TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

I would agree with the Pope. What's outside of space-time cannot be explained by science. We know that our universe isn't the only existence there is.

Source

quote:

Pope discusses boundaries of science. By MELISSA EDDY Wed Apr 11, 5:47 PM ET BERLIN - Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation. In a new book, "Creation and Evolution," published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer. "The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said. He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith. "I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years. In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis." "The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory. "We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he said. Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents � mostly conservative Protestants � of "intelligent design," who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. The book, which was released by the Sankt Ulrich publishing house, includes reflections of the pope and others who attended a meeting of theological scholars at the papal summer estate in Castel Gandolfo in early September. The pope's remarks were consistent with one of his most important themes, that faith and reason are interdependent. "Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," the pope wrote. "But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. "Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.

Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

haha. what are the "methodological possibilities" of religion? has religion ever answered a single question about the natural world?

I swear this looks really familiar.

science and philosophic reason must work together, but not exlude faith?

that's makes absolutely no sense...

Re: Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha. what are the "methodological possibilities" of religion? has religion ever answered a single question about the natural world?

He is referring to the questions science cannot answer. What happened before the Big Bang? What is outside of our universe? Are there other realms of existence? Where does our universe comes from?

Science is limited to our space-time universe.

Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I would agree with the Pope.

On what basis? Can you be a bit more specific? What SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with Darwin's theory?

quote:

What's outside of space-time cannot be explained by science.

Such as?

quote:

We know that our universe isn't the only existence there is. Source

Do we? Well gee, I didn't know we knew so much about other possible planes of existence. Actually, I think it's just me.

Could you tell me a bit more about what we know with such certainty (i.e. valid, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable) about other planes of existence?

Re: Re: Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He is referring to the questions science cannot answer.

And prokrastlin was asking you about questions religion has no verifiable evidence to answer either.

quote:

What happened before the Big Bang?

"We don't know yet."

Not a bad answer, is it? Personally I like that one better than the little fundie Christian fill-in-the-blank answer: "Godidit."

quote:

What is outside of our universe? Are there other realms of existence? Where does our universe comes from?

All have the same answer of, "We don't know yet."

Can religion attempt such brutal honesty like that, or do we have to continue filling in the blanks with, "Godidit"?

Incidentally, you think it's any accident that our previous Pope John Paul had no problems with evolution, and yet this uber hard-line Pope believes otherwise?

quote:

Science is limited to our space-time universe.

And that's a bad thing?

Judging by such boundaries, guess how much more limited religion is?

Re: Re: Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He is referring to the questions science cannot answer. What happened before the Big Bang? What is outside of our universe? Are there other realms of existence? Where does our universe comes from? Science is limited to our space-time universe.

I doubt we were the first big bang. That hurts my head already.

Re: Re: Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He is referring to the questions science cannot answer. What happened before the Big Bang? What is outside of our universe? Are there other realms of existence? Where does our universe comes from? Science is limited to our space-time universe.

i think its rather disingenuous to imply that because there are currently questions unanswered by science, that somehow this means religion can fill in those blanks, when in fact religion is merely a personal belief system that provides nothing to our understanding of the universe.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 "We don't know yet."

i concur, its a stellar answer. nothing like a bit of brutal honesty to admit our limitations and in so doing- further our reach some time in the future. indeed, "we don't know" is normally the first statement a scientist admits before setting off on a long journey of attempted discovery.

somehow that seems more genuine than "god works in mysterious ways"

MisterOpus:

1. I'de like to stick the subject of what the Pope had to say. We can debate the tenets of Darwinism at another time.
2. If you disagree the statement "Science cannot explain what's outside of space-time." Why? I would think physics could not be used to describe extra-universal planes.
------------------------------
THE BOUNDARIES OF PHYSICS.

It wasn't until 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang that physics as we know it began. Between 0 and 10^-43 seconds, we don't know what went on. Nothing can be smaller than the Planck length, so how do you describe a universe smaller than the Planck length?

