According to the AP, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said during a seminar at the Vatican commemorating the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, that while the church did not reject evolution, it insisted that God was its progenitor.
"We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things," he said on the sidelines of the conference.
But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.
"Of course we think that's absurd and not at all proven," he said. "But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities."
This is big news, folks, and it's a good thing it was picked up by the Associated Press (with almost all headlines used for this article being some form of, "Cardinal says atheist's theories 'absurd'"). Else, how would we ever know that the Catholic Church as an institution had not yet dismissed the existence of God? Here was me, just sitting here thinking that His Holiness was having pow-wows with Sam Harris and Penn Gillette, readying to dismantle the entire organization, when it is reported that in fact atheism was not a tenet of Catholic dogma. Amazing.
In related news, Republicans on the Hill think taxes are bad, a survey of American mothers finds that almost all of them love their children, and recent focus group studies show that people are wary of touching open flames because of an alleged "hotness" associated with fire.
Okay, I kid the AP. I kid 'cause I love. The whole conference sounds like it was a positive thing, with evolution being supported and intelligent design in science classes being rejected. All very good stuff, with no complaints here.
One side note to this same article, though, notice that "the atheist notion" is attributed almost exclusively to Richard Dawkins. I know he's one of, if not the most famous nonbeliever these days, and it was in the context of a kind of biology summit, but I still find it curious that right now our culture is equating atheism with Dawkins. It's not as though he just came up with atheism! We might as well call it "Dawkinsism" as far as a lot of folks are concerned.
I think that's a little hard to say, frankly. Just try it. Dawkins-ism. You see? It would never fly.
Comments
I find it hilarious that all they are using to justify their statements is their authority. It basically equates to, "We find any idea that has explanation power to explain the things that theist would normally attribute to god as absurb, because um... we believe, 'god did it' and we are the Vatican."
Bravo, Mr. Fidalgo. If these writers would quit making unsurprising and uninformative fluff articles out of random quotes scraped from bad translations of the Vatican newspaper, they might actually have time to explore the cultural significance of the religion.
TM's comment has me a bit puzzled. Firstly, even though it has limited explanatory power in science, the "God did it" is a basic tenet of the faith and has great explanatory power when one is describing the faith. The thing called absurd is the assertion that the existence of evolution implies the nonexistence of God. One does not need any religious authority to point out the logical gap there. The study of evolution, rather, is praised because it helps to understand the methods of God and because it can lead to improvements in people's health and well-being.
Did Dawkins claim "that evolution proves there is no God"?
You cant argue with "God did it" anymore than you can argue with "Thor did it". How can you argue with a naked assertion? That would be like arguing with Mickey Mouse.
"The Vatican says", is like a Si Fi fan saying, "Luke Sky Walker says". Exactly what are they experts in?
Brian, if you wanted to know what Luke Skywalker says, I think a sci-fi fan would be an excellent person to ask. A company founded by George Lucas might be an even better place to ask. Now suppose we were referring to a nonfiction movie.
The teaching authority of the church, Vatican or otherwise, are experts in the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. Moreover, they tend to know what they are not experts in; hence their leaving the science to scientists here.
Psy: I did use the word "implies" rather than "proves" when I referred to the claim. I doubt Dawkins would use the word "prove" in the strictest logical sense. And Levada is sufficiently familiar with Dawkins' writings that I doubt (recent AP article notwithstanding) he would claim Dawkins had done so. However, evolution does seem to figure rather prominently into Dawkins' case for atheism.
The Vatican spokesman is engaging in the ancient and disreputable tactic of setting up a straw man, i.e., falsely attributing a statement to the one he wants discredit, so he can attack it. Dawkins is an agnostic -- not an atheist. He does not say that evolution "proves" that there is no God. All that has been proven is that Cardinal Levada is a jerk.
QUOTE"Dawkins is an agnostic -- not an atheist."
Oh, I guess he was lying to me at the atheist convention I attended in 06 in Crystal City VA telling everyone he was? And I am quite sure his book "The God Delusion" title makes him agnostic.
"I don't want you to elect me because I am an atheist, I want you to elect me because you think I will do a good job" SPEECH GIVEN AT RANDOLPH MACON WOMAN'S COLLEGE LYNCHBURG VA
HE IS AN ATHEIST! YOU do not understand that agnostic is not a position, the word literally translated means "without knowledge" and is not a stand alone word, but a qualifier.
One can be an agnostic theist IE "I don't know if there is a god, but I hold the position there is one"
ONE CAN ALSO BE AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST
"I don't know if there is a god, so until or unless the evidence comes I see no reason to hold such a position"
HE is an atheist because, like I do not see any credible evidence for any claim of a god or gods or super natural.
Stop putting words in a mouth you are not attached to, it makes you look stupid.
Michael Wright, Dawkins is an atheist. Lol.
It's not a bad word, you don't need to defend him from it.
He freely admits he is an atheist. He goes onto say he is only agnostic to the same extent he is agnostic about fairies at the end of his garden.
You obviously do not understand the definitions of the terms being used so I will not have a go. Just be careful what you say, Darwin himself is still tarnished with his 'death bed' conversion.
Too many great men are labelled with other people's assumptions and quotes. Try not to hijack people for your own opinion.
Psy says:
Did Dawkins claim "that evolution proves there is no God"?
In my opinion, he put forward a theory that would suggest that yes.
The theory went a little like this, anything that can 'intelligently' create something (the world) or put something in motion, (evolution) must be a complicated being. Therefore it poses the question...how did a god get made?
Basically God does not fit in with the theory of evolution or natural selection. He has no point and is not required and we only even consider him involved in anyway because we start off with an assumption he must be involved.
1+( )=2 looking at this sum we can assume that what is missing is a 1. This would complete the sum and make it work.
Having a God that starts evolution is the same as having
1+ 1 + (992-600+8/400-1) = 2
(992-600+8/400-1) representing God, the complicated but completely unneeded part. Nature doesn't tend to keep anything that isn't needed. That is pretty much the basis of evolution
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!