Max: Benny Don't Like Nobody
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
posted by Max Dobberstein at 4/11/2007 08:36:00 PM
4 Comments:
Um.... he's right, though.... science can't really /prove/ evolution because it's not reproducible in a lab. You're the one that's all about scientific process. Why would you change your mind about this? :P I'm not saying I believe in creationism, but I honestly think there's more to humans than science can, and ever will, explain. We may uncover more and more every year, but all it usually does is bring up more mysteries. It's like an episode of Lost. :)
There are a lot of things we know that cannot necessarily be reproduced in a lab. Science also is observation and assessment of observable facts.
Okay, sure, you can't do millions of years of evolution in a lab, but you can prove natural seltion, mutation, survival of the fittest and you can do it over several generations. If we are talking single celled organisms or simple, short lived insects like fruit flys, a single scientist can see hundreds if not thousands of generations in just a few years.
These things are done all the time.
If Benny can come up with a first hand, eye-witness account of the life of Noah or Adam, or even Christ for that matter, I'll concede my point!
This arguement is also impossible to win for either side - both sides are rigged. Science has imperical, experimental evidence that makes logical sense. The religious have unshakable faith.
I recently had an arguement with a christian friend of mine that I respect and think of as very smart. We came down to the following point: if he had to choose between believing in one tiny grain of sand planet in the huge beach of the cosmos beating the existential lottery and spontainiously sprouting life or a multi-dimensional, omnipotent being who decided to put his finger/tentacle/penis/whatever on this planet and created life, he would choose the latter.
I personally think both arguements are insane.
I think we are the result of an insane programmer with a far too powerful computer. Let's pray that the programmer is running linux and has a UPS!
Post a Comment
<< Home