&page=2

The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis.

As believers we answer, with the creation account and with John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.

Hence a thick black line, so to speak, has been drawn across the structure of the universe and across the nature of man. But despite this contradiction, creation itself remains good, life remains good, because at the beginning is good Reason, God's creative love. Hence the world can be saved. Hence we can and must place ourselves on the side of reason, freedom and love - on the side of God who loves us so much that he suffered for us, that from his death there might emerge a new, definitive and healed life.

raah!

I think he was more arguing along the lines of "a naturalistic version of man gives him no purpose, like a religious version does".

I have more faith in the bias of these kind of sites like "atheistzzz.com" when it comes to reporting on the pope than I do in the pope's inability to say silly things.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

expanded text -

http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=41157&page=2

pure chance

Maybe I shouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm smarter than the Pope. And I agree with you that random has different meanings in different contexts and that we call things random that aren't truly random. But equally I really don't think that applies here. The argument evolution cannot explain us because randomism cannot produce us is not a new argument in religious circules.

The Pope is fluent in 7 languages, and can read and understand a further two (Greek and Hebrew). He is a talented pianist, a world class theologian, and leader of a one billion strong Church. How can you say you are smarter than the Pope? Seems a bit foolish!

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

The Pope is fluent in 7 languages, and can read and understand a further two (Greek and Hebrew). He is a talented pianist, a world class theologian, and leader of a one billion strong Church. How can you say you are smarter than the Pope? Seems a bit foolish!

Well by definition if I'm smarter than the Pope, and you believe the Pope is smarter than you, then I am smarter than you. So I wouldn't expect you to understand.

virmilitaris

Donatello wrote: »

The Pope is fluent in 7 languages, and can read and understand a further two (Greek and Hebrew). He is a talented pianist, a world class theologian, and leader of a one billion strong Church. How can you say you are smarter than the Pope? Seems a bit foolish!

How are you using the word smart ?

I speak 2 languages other than English to an intermediate / advanced level so while I have every respect for polyglots I also know very well that learning a language has little to do with intellect. It's memorising and practice. Repeat. Take an average person from Ireland and put them down into some non-English speaking country with no way to speak English for a year and they'll have an advanced level of the language. Does this mean they are intelligent ? Becoming a polyglot is quite an achievement but it's not really a measure of intellect.

As for being a musician. Does he write his own music ? I saw a monkey that could play a drum because he had practiced so much. Is it intelligent ?

As for being a theologian. Anyone can read a book of fairy tales and preach nonsense from it. I have no respect for theologians specifically because I've seen what they need to do to become 'qualified'. Any idiot, and I really can provide examples if you wish, can get a PhD in theology even from some of the best schools. Theology is chained down subjugated philosophy.

The pope showed he doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution, something which he should do. You have shown you don't understand the meaning of the word theory and therefore the basics of science.

pH

Pope wrote:

It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no ...

Whatever about the word random, it's clear from the above that the Catholic Church is rejecting evolution as an explanation of life's (and man's) origins, and is returning to some form of creationism.

Given his choice of words it seems not only is he rejecting evolution as an explanation, he also seems to be rejecting "an expanding universe", the age of the universe "at a late stage", and seems to want to put our sun back once again at the centre of the universe "in some tiny corner".

It seems that the Pope and J C are pretty much in agreement at this stage.

sensibleken

Why does anyone pay the slightest bit of attention to what the pope says. He is an 80 odd year old man whos best friend is a jewish zombie whos da lives on a cloud.

everytime he says something mental just remember the last time your 85 year old grandparent said somethign like 'sure i got on the bus the other day and there was a black man driving it'. Just say 'ah no, you cant think like that anymore' and get them another pint

Zillah

I think people are horribly overreacting to the word 'random'. He clearly means it in the sense "directed by Godly intelligence" and "let to happen alone".

And no, while evolution is not a random process (natural selection) it does have random elements (mutation).

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

The Pope doesn't understand water?

I'm reminded of a Bill Bailey sketch about finding an exclusion in his car insurance for "Acts of God", culminating in the line,
"At what point does the rain reach a certain level beyond which it takes on the more apocalyptic mantle of THE WATER-BASED PUNISHMENT OF THE LORD?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRJwK3ISHiY

c_man

Galvasean wrote: »

The Pope doesn't understand water?

It's complicated. He knows it can be turned into wine, which in then can be turned into the blood of Jesus. Very tricky area to get the head around I imagine

sensibleken

c_man wrote: »

It's complicated. He knows it can be turned into wine, which in then can be turned into the blood of Jesus. Very tricky area to get the head around I imagine

it can also be walked on and if you dip your head in it you go to a magical cloud land when you die. awesome stuff!

