Pope Benedict XVI opened a five-day Vatican meeting on evolution Friday morning by affirming that the world did not emerge out of chaos but was intentionally created by "the First Being."
"In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being,” the pontiff told an audience of 80 scientists, philosophers and theologians who have gathered for the conference, themed "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life."
“It must be created, in other words, by the First Being who is such by essence," he added, according to Zenit News.
Benedict also went further to assert that the Creator was not only involved in the origins of the universe but continually sustains the development of life and the world.
The Creator, he said, “is the cause of every being and all becoming.”
The five-day conference, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the latest initiative in an effort by the Vatican to promote dialogue between scientists and theologians. It also comes as debates over creation and evolution continue to rage on.
Like many Christians today, most members of the Catholic Church accept a brand of evolution known as "theistic evolution," which teaches that evolution was a tool used by God in the creation process.
During a press gathering in September, the Vatican said the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible and that it was even planning to hold a new interdisciplinary conference to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species next March in Rome.
The Catholic Church rejects a fundamentalist interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis, regarding the six-day account as an allegory. Though this view aligns with that of many Protestant Christians, many conservatives maintain the belief in a literal six-day Creation.
On Friday, Benedict said he saw no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.
"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences," he said, quoting from Popes Pius XII and John Paul II.
He also cited Galileo, whom, he said "saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author."
"It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose ‘writing’ and meaning, we ‘read’ according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the Author who has wished to reveal Himself therein," said the pontiff, according to Catholic News Service.
Following Benedict’s opening remarks, world renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, was scheduled to give a lecture Friday afternoon entitled "The Origin and Destiny of the Universe."
The physicist’s appearance was to mark his second at a Vatican scientific conference since 1981, when Hawking had attended at Vatican conference on cosmology.
Though he has never professed a belief in God, Hawking has never denied the existence of God either. Furthermore, in his 1988 publication, A Brief History of Time, Hawking discussed the possibility of a creator.
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,” wrote Hawking, who later said that his theories show the possibility for the laws of science to dictate how the universe began.
The world renown physicist has also admitted to being religious, though not “in the normal sense," in an interview with Reuters last year.
"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he told Reuters.
"The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws," he added.
Aside from Hawking, other notable scientists scheduled to speak at the five-day Vatican conference, which concludes Nov. 4, include Swiss chemist Albert Eschenmoser, who will discuss the search for the chemistry of life’s origin; U.S. biologist David Baltimore, who will examine evolution at the genetic level; and Greek biologist Fotis Kafatos, who will speak on evolution and the insect world.
Those addressing the theological and philosophical aspects of evolution will include Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and Father Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics and the philosophy of science at Seton Hall University.
RSS
Advice to the knuckledraggers (evolutionists) get right with your creator before the end comes. In the beginning was the Word - Jesus. Evolution has no plausible starting point, without a foundation it's simply a cruel joke perpetrated by the deceiver. Jesus saves, your monkey's uncle won't!
Wise men still seek Him.
Porter
+++
star2, sure, works for me. Just be sure next time that when it comes to objecting to it as an overall process it would be sensible to first understand those key terms and aspects I mentioned earlier. Obviously one can't walk a mile without first taking a step and one can't run before learning to crawl and walk.
For right now agentorange we'll just drop this, however, I will pick up with it again at a later date.
"Please explain how the prokaryotic cell evolved into the eukaryotic cell."
That would be the 'symbiogensis' and endosymbioatic terms I was reffering to earlier. Refer and research them, the evidence in the mtDNA in eukaryotic cells among other parts of a the eukaryotic cells demonstrate this. If you have objectiones/issues with the terms I put up earlier, please list, otherwise I think we're done here.
agentorangex
Please explain how the prokaryotic cell evolved into the eukaryotic cell.
Just as scientists work to prove science so is the creationist going to work to prove creation. These are two different viewpoints and passions wanting to be proven. Just as scientists are not afraid of creationists, creationists are not afraid of scientists. Both groups of folks are equally passionate about their work. We are people free to choice which viewpoint we align ourselves. Both may be necessary for the other.
Personally, creation v science should not be feared and both should be taught in the schools. They are both theory, in a sense and are worthy of equal time and discussion even if it does nothing more than convincing one of evolution or creation.