An even bigger question is what happened before 0 seconds to the Big Bang. Before time and space. Science has gotten us to this point of knowing what happened up to the point of the the instant of the Big Bang, then it breaks down.
--------------------------------

Theories such as Super-gravity (M Theory) cannot be correct without the mathematical values of extra so-called universes (planes), dimensions, etc. I can't look it up for you, but definitely take a read on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton MisterOpus: 1. I'de like to stick the subject of what the Pope had to say. We can debate the tenets of Darwinism at another time. 2. If you disagree the statement "Science cannot explain what's outside of space-time." Why? I would think physics could not be used to describe extra-universal planes. ------------------------------ THE BOUNDARIES OF PHYSICS. It wasn't until 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang that physics as we know it began. Between 0 and 10^-43 seconds, we don't know what went on. Nothing can be smaller than the Planck length, so how do you describe a universe smaller than the Planck length? An even bigger question is what happened before 0 seconds to the Big Bang. Before time and space. Science has gotten us to this point of knowing what happened up to the point of the the instant of the Big Bang, then it breaks down. -------------------------------- Theories such as Super-gravity (M Theory) cannot be correct without the mathematical values of extra so-called universes (planes), dimensions, etc. I can't look it up for you, but definitely take a read on it.

i think youre making a false assumption. youre relying on currently limited scientific theory or understanding to justify your position that science will always be limited.

1. Scientists themselves say physics breaks down at the instant of the Big Bang.

We can't get past this issue can we?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. Scientists themselves say physics breaks down at the instant of the Big Bang. You can't get past this issue can you?

science also says physics laws break down inside a blackhole too. doesn't mean we can't keep studying to further our understanding, indeed its why theories involving quantum gravity to supplement regular gravitational theory were developed. who is to say 100 years from now we wont find a way to understand the primordial soup before the big bang? the entire idea of science is to continuously push boundaries and further our understanding in any conceivable way.

its ridiculous for a pope to illustrate the limitations of science, when its the scientists themselves who have provided him with the knowledge of that limitation in the first place, and then to imply that because science currently has limitations, the "world beyond" is the province of religion. especially since, as i have already argued, religion has not furthered our understanding of anything, much less the creation of the universe.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton MisterOpus: 1. I'de like to stick the subject of what the Pope had to say. We can debate the tenets of Darwinism at another time.

What the Pope is saying is directly debating the tenets of evolution, or as you call it, "Darwinism." For example, the Pope stated:

quote:

"But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

is flat out wrong. It is "scientifically proven" via methodological naturalism every single day in the lab and in the field. It is one of, if not the most scientifically sound theories out there. Furthermore, it has a known mechanism of action. Specifically:

1. Mutation
2. Natural selection

We see this mechanism in play and is testable, retestable, verifiable, and falsifiable, and is therefore completely valid to this day. Furthermore it leaves room for any corrections and modifications with any new evidence that we come across. This is how science works, and evolutionary theory is no different.

There is no debate on this issue. The pope, whom last I checked knows pretty much next to nothing in regards to science and research pertaining to the field of science, is talking a bit too far out of his ass on this.

quote:

2. If you disagree the statement "Science cannot explain what's outside of space-time." Why? I would think physics could not be used to describe extra-universal planes. ------------------------------ THE BOUNDARIES OF PHYSICS.......

I didn't disagree with the statement. Remember what I said?:

quote:

And that's a bad thing?

That's not disagreeing - that's asking what exactly is wrong with not knowing everything regarding existence at present? I submit that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but what our dear Pope and a great many fundie Christians tend to do instead is insert the phrase, "Godidit", wherever they feel they have no answers to difficult questions.

Scientists tend to have a different answer, and I think it's a real good one: "We don't know yet." We might know in the future. What we know now are giant steps to what we knew 30 years ago, lightyears from 50 years ago, and completely unforseen 100 years ago. Progress tends to give us answers as we dive further into our questions (which of course more questions arise, hence the process of science in a nutshell). Then again, we might not know these answers.

But what I will not do is insert something that is an unverified, untested, and unfalsifiable "belief" into the holes of knowledge on natural phenomena where they most certainly do not belong, much as our Pope is doing and what you are seemingly complicit with doing as well. Those plugs of faith do not belong in natural phenomena, lest they be judged by the exact same standards that natural phenomena are scrutinized by (i.e. scientific methodology).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. Scientists themselves say physics breaks down at the instant of the Big Bang. We can't get past this issue can we?

At present we can't. Does that mean we stop trying to ask, probe, and see the possibilities of trying as our body of knowledge and technology continues to advance?

It's a funny thing called "progress." My favorite IDers and creationists tend to scurry away from that thought with science, but again that's how the world turns.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i concur, its a stellar answer. nothing like a bit of brutal honesty to admit our limitations and in so doing- further our reach some time in the future. indeed, "we don't know" is normally the first statement a scientist admits before setting off on a long journey of attempted discovery. somehow that seems more genuine than "god works in mysterious ways"

Amen brotha!

