Re: NYTimes.com: Questions for Pope on Evolution Stance

    Earlier, in a "Re: Cardinal" post, I said;

>Overall, it seems that his claims for design are definitely for
>nature-design, and maybe guiding-design but he is vague about this, and he
>seems to say nothing for or against miracle-design. But I wish he had
>"said what he wants to say" more clearly.

    But due to the powerful role of authority in the Catholic Church,
speaking with detail-and-clarity may not always be wise or edifying for a
cardinal or pope. In this case it might decrease scientific freedom and
lead to unnecessary science-religion conflicts, so I think George and Bob
may have better ideas

    when George says,
>Sometimes it's best just to let Rome be silent about an issue rather than
>provoke what may be an unfortunate statement. ...
>to my knowledge there is no official Roman statement on the mechanism of
>evolution. ... Requests for "clarification" of the Roman position could
>well result in statements that commit RC scientists to particular
>understandings of the way evolution works.

    and Bob agrees,
>I think that the best thing the pope could do is affirm the Church's
>support for good science ... it is a mistake for the Church to tie its
>doctrine of creation to any particular scientific paradigm.
>The next best thing would be for B16 to consult the members of
>the Pontifical Academy of Science for a clarification on the distinction
>between evolution as good science and "evolutionism" as materialistic
>philosophy.

    and he points out that Cardinal Schonborn isn't clear about this
distinction or what "design" means.
    And perhaps the same could be said for many of his readers, or even
most of them? But if this is true, maybe clarification would be helpful,
IF it's done wisely and gently for the reasons, and in the ways, that both
of you suggest.

Craig
Received on Fri Jul 15 12:17:36 2005