This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God

Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God - Comments

Mr0Joshua's Avatar Comment 1 by Mr0Joshua

the Vatican "does not stand in the way of scientific realities".

Except when it has to do with human reproduction and protection from sexually transmitted diseases.

... delusional shmucks

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:25:00 UTC | #334676

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 2 by PrimeNumbers

They don't stand in the way over paedophiles, either...

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:29:00 UTC | #334678

boogerjames's Avatar Comment 3 by boogerjames

In other news:

Pederast priests and young alter boys are "perfectly compatible" claims the Catholic Church

-EDIT- Damn Prime, you beat me to it. I think mine's funnier though

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:30:00 UTC | #334679

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 4 by prettygoodformonkeys

200 years from now they will capitulate and say that this was before God revealed the existence of folded dimensions and time-negating wormholes, which has created 746,810 new levels of apologetics, and posited planes of existence where God is not affected by earth-bound theories of any kind, prove what those theories may.

So Dawkins may have been right, but it didn't matter.

Or some shit.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:33:00 UTC | #334681

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 5 by Chris Roberts

... which co-organised the conference with Notre Dame University in Indiana and support from the John Templeton Foundation, said there was "no a priori incompatibility between evolution and the message of the Bible".

He noted that Darwin had never been condemned by the Catholic Church, and that On the Origin of the Species had never been placed on the Index of forbidden books. Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the assertion by Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God was "absurd".

Funny how the Templeton foundation crops up wherever money is needed.

Wonder where the second 'the' came from in the book title though, was it from ignorance?

And of course it is absurd that god doesn't exist just because a little bit of the bible is quite obviously wrong.

There may be no incompatability with the message in the bible and real life, but the text itrself has no basis in reality and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:36:00 UTC | #334682

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 6 by Gregg Townsend

Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God
Yes, we know...but, it does kind of demote him to celestial sous chef (or some such nonsense)

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:38:00 UTC | #334683

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 7 by prettygoodformonkeys

14 billion years to come up with the prostate gland? Balls on the outside of my body? What a spectacular underachiever.

They'd be better off keeping quiet.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:45:00 UTC | #334684

Thurston's Avatar Comment 8 by Thurston

Am I right in thinking Dawkins does not say that evolution proves there is no god, rather it "sterilises" (as it were) the main argument in support of his existence?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:48:00 UTC | #334685

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 9 by Bonzai

Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God

How about they try to come up with a proof that God exists for a change?

Why do they think they are entitled to asserting nonsense matter of factly and that it is our job to 'disprove' bullshit they pull out of their arses? The onus of proof should be on those who make the existence claims in the first place. The arrogance of the faith heads just boggles the the mind.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:49:00 UTC | #334686

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 10 by Frankus1122


Balls on the outside of my body?

What may seem evil / absurd is all for a greater good:

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:52:00 UTC | #334687

Mark Smith's Avatar Comment 11 by Mark Smith

Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are "perfectly compatible"

Only if the (two) Genesis accounts are read as making no factual claims about how life on earth came to be; and only if the words in the accounts are read as asserting something that they do not actually say (namely that god was involved in whatever the event was that 'sparked' life).

Edit: of course by those kind of reading rules almost anything is compatible with almost anything else

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:56:00 UTC | #334688

johnx's Avatar Comment 12 by johnx

Science has shown light exposing their delusions and all they've got left is hiding their god behind the big bang.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:02:00 UTC | #334690

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 13 by kaiserkriss

Hiding behind genesis being a metaphor for evolution is just moving the goal posts.... AGAIN. The RC Church will continue to do this until it is reduced to nothing. jcw

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:05:00 UTC | #334691

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 15 by phasmagigas

im going to assume richard will actually post a reply to this which presents his actual view which i think is more on the lines of 'evolution provides a plausible mechanism to diversity which doesnt require a god'

the vatican is once again talking out of its gold plated, well fed arse. EDIT, or perhaps its richard owen whos doing the arse talking.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:09:00 UTC | #334694

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 14 by zeerust2000

AS Thurston (above) says, Richard has never said that "Evolution proves there is no god". This is a bit of a straw man, really. Unfortunately it seems to be a common one amongst Richard's critics.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:09:00 UTC | #334693

Thurston's Avatar Comment 16 by Thurston

I've just noticed the article is by a man called Richard Owen. That's a charming little accident.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:23:00 UTC | #334698

Nyarlat's Avatar Comment 17 by Nyarlat

Darwinian evolution and the account of my used toilet paper are "perfectly compatible"

Anything as nonsensical as holy books and claims are "perfectly compatible"

They think that A and B are from different sets.
A element W, B element of K, W<>K

So why writing a book about K in the first place when we life in W?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:32:00 UTC | #334699

DoctorE's Avatar Comment 18 by DoctorE

God was single celled organism?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:36:00 UTC | #334701

ridelo's Avatar Comment 19 by ridelo

Another non-event. All that folk to push over one straw man.
Well, Rome is a nice place for a stay. Gorgeous museums and plenty of good restaurants. Do something with your time there.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:38:00 UTC | #334702

notsobad's Avatar Comment 20 by notsobad

God can come up with evolution but it's always short on money.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:39:00 UTC | #334703

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 21 by Sally Luxmoore

Well at best all they could be left with would be a god with nothing to do but watch.
However, they're always left with the question we all asked as children, 'Who made god...?'

