The Vatican, the apes, the Osservatore and a Christian refutation of intelligent design

The anti-Darwinian creationists get angry at the idea we evolved from apes, rather than turning up fully human in Eden.  Now, however, the Vatican attempts a theological resolution of the conflict.  CNS reports on an Osservatore article by the biologist Fiorenzo Facchini, saying that apes DID evolve (as we know) into pre-human creatures but that God then humanized them. " "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be....at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human ".  The scientist says that this idea of  divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world.  This is hardly a new idea among intelligent believers, but nicely put.   Here a happy pro-science blogger headlines this interesting article as "NOT ALL CHRISTIANS NEED TO LIE ABOUT SCIENCE".   

Comments

[Carl Waring]

Libby, I really do enjoy your blog, I think it's on the whole an even handed and occasionally sideways look at the ways of the worshipping (and non-worshipping) world, but I feel I must point out something here:

We didn't evolve from apes, nor chimps, nor monkeys. We all share **a common ancestor** but we didn't evolve _from_ apes.

A great explanatory quote, from PBS - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. "

I'm sure you already knew that and that it was just a slip of the tongue/pen/keyboard, but some of your regular contributors may not have picked up on that distinction yet (hi again, Rick) so a quick recap might not go amiss.

[Rick Beekman]

This to Me is a No-Brainer.

You either Believe the Bible and God's Word..or you believe what science explains. I'll take God's Word. Here a Few Reasons Why;

(1) In Genesis 1 V 26 God Said "Let us make Man in Our Image"
Was His Image A Monkey? Or Did Mean I'll Make a Monkey And Eventually Turn him Into a Full Human?

(2)In Genesis 2 v 19 & 20; God brought all the animals for Adam to name. Did God Bring The Other Animals so Another Animal (A Monkey)could name them?

God Who made the Heavens and Earth Every Person..Every Bird...Every Creature would have no reason to let a Monkey invole into a Human. If You Don't Believe in a Supreme Being Then Yes To The Carnal Secular Humanist Mind You can Believe Anything any Pinheaded College Professor Or Scientist teaches and like a fish swallow it hook..line..and sinker.
Anyway Unbeleivers will argue against an almighty God and defend Darwin and Those Like Him. Personally I Believe in The "Big Bang"...God Shouted "Bang" and it happned....

[Andrew Milner]

More fudge than a sweet shop. Wait until the bones of JC show up. You really think you'll get the DNA of God? "Jesus ascended into Heaven in spirit, it's not meant to be taken literally." Sure, sunshine. So what else shouldn't be taken literally? The invisible guy in the clouds watching our every move on seven billion video monitors? Save it for the natives in grass huts.

[Coel]

The article's hypothesis is clearly false since it implies that, prior to the "divine intervention", the proto-human had no "intelligence" or "thought". We know this to be wrong; indeed,chimpanzees today demonstrably have intelligence, thought, consciousness, self-awareness, moral senses, and all the other mental attributes that we humans have (though to a lesser degree).

And postulating some sort of divine spark is indeed an unwarranted imposition of theology into science, since there is no evidence whatsoever for this divine intervention, and the scientific explanations of humans and human evolution are sufficient and complete without it.

[Rick Beekman]

Andrew Milner;

Welcome to the wide wonderful Faithless World of Unbeleivers.

And Sir you have lots of company on this blog..it's just loaded with Carnal minded people like yourself.

That said let me give you a few verses from God's Holy Writ; First you stated God ascended to heaven in Spirit Form and not to be taken "Literally".

(1) Genesis 5 verse 24; "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him"
Enoch never saw Physical death..He was taken stright to heaven.

Jude 1 v 14 & 15; "And Enoch also..the seventh from Adam prophesied of these saying Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgement upon all and convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
(Read that last portion again..Enoch is addressing you.)

(2)Elijah..a Prophet of God. II Kings 2 v 11; "And it came to pass as they still went on and talked that behold..there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire..and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven".

It that too "Literal" for you Mr. Milner? Have a great weekend!

[Fatpie42]

Divine intervention "is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit"

So this is another version of ID theory then isn't it? Unlike ID theory which proposes that mutation doesn't happen and instead insists that all major changes in animals occur through divine intervention, this theory simply uses ID to explain the change which bothers the religious sentiment the most. That being the point where humans are distinct from animals.

So instead of seeing that there was a crossroads in our evolutionary history where modern apes developed in one way and we developed in another, Facchini wishes to imagine that the mutations leading to human beings were actually God-magic.

It's that Deus Ex Machina that Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned us about. As human knowledge expands religious claims are pushed into the gaps. The only thing is that in this case Facchini seems to be using a crowbar to wedge the gap open wide enough to fit God into it.

[alan]

I'm proud to be an evolutionary relation of a creature such as the gorilla depicted above.
Look into a gorilla's eyes and you see more nobility than in those of many a ranting religious bigot.

[Jess H]

Rick, you really are very aggressive towards people who don't believe in God, yet you expect us to treat you with a respect you somehow think you deserve because you do? I have to say I find it quite amusing that you say WE'VE fallen hook, line and sinker, for a proven theory of evolution when you believe (without a single scrap of evidence, and faith does not count as evidence) that there is a God, and he created the whole universe (and somehow himself..which is another question all on its own). Yet he also created people with the capacity to not believe in God,or to be gay, or to commit genocide, or to abuse children, or to believe in other Gods. Do you not just think that maybe your God is one in a line of many beliefs that will one day be a myth like the Greek and Roman Gods (which were abandoned pretty swiftly when people were FORCED to believe in one God. Maybe you should look at this objectively before you start preaching.

[alan]

Jess - I don't think Rick is being aggressive. He's just stating what he believes. If I understand him rightly, he believes the very word of the bible - literally. That is the justification for his faith. Well, that's OK by me.
In fact I think Rick's being far more consistent than those believers who try to justify their irrational faith by "rational" arguments.
I'm an atheist (I think Rick knows this). But I respect his standpoint, even though I disagree with it and would always argue against it.

[Jess H]

I have no problem with Rick expressing his views, it's his tone that I find offensive, maybe I'm just being over-sensitive but it seems to me like he thinks he is better.

[iain rae]

Why can't the Vatican just accept the Bible literally instead of making up stuff as it goes along.Confusing enough for the faithful,and increasingly funny for the rest of us.