AgentOrange: You answered Star and yet I'm sure she doesn't care.
If you have objections to any of these, please explain: Natural selection, Genetic mutations (all types and key differences), Genetic drifting, Genetic isolation, Speciation (all 4 sub-types), Symbiogenesis, Endosymbiosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Star, these should be enough to give you a background, and above all don't be afraid to learn. I will be away till tues, I look forward to your reply.
"Where did DNA come from? "
DNA is derived from a more simplified genetic system which is based around heredity, mutations and natural selection, that being RNA.
Oh well, so much for 'crawling' at first eh? Look star, I welcome you wanting to learn on your own, but there comes a point where you must research and read about it on your own, I simply don't have the time to spoon feed it all to you.
As mentioned, it would be best if you can first demonstrate that you comprehend those key processes (not just the terms) I conveyed earlier, if you at least have this background it makes discussing the evolutionary path of the past 3.8 billion years more possible. Without it, it again would be like trying to teach calculus to an arrogant 3rd grader who refuses to aquatint themselves with the terminology and underpinning substance for calculus.
If, after reviewing such processes, you find objections to them then please lets tackle this first and then move onwards.
scits, if we knew that then we'd be Him!!
star,
Where did God come from?
agentorange
Where did DNA come from?
star: Why are you asking questions of which you don't care what the answers are? You believe God spoke it all into existance literally. So for you to ask these questions is meaningless. If you understood or cared about evolution one bit then maybe your questions would be good, but right now they just look disengenuous.
AO: For what it's worth, I had to check out what symbiogenesis is on Wikipedia.
Hmmmmm, 3 thumbs down, I would have thought such a analytical response on my part would warrant more of a reaction than simply the worthless thumbing mechanism. But I guess not, asking for response to objections to sybmiogenesis would be asking just a bit too much here.
"you don't know how it happened. "
Research 'symbiogenesis', and let me know what your objections are to it. It's a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology, and it explains how, why and from what, multicellular life emerged from. If you want specific books on it, just ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
We do know most of how it happened, but we can't engage in this dialog of running at full speed until YOU personally comprehend the terminology, processes, and mechanisms involved (this would be the crawling part). Until you can grasp these and understand them well enough, it would be pointless in discussing anything else as it would be like trying to teach calculus to a 3rd grader. It requires a background to understand, that is where you come in to read and research about it. It can't be entirely spoon fed, I can simply point you in the direction.
So, do you understand how natural selection works, genetic mutations (and all their types and how some are more probable than others), genetic drifting, genetic isolation, symbiogenesis, speciation, etc.? And if not, (and lets be brutally honest here, you don't) why do you presume that you could comprehend the overall evolutionary history of 3.8 billion years without such background in such processes and mechanisms?
Your stance is like a 3rd grader asking to be taught calculus, but they are unwilling to learn the underpinning maths involved, it's entirely illogical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
agentorange, you don't know how it happened.
Perhaps you're not comprehending this, until you understand the processes (mutations, genetic drifting, natural selection, etc.) I can't explain the overall process to you as it wouldn't work, you need to understand the processes first. And, based on our discussions in the past, it's apparent you don't comprehend them, want to try again from the top?
Take your pick of the processes (so we can begin to crawl) and then you begin to understand them we can start the the walking, fair enough?
agentorange
God will explain how He created everything when you can explain the details on how the different forms of life we know about came from a single cell orgainsm.
ifeelfine72, "The History Channel "
Oh no!, not THC, it's the Devil! =)
"is there any compelling evidence that doesn't fit the current model of evolution"
Sure, but really only on the margins like the discussions between gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But either way, gradual or punk eek, both would fit the underlying evidence and overall model of evolution quite well. Just one may support it better than the other. Ken Miller describes them as really being the same thing only viewed at different perspectives due to time constraints.
There is nothing like a fossil out of place, say like a rabbit in the Cambrian layers though, or evidence that DNA can't change, this type of evidence would be pretty hard to incorporate.
Some today point to temporal gaps of ignorance, ala instances of Irreducible Complexity', but these haven't held up under scrutiny.
"how and what components of the single cell orgainsm mutated"
How - via genetic mutation, that is the 'how'.
What - the components being, genes, were the 'what'.