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:46:00 UTC | #334706

wardsie's Avatar Comment 22 by wardsie

Has RD ever said "that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist"?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:11:00 UTC | #334710

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 23 by rod-the-farmer

I too don't remember Richard saying "evolution proves god does not exist". I think what he said was "evolution proves that god is not necessary".

But, let's be charitable here. At least they did not call for him to be denied a chance to speak. The more we have prominent clergy from ONE faith saying evolution is OK, the better our chances that OTHER faiths will come around to rationality. After all, a faith/cult that has been around for only a few score years can hardly stand up in front of one that has been around for centuries, and say "You people have it all wrong, WE know much better how your book should be interpreted".

That is actually an interesting concept. Have the leaders of the fundie churches ever met with the RC leadership, and discussed their different positions on things like evolution ? I would love to hear how a fundie would answer the RC people saying "Why do you take the position that evolution is not a scientific truth ?"

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:25:00 UTC | #334714

black wolf's Avatar Comment 24 by black wolf

The Vatican has rejected the claim by Richard Dawkins, the biologist and campaigning atheist, that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist

Citation needed

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:29:00 UTC | #334716

critica's Avatar Comment 25 by critica

Nor does evolutionary theory disprove the existence of ghosts, sprites, demons, spirit guides, fairies, angels or homunculi. The point being...?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:33:00 UTC | #334717

Mayhemm's Avatar Comment 26 by Mayhemm

Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are "perfectly compatible explanation says that all life was created in its present form all at once several thousand years ago. The other says all lifeforms came from a common single-celled ancestor and diversified into their present forms gradually over millions of years.

Where exactly is the compatibility of which these learned scholars of the Vatican speak?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:34:00 UTC | #334718

dawkinspitbull's Avatar Comment 27 by dawkinspitbull

Which god can they prove exists??

I was selected for promotion over a coworker recently and her reason was "God just did not want me to get that job". I just said "OK" and went back to my cubicle. I find it hard to tell her maybe it is because her IT Degree was from the Oklahoma Bible College.
When I was in the USAF I did not find it difficult to argue against theology, but as a civilian contractor it seems best not to piss off people that can fire you.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:37:00 UTC | #334719

AmericanGodless's Avatar Comment 28 by AmericanGodless

Of course they misquote Richard. He says there is almost certainly no god. They say that there certainly is a God and they speak for him. They have to misrepresent Richard's claim as a dogma like theirs in order to avoid admitting that, as a hypothesis, their God fails miserably.

So "Catholic doctrine" and/or "the message of the Bible" have once again been declared to be compatible with evolution. Ho hum. Doctrine and the Bible can never be incompatible with any findings of science, because, as the Vatican theologians said, Christians believe that God "created all things". No mere observation or application of reason can ever touch that, since they don't hold it as a theory, but as a matter of faith, carrying a probability of one.

Meanwhile scientists, who understand that no human knowledge has a probability of one, and who are interested in pushing the probabilistic knowledge of science ever further, will continue to find the naturalist hypothesis most fruitful, and will continue to advance our understanding of the nature and evolutionary origins of our consciousness, our sense of morality, and the material mechanisms behind all that the Christians believe that God created. And the Church will (with some indigestion) continue to absorb all of the findings of science, piece by piece. And after each bout of indigestion, they will stagger back, and hold yet another conference to once again declare that it all is compatible with their supernatural beliefs. Their top-down "theory" of origins will continue to be falsified again and again in favor of the bottom-up theories of evolutionary science, and yet they will continue to cling to their mantra that, nevertheless, "goddidit".

But while their theory, transmuted into dogma, is compatible with everything, it suggests nothing, and does not inform any research. Until the Catholic Church and the Discovery Institute publish some research that demonstrates how their theory of an unevolved intelligence has led to the discovery of a new aspect of the physical world that can be most probably best explained in terms of that theoretical intelligence, their theory that "God created all things" will continue to be a failed theory.

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:49:00 UTC | #334722

wardsie's Avatar Comment 29 by wardsie

Very well expressed AmericanGodless

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:57:00 UTC | #334725

troyreynolds86's Avatar Comment 30 by troyreynolds86

The Vatican claims that evolution does not disprove that God exists. How can I put this gently. Um...No shit, Dick Tracy. It just makes your god, and any god, in respect to biology, as useless as tits on a bull. But neither is it incompatible with the Intergalactic Burping Coconut that belched the universe into existence, which is just as likely as your Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spook ménage a trois. Exactly the same amount of evidence. How 'bout you actually engage the arguments that are being presented by us Atheists instead of tossing out crap we aren't even claiming.

With all sensitivities to the great and noble Holy See,


Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:00 UTC | #334726