I always find it amusing when people question the theory of speciation over billions of generations - as supported by all available biological, genetic, phylogenetic, paleontological and geological evidence - on the basis of lack of proof, while concurrently believing that a ghost impregnated some Palestinian virgin 2000 years ago with the seed of the creator of all existence. Talk about selective skepticism.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What's outside of space-time cannot be explained by science.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Photons exist outside of time in the conventional sense (objects travelling at the speed of light do not experience time at all) yet we can still measure and explain their properties. Black holes could quite easily be said to exist beyond space-time (within them, time stops and all "space" is compressed into a singularity) yet we can still observe their effects on other objects and could predict their existence theoretically decades before any were observed. In quantum theory, the connection between particles and space-time is a tenuous one indeed (they can be said to exist both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously!) but that doesn't mean we can't predict and observe their behaviour with impressive precision.

The "entity outside space-time" argument is a lame one. It adds nothing new to our understanding of the universe while at the same time posing a number of questions that need to be answered before we can even begin to take it seriously.

For instance:

1) What is the nature of this entity? Of what substance is it comprised?
2) How can this entity interact with space-time if it exists intractably beyond its boundaries?
3) On what basis can we assume this entity to be supernatural (capable of acting without obeying any given set of natural "laws") rather than natural?
4) On what basis do you suppose this entity to be conscious, in contrast with all other universal forces that are not (gravity, electromagnetism etc.)?
5) In what sense can an entity that exists beyond space-time be said to exist at all?

This argument ultimately becomes self-defeating. Unless you can convincingly answer these questions, then you are left with a "God":

1) Who cannot be said to have a nature of any sort.
2) Who cannot be said to be able to interact with any observable part of the universe in any way.
3) Who cannot be said to be said to exist beyond the constrictive gratuity of "natural" existence.
4) Who cannot be said to be conscious in any way.
5) Who cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense of the word.

In other words, we are left with a God that serves absolutely no function at all. It may be said to "exist" in some unconventional sense of the word, beyond the realm of space-time - and that may bring you comfort for some reason - but it is a theory that doesn't differ in practical application from the theory which states the exact opposite: that there isn't a God. If you have two theories that reach the same conclusion and fit the facts equally well, why wouldn't we go for the parsimonious one that doesn't necessitate the inclusion of super-spatiotemporal beings for reasons that have never been properly explained to me?

Opus:

How can we quantify the supernatural?

Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us.

Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Opus: How can we quantify the supernatural? Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us. Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

The universe encompasses everything. Light does not travel "outside" the universe because there is no outside. Just like there is no beginning or end of space there is no edge of the universe. Space is finite yet boundless because we're dealing with 4 spatial dimensions.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The universe encompasses everything. Light does not travel "outside" the universe because there is no outside. Just like there is no beginning or end of space there is no edge of the universe. Space is finite yet boundless because we're dealing with 4 spatial dimensions.

There could be an outside.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Opus: How can we quantify the supernatural? Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us. Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

But basically aren't you just arguing that we should answer with religion when science has yet to find an answer? I mean, I'm sure our ancestor did just that. Fire? Must be some god. Rain, thunder, lightning? Our crops growing, not growing? God must've been a good answer. I do believe that in this day and age we can understand that not having an answer at the moment does not imply that the question is unanswerable.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers There could be an outside.

I could also win the powerball lottery, but what are the chances?

To deny science is to accept one's own ignorance.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers There could be an outside.

Ok how? If you travel in any given direction for an infinite amount of time you will never reach an edge.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok how? If you travel in any given direction for an infinite amount of time you will never reach an edge.

Unless gravity is bending your track and you are really just going in circles (or a massive arc)!

I'm a proponent of the brick-wall theory. No really. Actually I believe the universe is infinite, but it's such an amazingly abstract concept to really think about.

I haven't really read this thread so I'm probably speaking out of context, however I know that studies by Steven Hawking and others have observed the doppler effect among other things and have thus concluded that the universe is expanding. In order for something to "expand" does it not therefore logically have to have some sort of "defined boundries" or some sort of quantifiable size in order to actually change in size/scope?

Actually--where was that thread with all of the videos about "What We Still Don't Know About the Cosmos?" I remember the guy talking about universes within universes and metaverses or something like that.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.