Dades

Is it possible the Pope does understand evolution but also the need to mangle it a little bit to keep the window open for God's noodly appendage??

A kind of wilful ignorance, if you will.

Genghiz Cohen

Dades wrote: »

Is it possible the Pope does understand evolution but also the need to mangle it a little bit to keep the window open for God's noodly appendage??

A kind of wilful ignorance, if you will.

Is that better/worse though?

Morbert

pH wrote: »

Whatever about the word random, it's clear from the above that the Catholic Church is rejecting evolution as an explanation of life's (and man's) origins, and is returning to some form of creationism.

Given his choice of words it seems not only is he rejecting evolution as an explanation, he also seems to be rejecting "an expanding universe", the age of the universe "at a late stage", and seems to want to put our sun back once again at the centre of the universe "in some tiny corner".

It seems that the Pope and J C are pretty much in agreement at this stage.

He's not rejecting evolution or large-scale cosmology. He is claiming there is an overarching purpose to it all.

Morbert

Zillah wrote: »

I think people are horribly overreacting to the word 'random'. He clearly means it in the sense "directed by Godly intelligence" and "let to happen alone".

And no, while evolution is not a random process (natural selection) it does have random elements (mutation).

Yes, though Wicknight linked to an expanded text where he uses the phrase "pure chance", which is nonsense.

IamtheWalrus

I think by random the pope means the very first coming together of molecules, the very start of the process.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

I think people are horribly overreacting to the word 'random'. He clearly means it in the sense "directed by Godly intelligence" and "let to happen alone".

And no, while evolution is not a random process (natural selection) it does have random elements (mutation).

I'LL *&%"ING KILL YOU ZILLAH!!!!!


now that is an overreaction :P

Zillah

It is all, like morality, relative. :cool:

MagicMarker

Donatello wrote: »

The Pope is fluent in 7 languages, and can read and understand a further two (Greek and Hebrew). He is a talented pianist, a world class theologian, and leader of a one billion strong Church. How can you say you are smarter than the Pope? Seems a bit foolish!

lol, after all the replies to your display of ignorance you can't even bring yourself to address just one of them? Interesting....

Dades wrote: »

Is it possible the Pope does understand evolution but also the need to mangle it a little bit to keep the window open for God's noodly appendage??

A kind of wilful ignorance, if you will.

Willful ignorance? From a theist? NEVAR!!!!!

Galvasean

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I think by random the pope means the very first coming together of molecules, the very start of the process.

Are you referring to abiogenesis, which isn't evolution?

virmilitaris

virmilitaris wrote: »

How are you using the word smart ?

I speak 2 languages other than English to an intermediate / advanced level so while I have every respect for polyglots I also know very well that learning a language has little to do with intellect. It's memorising and practice. Repeat. Take an average person from Ireland and put them down into some non-English speaking country with no way to speak English for a year and they'll have an advanced level of the language. Does this mean they are intelligent ? Becoming a polyglot is quite an achievement but it's not really a measure of intellect.

I have to take that back. It is intelligence.

FISMA

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

As is cell theory. And germ theory. And atomic theory. And relativity, quantum-field theory and plate tectonics.

But, they don't really mean much. As you say, they're just theories.

JammyDodger,
Seeing how you brought it up...

When it comes to Atomic Theory, relativity, and Quantum, there are experiments that I can perform, the outcomes of which may be recorded, studied, and replicated. Important points to scientists.

I can perform a test for atoms, like Rutherford's Gold Foil, watch light bend around the sun during eclipses and explain mu mesons with relativity. There's plenty of experiments that are showing quantum effects at larger and larger scales.

The same is not true for Evolution [this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] in the respect that we come from Monkeys.

What is your test for [again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] us coming from Monkeys? Lock a bunch of monkeys in the closet and come back a million years from now and see what happens?

Also, there are numerous observations to be made in atomic theory, relativity, and QM. This is not true of evolution, that we [once again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] come from monkeys has never been observed and probably never will be.

So when they state that [last time, I promise, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] we come from Monkeys, they have no observational data nor experimental data to lead to the conclusion that we come from monkeys. That's not science to me.

And that's the difference between evolution and atomic theory, relativity, and QM.

I believe in theories for which there is experimental or observational data.

As a Physicist, I could care less about: inflation cosmology, superstrings, and M theory until they have some experimental data.

Same goes for evolution. Why should it be treated differently?

Slan and I leave the last word(s) to ye!

:pac:
:pac::pac:
:pac::pac::pac:

MagicMarker

There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for any other scientific theory, such as general relativity and quantum theory. This is universally accepted by all respected scientists worldwide.

And, FYI, we do have observational evidence for evolution.

As for (tongue in cheek blah blah) coming from monkeys, the genetic evidence is, erm, quite substantial, as it is for every other living thing on the planet.