Again, you asking for a 3.8 billion year history is absolutely absurd since you can't even crawl in the terminology yet, I could try to describe it, but it would gloss over you. It would be like trying to describe calculus to a 3rd grader. Can we start to crawl first by describing the processes and mechanisms like natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic isolation and so on so as to have at least a background and then move onto other impending questions? This would of course be in assuming you comprehend and don't object to such descriptions.
"and all the other chromosomes came to be through these multiple mutations starting with the single cell organism."
This is an absurdly low level question, one in which you wouldn't even understand, you have to crawl first in understanding the terms and processes. This is sort of question we have limited evidence for, as most of the life as gone extinct and we've only begun the sequencing of species genomes, so obviously we're not at a point where a fined toothed answer can be given. We can however explain lines of descent from what branches of life still exist and from those which have organic genetic information left.
"Explain why each species has its own set of chormosomes; some with more chromosomes than others."
They do b/c that's what they inherited, and some have more chromosomes than others as a process of mutations like duplications.
"Surely you can explain how new genetic material came into existence when the original host, the single cell organism, didn't have it to begin with."
This would be a origins of life type question, but for this we do have some fairly good natural models on how it could have worked. These are 2 studies base on Harvard research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
agentorange - Don't dodge my request. Your explanations are not good enough. Your answers to me sound like you really don't know how.
You want detailed answers on how God did it and I want detailed answers on how all forms of life came into being from a single cell orgamism through evolution.
ifeelfine72 - No, No, No. I want the details on how and what components of the single cell orgainsm mutated. How that mutated form of life changed. What components of the new mutated life mutated to form yet another new form of life, and etc. Some how an asexual single cell organism changed over time to form all the different kind of plants that exist, sky animals, water animals, land mammals, all forms reptitles, creeping things, and humans. I want a detail explanation starting with the earliest form of life and I want it from our resident CP expert in evolutionary biology Mr agentorange to give the details in how all that happened.
"You claim that life started out as a single cell organism which I have found out is asexual."
Star did some research, good. Also research ERV's, Human Chromosome 2 while you're at it, then come to explain them in their evidence, unlike dear jcfollower (pretender).
"I would like for you to identify the componenents of this earliest form of life"
Components? Organic carbon based life, good enough? Cynaobacteria sound familiar.
"describe in detail how it went from its initial state to all the different forms of life we see today."
You want me to explain something involving the course of 3.8 billion years on here? C'mon, be realistic. Star, why don't we start by learning to crawl before we run? Let's review what the evidence shows in biology, embryology, paleontology, genetics, and so on and then we can discuss microbial evolution. If I try to discuss it to you with no background in terms you'd be lost.
"Explain please which components mutated in this single cell organism"
The genes in the RNA, or a more simplified variant of RNA to be more exact. The genes is what mutated.
"how this formed a new type of life,"
Genetic mutations, reproduction, genetic isolation, how else?
"how that new life mutated to form yet a different type of life"
Ditto...
Star, for someone who will gladly take the overtly vague 'god had dun madeth story' you seem to only now want highly detailed examples. Wonder why you wont demand the same level of detail for your 'god dun hath makeuth' narration? Talk about holding one to a higher standard, sheesh.
AgentOrange: Agreed, but ERVs are a pretty compelling piece of that evidence. And to a lay person such as my self, they are a slam-dunk piece of the puzzle. Just out of curiosity, is there any compelling evidence that doesn't fit the current model of evolution?
star: The History Channel did a pretty good job of that in their series on evolution over the summer. An ancestor of the shark was apperently the first species to reproduce sexually the way we understand it now.
agentorange
You claim that life started out as a single cell organism which I have found out is asexual. I would like for you to identify the componenents of this earliest form of life and describe in detail how it went from its initial state to all the different forms of life we see today. Explain please which components mutated in this single cell organism, how this formed a new type of life, and how that new life mutated to form yet a different type of life, and so forth until you have the diversity of life we see today. Please explain the process on how the sex chromosomes came to be and all the other chromosomes came to be through these multiple mutations starting with the single cell organism. Explain why each species has its own set of chormosomes; some with more chromosomes than others. Surely you can explain how new genetic material came into existence when the original host, the single cell organism, didn't have it to begin with.
