One step forward, two steps back.

2007 April 11
by cardinal fang

Listen up, everybody! The new pope has something to say!

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.

But wait a sec, didn't the last pope, JPII, suggest that maybe Darwin was on to something?

"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."

Actually, Benny, the evidence is practically overwhelming.

So, wait, does that mean that the last pope was fallible? Doesn't that make this pope fallible too? (Update: Yes and No, according to Sam of 'Dire and Dear'.  The pope is only considered infallible when it comes to Catholic doctrine; on matters outside of that realm the popes can err to their hearts content.)

BennyThank you, Pope Benedict XVI, for continuing to show the irrelevance of organized religion in the modern age. And we hoped that Roman Catholicism might be able to distance itself from fundamentalist American Christianity. I guess not.

Thanks for the news tip, Marty!

3 Responses leave one →
  1. 2007 April 12
    Sam permalink

    Oy. Hang on there, Richard Dawkins. The Pope is only theologically infallible. That's to say according to Catholic doctrine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he is only infallible in terms of Catholic doctrine. In terms of every else, be it science or the weather he's only to be trusted as much as any other layperson. Possibly sometimes less so.

  2. 2007 April 12

    Thanks Sam, I knew you'd come to the rescue.

  3. 2007 April 12

    Oh, and I'll take the Richard Dawkins comparison as a compliment. ;)

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.