Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The Origins of the Species is an old book. Is it no longer credible because it is old?

I find the position does not endorse ID, other than to say that it might have happened that way.

It's not because it's an old book. It's because it isn't verifiable nor is it exact. That's why people interpret it than taking it literally.
And yes great it might have happened that way and it might not. The thing is, there is nothing that leads you to assume that it might have happened and there is nothing that leads you to assume that it might NOT have happened. It doesn't make sense at all putting things such as these in textbooks for obvious reasons.

Might be. Not is. Might. Subjunctive clause, as there is doubt that this is in fact the way the world works.

You stopped after the first half of the quote? Come on...
I shall reprint:
"...but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - [blabla] - is not [true]."
So he said what is true and what not, without providing any evidence on why he came to this conclusion. He simply doesn't want it to be that way and that's why it's false.

[Odin]

That cardinal basically said that all the knoledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, population biology, genetics, and palenotology that PROVE evolution via natural selection is a fact must be wrong because they have no need of a supernatural being. What a f*cking moron.

[Kuciwalker]

t's not because it's an old book. It's because it isn't verifiable nor is it exact.

Actually it's because they have a bunch of unjustified assumptions i.e. faith. ID is full of holes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
That cardinal basically said that all the knoledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, population biology, genetics, and palenotology that PROVE evolution via natural selection is a fact must be wrong because they have no need of a supernatural being. What a f*cking moron.

Odin, this is the RCC. What do you expect, for chrissake? For them to say "oh, God doesn't actually exist"?

[Boris Godunov]

Now keep in mind this isn't even an official RCC proclamation or anything:

http://www2.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/victim_of_the_wedge.html#more

The New York Times has a full story today on Cardinal Schönborn’s op-ed: Leading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution. According to the story the op-ed was written with the urging of the Discovery Institute’s Mark Ryland but was not approved by the Vatican.

There is a difference between theistic evolution, which is essentially what the RCC has always ascribed to, and ID. The big difference is that ID purports to be a scientific claim (despite there never having been a proffered scientific theory of ID) and IDists claim it has evidence. Theistic evolution is simply a matter of faith and makes no scientific claims outside of evolutionary theory.

The Cardinal's missive is ignorant, however, because it makes two typical errors: It assumes Neo-Darwinism is atheistic, which it isn't, and it misconstrues what is meant by "random mutation" in evolution.

Might be. Not is. Might. Subjunctive clause, as there is doubt that this is in fact the way the world works.

Some lunatics doubt that the moon landing ever happened. So what?

Scientists, overwhelmingly, do not doubt that descent from common ancestors is the way of the world. And neither, apparently, does the RCC. They just think God planned it all. They're entitled to believe it, but the caveat here is that this isn't a scientific belief.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Wasn't traditional ID the fact that it might be possible for an omnipotent being to create the universe in its present state or somewhat? Oh wait, I forgot; the "microevolution is true, macroevolution is not" stuff. Meh.

That's Creationism. ID is evolution, but with God causing the mutations specificially.

Not really. Leading IDiots (Behe, Dembski, Johnson) as well as the more disciplined parts of the r'n'f refuse to make that kind of specific claims.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ignoring the impossibility of the bible being infallible, it's a book that is more akin to a collection of myths than a realistic hypothesis of the origins of the life.

No, it is not meant to explain how God created the world in minute detail, and nor was it written for that purpose. This is why the Cardinal focusses on the cause behind evolution rather than the workings of evolution. Science cannot purport or establish a cause behind evolution, it can only describe how evolution works, and when science presumes to establish the cause, it has stepped beyond it's domain.

[Boris Godunov]

Abiogenesis is outside the domain of science? News to me, and the scientists who study it.

What on earth are you talking about this time?

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Scientists, overwhelmingly, do not doubt that descent from common ancestors is the way of the world. And neither, apparently, does the RCC. They just think God planned it all. They're entitled to believe it, but the caveat here is that this isn't a scientific belief.

It is a hypothesis, where the scientific evidence seems to support the claims that all animals came from a common descendent. However, some scientists do question the hypothesis since they find less evidence support the hypothesis, than many other established scientific theories.

You are very right however, that when the church says that God planned it all, that this isn't a scientific belief, neither is it scientific to demand that evolution had to happen through blind chance. Both are outside the realm of science.

[Ben Kenobi]

Abiogenesis is outside the domain of science? News to me, and the scientists who study it.

No, science can say how something happens, but struggles with the question of why. Nothing to do with abiogenesis, Boris, but about ascribing the purpose of evolution to blind chance.

[Neutrino]

Cause of evolution = 'how' of evolution = various environmental selective pressures +replication with randomization

Abiogenesis is outside the domain of evolution but not of science.

[Last Conformist]

Why should anyone assume there's a purpose to evolution anyway?

[Ben Kenobi]

This guy is just in the wrong century - he should have lived back when the catholic church burned people that claimed the earth wasn't flat.

Then they would have had to burn all the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks who established the shape of the Earth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should anyone assume there's a purpose to evolution anyway?

For the same reason people look for a purpose to the universe as a whole. There seems to be more going on than can be explained away as nothing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is a hypothesis, where the scientific evidence seems to support the claims that all animals came from a common descendent.

It's not merely a "hypothesis," Ben, and it's disengenuous to describe it as such. It's one of the most well-supported theories (in the scientific sense of the word) that we have.

However, some scientists do question the hypothesis since they find less evidence support the hypothesis, than many other established scientific theories.

There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism. The number of scientists who question it is extremely small, and the number of biologists almost nil. Even those who question Darwinism accept common descent. I repeat: it's one of the most well-supported theories that we have.

neither is it scientific to demand that evolution had to happen through blind chance. Both are outside the realm of science.

It is certainly scientific to make the observation that evolution appears to happen through "random" rather than "guided" means, since that's what we seem to see. If no mechanism of guidance is detected, the scientific belief should be that the process isn't guided. That's a pretty basic principle of scientific method.

But "blind chance" is yet another erroneous term, one no knowlegeable scientist would use to describe Darwinism.