"In
the autumn of 1996, Pope John Paul II complicated the picture by making some remarks
about evolution in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Or rather,
the media complicated the picture by inaccurately reporting what he said."

Interesting article worth reading.

"[This paragraph is from 'The Selfish Gene' at] the end of the chapter on the origin of of life and the spontaneous arising in the primeval soup of 'replicators', which later moved into the world of 'vehicles' -- living organisms."

Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicaating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival macines.'

"That paragraph [from "The Selfish Gene" quoted above] encapsulates the central metaphor of the book, and also its science-fictiony feel. Indeed, I began my preface with the words:"

'This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction. It is science. Cliche' or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known about it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others.'

"And the opening lines of chapter 1 continued the science fiction mood:"

'Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin.'

(p. 277-278)

Dawkins also includes part of a review of the book by evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton:

'This book should be read, can be read, by almost everybody. It describes with great skill a new face of the theory of evolution. With much of the light, unencumbered style that has lately sold new and sometimes erroneous biology to the public, it is, in my opinion, a more serious achievement. It succeeds in the seemingly impossible task of using simple, untechnical English to present some rather recondite nd quasi-mathematical themes of recent evolutionary thought. Seen through this book in their broad perspective at last, these will surprise and refresh even many research biologist who might have supposed themselves already in the know. At least, so they surprised this reviewer. Yet, to repeat, the book remains easily readable by anyone with the least grounding in science.'

It seems to me that Benedict may have 'received' the message that Dawkins 'sent' regarding science fiction in his book, although the former likely views it as more metaphorical and less scientifically rigorous than it was written to be by the latter.

But I think the media missed the boat in their anticipation and glee at anything that might be a sign of a fight between the emeritus pope and arguably the world's most famous living scientist -- and atheist. Dawkins is well known for his sharp criticism of the Catholic church and of Benedict specifically. But, given the above, it doesn't seem that Benedict is hitting back or, if he is, much more subtly.

Dear Eva,

correct, I am with you, Faith has the Truth and Science is looking for the same Truth.

Evolution is to evolutionism as science to scientism.

Evolution is (1) a pretty well documented historical fact. Living organism change over billions of years, slowly evolve new families and species (correct English words are missing to me, my native language is German) and (2) and pretty sound theory to explain this changes over time. The current theory is based on Darwin's theory, but is now taking many factors that Darwin had no idea like isolation and genetic fitness, epigenetic factors, findings of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo).

One topic that evolution cannot explain is self-consciousness (that's also the point that Nagel, an atheist, is making), intellectual reasoning and free will.

What is wrong is to make of evolution an all-explaining ideology -> this is evolutionism. And the same happens in every scientific field -> take Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss and others. This is not Science, but scientism.

Somebody on facebook a couple of years ago, asked: Did God create the darkness (in Genesis)?

I read the chapter closely and realised that Genesis actually describes the formation of the earth - from a globe of ice, spinning out of orbit in the universe and in complete darkness and cold, to the warm, life-covered planet, with regulated time sequences through sun and moon transitions, that we have today.

I see ‘science’ as an attempt by feeble man to label the great creations and events of God in an effort to understand them. Through scientific observations of other planets and spheres in our universe, I can see how God created this Earth in 7 days.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning ... the earth was a formless wasteland and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. (The earth had not entered its current orbit in our solar system but was an ice covered sphere spinning in darkness.)

Gen 1:3-5 - Then God said, 'Let there be light" ... God then separated the light from the darkness. (The icy sphere moves into the current orbit of our solar system and is illuminated by the Sun. It begins to spin on its magnetic north/south axis and we experience 'nights' and 'days'.)

Gen 1:6-8 - Then God said, 'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other (the sky).'
(With the warmth of the Sun, the ice covering the sphere begins to melt and the blue sky is separated from the blue waters of the oceans.)

Gen 1:9-10 - Then God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear.’ (As the molten core
of the planet became increasingly affected by the effects of gravity as it spun on its axis and was held in orbit, the magma began to shift and cataclysmic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occurred that created the masses of dry land that rose out of the waters, and valleys that sank into giant splits in the earth’s crust. Some Bible versions say ‘voids’ to describe the valleys formed during those earthquakes.)

Gen 1:11-13 – Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth vegetation…’ (With the newfound warmth of the Sun, seeds lying dormant in the soil underneath the icy cap that had thawed and shifted in earthquakes, began to sprout in the volcanic ash which is extremely fertile.)

Gen 1:14-19 – Then God said: “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth.” (As the great mass of volcanic ash dispersed, the stars in the solar system and beyond as the planet rotates in its new orbit now become visible from the surface of the earth. The Sun and Moon are visible as the earth spins on its axis in orbit. The stars are used to mark periods and transitions of time, seasons, months, years.)

Gen 1:20-23 – Then God said: “Let the water teem with and abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.” (God created all the species of marine life and birds. This was done in the same way as the conception of Jesus Christ, through a miracle of the Holy Spirit, which is God. Note: God created the species in one day, not the multitude of their offspring!)

Gen 1:24-31 – Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living
creatures…’ (This was also done through the divine Holy Spirit of God. The same spirit that ‘hovered over the waters in the darkness’ before the earth was formed.)

Faith and Reason/Science can never contradict one another. (Both come from God.)

That being said, I still think Creation has more credibility than Evolution, especially reading the likes of the aforementioned articles/books. Thank you for your letter; I, however, see that Pope Benedict Emeritus is still open to discussion and research on this issue.

I leave you with two quotes:

Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)

Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope
Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely
affect doctrinal beliefs.

Prophetic?

I would certainly think: NO, as long as evolution is taken within the borders of science (not scientism)

He has convened the meeting: Creation and Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Conference-Benedict-Gandolfo/dp/1586172344)

And this: "Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’” (It is from 2007, he said this in Italy, see http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.Ukft0oY70-I

Susan Blackmore's article is thought provoking: her idea to compare religion no so much to a virus (which is always detrimental) but rather to a bacterium (which can be both, good or bad) or to a "symbiont of the mind" (always good). Still, I do not think that this the true reason why humans at all time were religious, in all form or the other. It is this innermost longing that we have in ourselves and than none other than God has put in our hearts and in our intellect.