ifeelfine72, from what we know of how ERV's work in insertion and propagation, even to have a single one in a shared genomic location and to be some 98% identical across different species (remember point mutations do occur) without considering the concept of 'descent with modification', it would be very highly unlikely. Now to have all the ones we have with other extant apes, well it's practically impossible, the odds would be astronomic. But really, ERV's are but just one type of evidence supporting it, and it's more fair to review all evidence and then form a logical conclusion.
jcfollower: The Bible also commands us not to lie - you're no more a microbiologist than I am (in fact you appear to be less of one). If you believe DNA evidence is good enough to convict someone of a crime than you have to believe ERV's are good enough to "prove" evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm looking in your general direction agentorange) but the odds of ERV placement are greater than that of a DNA blood sample convicting someone of a crime.
Let's Restore Integrity back into Science.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Wow!!! Pro Science states
Science and only science contributes to human progress.
Setting religion aside can you imagine a more arrogant statement. In one casual claim pro-science delegates all of the arts, literature, music, architecture, poetry, etc. to the dust heap of history as having made no contribution to human progress. Makes you wonder what pro sciences definition of progress is and more to the point what his/her definition of human is.
"I'm sorry to have upset you. It is clear that you are very knowledgable on scientific subjects."
Gee, thanks, I guess. I suppose it's equally clear then that you're not a microbiologist, nor do you even comprehend what epigenetics entails.
"The Bible commands us that 'with knowledge, get wisdom."
What, the same bible that commands you to also not lie or bear false witness as you've apparently lead onto doing with your 'I'm a microbiologist' bit?
"Although we must agree to disagree, I hope for you that you find that wisdom. We've beaten this dead horse to death. "
Whaaaaaa? Beaten what to death? We've not even started my young Padawan, why is it right when the learning gets going you type exit the train? So here's the recap of events....You ask for evidence, then when evidence is presented you ignore it and act like it wasn't mentioned, then finally you acknowledge it but don't fully respond to them or their implications, and then lastly instead of even attempting to explain said evidence you just exit out (fold) with your pretentious persona as if to imply you were right all along. Some nerve.
Go ahead, flag it again, I'll repost it again.
I'm sorry to have upset you. It is clear that you are very knowledgable on scientific subjects. Knowledge is a good thing.
The Bible commands us that 'with knowledge, get wisdom.' "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Fear meaning an awe and respect of...
Although we must agree to disagree, I hope for you that you find that wisdom. We've beaten this dead horse to death.
"The folks who don't agree with the belief in evolution just want a simple, logical, explanation that takes us from data, to the conclusion that everything in this entire, complex and magnificent universe came about by chance."
Quit moving the goal posts, good grief. Sorry, science can't be dumbed down, it's not going to be so simplistic and you asking for such a heavy existential question to be spoon fed in this forum is laughable. Evolution isn't all 'chance' either, there is that part about natural selection.
"If you don't get mad, and you gently explain it to our satisfaction, then we will consider it and decide if we agree with you."
How's about you first address the evidence I gave in ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion and their implications in the first place. Waiting...
"Impuning our character and our education isn't gonna cut it. Stand and deliver."
I only insulted your education b/c you're a pretender trying to pretend you're a microbiologist when you're not. I delievered like an hour ago with the evidence for ERV's and such, so far not much from you other than 'they are interesting'.
The folks who don't agree with the belief in evolution just want a simple, logical, explanation that takes us from data, to the conclusion that everything in this entire, complex and magnificent universe came about by chance.
If you don't get mad, and you gently explain it to our satisfaction, then we will consider it and decide if we agree with you.
Impuning our character and our education isn't gonna cut it. Stand and deliver.
"ERV and chromosome 2 fusion are both interesting scientific discoveries. "
Ok, explain them and their indications then. You're rhetoric and antics mirror those of Sarah Palin.
"good science experimentation leads us to a conclusion."
Yep, and the conclusion here with those evidences is....common ancestry and evolution. If you disagree explain why.
ERV and chromosome 2 fusion are both interesting scientific discoveries. However, good science experimentation leads us to a conclusion. Bad science assumes a conclusion and crams every new finding into it.
jcfollower, again, be specific for what evidence you would deem sufficient and why.
