Reuters are reporting that neither creationism, which we didn't expect, nor ID, which we did, was the topic of the recent papal study group. Instead, it was the (legitimate, in my opinion) theological implications of evolution. In other words, since evolution is a fact, what does that mean for theology?
They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.
So I take it back. Despite Schönborn's involvement, there are no firm signs as yet that the Catholic Church is bending to the ID agenda.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Sometimes life hands you nice ironies and wry humour. The same week that the Pope, Ratzinger-Benedict XVI (don't you hate hyphenated names?) announces that he almost accepts evolution as science, Michael Ghiselin, a rather famous evolutionary biologist and author of the 1969 book The Triumph of…
Following Pope Benedict's late August seminar on evolution, the consensus view from Science magazine and intelligent design watchdogs appeared to be that the Vatican was not yet ready to endorse ID, but rather was likely to come out in support of a theological view of evolution.
Yet, the Pope,…
With everything else that has been going on lately, I never got around to discussing Pope Benedict's latest statements on evolution.
Here's what Reuters had to say on the subject:
Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way…
Definitely the final essay in this series. And no more politics.
In a Universe first, I received in my cool email "box" yesterday a piece of rebuttal about the political implications of the tokes on String Theory in my last essay. What my correspondent pointed out to me was that my comparison of…
I wonder how Dembski will spin this...
.....I wonder how Dembski will spin this...
Oh, I'm sure Bill has no comment on the theological musings of the Vatican, seeing as ID is purely a scientific matter.
And by scientific, I mean, "just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
But first he will delete several posts on UD painting the meeting as a victory for ID...
Theology is nonsense. Who cares about some superstitious belief except maybe to study an archaic form of social organization?
I don't give a damn about what a pope, priest, imam, rabbi, etc. have to say.