"Because of my ignorance, I would like for you to explain them rather than provide weblinks"
In other words, you're not a microbiologist, in other words, you're a pretender. I gave the links as a reference for you, all you need to do is sit back, watch and review the articles cited and sourced in the vids, review some basic biology and you're up to speed. Think you can handle it jcfollower? Try that and come back with your objections.
Because of my ignorance, I would like for you to explain them rather than provide weblinks.
jcfollower,
"I think it would be helpful if you would take us through all of the 'support' that would lead us to 'believe' that evolution accounts for the 'origin of species."
(Sigh) Earlier I asked for SPECIFIC examples from you for what would be sufficient. B/c you lapsed and didn't provide any specifics I used some from genetics, that being ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion. Before we list MORE evidence, how's about you first address them?
You being a microbiology buff should certainly be able to understand the genetic ERV and human chromosome 2 evidence, right?
If these don't work, what about these instances of observed speciation?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I think it would be helpful if you would take us through all of the 'support' that would lead us to 'believe' that evolution accounts for the 'origin of species.' Please do this gently and kindly, we ignorant are so very fragile.
jcfollower,
Micro-biology huh, more like a liar, liar pants on fire. It's quite apparent with you rhetoric that you're not.
"You have data. You say that it proves evolution. It is merely data."
NO, I NEVER said it proves it, learn to read AND comprehend. I said it SUPPORTS it, and quite handsomely so, so much so that you likely have no clue on what it explains, thus why you can't even afford to offer any meaningful response to what the evidence shows. You wanted evidence, I gave them, now explain if you can.
"How the earth originated and how organisms originated cannot be observed."
Again, exemplifying why you're no microbiologist, as the theory of evolution neither deals with the origins of life or the origins of earth.
Evolutionary theory deals with the evidence related to the diversification of life, not the origins of life. It therefore makes a assumption that it existed already, it as a theory only attempts to explain how and why it's diversified over time.
"Therefore their origins are outside the realm of science and fall into the realm of speculation. If you decide which belief system explains them, that is an act of 'faith.'"
Again, origins of life and earth isn't evolution, got it?
You have data. You say that it proves evolution. It is merely data. Truth cannot be proven with science.
How the earth originated and how organisms originated cannot be observed. Therefore their origins are outside the realm of science and fall into the realm of speculation. If you decide which belief system explains them, that is an act of 'faith.'
"Linked them to prove that evolution is not a religion, you haven't."
Since when did evolutionary theory become a religion?
Evidence you have for this?
It's a realm of science, ya know, like micro-biology, it's no more a religion than gravitational theory or atomic matter theory are.
Religion affirms the beliefs in things supernatural, where is the supernatural in any science theory, let along the theory of evolution?
You got spunk, so you're not replying to evidence I presented, mkay, typical.
steveh20, I'm mainly speaking to natural disasters and the death, chaos, and destruction that would have resulted from them and the survival of the fittest dynamic.
Data you have. Findings you have. Linked them to prove that evolution is not a religion, you haven't.
"A lot of data has been collected and if we can just cram it into our cookie cutter of preconceived notions"
What part of relatively beneficial traits will be preserved over generations via natural selection is beyond comprehension?
Tell me if you disagree with any of these observed facts.
1) organisms reproduce with variation.
2) organisms will compete for resources with rivals and other species.
3) not all offspring from organisms from a single generation will reproduce (some will be food for other organisms, some die from disease, etc.) and consequently don't contribute to the next generations gene pool.
"Now please link the findings to proof of evolution."
Regrettably, the term 'proof' isn't used in science as it implies absolute, which in science no theories ever are by how they are tested against by the scientific method.
What would you consider as sufficient evidence
for it to be well supported? I mentioned ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion (these certainly don't need links, they are readily found on the Internet, but ask and receive you will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Are they what you'd like? If
not, be specific please of what you'd expect and why you'd expect it.
I believe that epigenetics can account for both. Now please link the findings to proof of evolution.
I still say that we are both religious adherents, just different religions.
"I don't know of anyone ever witnessing natural selection."
The example I gave is a fine one, the part with the bacteria evolving an entirely new enzyme to breakdown and digest nylon. Don't like it, what about something more nostalgic, say Darwin's finches?