2011年5月の教皇ベネディクト16世とMichael Ruseと

Dr. Jason Rosenhouseによれば、カトリック教徒であるProf. Michael Ruseが教皇ベネディクト16世の説教に関して、当然のこととして、動揺しているという:
Ruse is perturbed, and rightly so, by something that arose in the Pope's recent Easter sermon:
教皇が直近のイースターの説教で述べたことに、当然のことながらMichael Ruseは動揺している。
I don't think anyone would want to say that the present pope, Benedict XVI, has the charisma of his predecessor, John-Paul II. Or the avuncular warmth of John XXIII -- or the deep-seated understanding of that prelate about how his institution was in need of reform. But, we are often assured, one place where Benedict does make up is as a theologian. When it comes to understanding and developing what it all means intellectually, he is the very best.


Why then does he have such a blind eye or tin ear -- you choose your metaphor -- when it comes to modern science? Over Easter, in the most important sermon of them all, he stressed that whatever humans may be, we are not random. We are as we are by design.

If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.

Ruse now notes that from a Christian perspective it is unacceptable to think that humans are just a chance occurrence unlikely to recur if evolution were played out a second time. He is rather forceful that there is no scientific justification for seeing directionality in evolution. This leads to a problem:

キリスト教の観点からMichael Ruseは、進化をもう1回やりなおしたら人間に到達することはありそうにないという、人間が偶然の産物であるという考えを容認できないと書いている。彼は進化に方向性があるという見方は科学的に正当な理由がないと強制されている。これは問題につながる。
The point I am making is that, as things stand at the moment, there is a flat-out contradiction between the claims of modern biological science and the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. And the fact is that the Pope, for all of his vaulted theological expertise, is either ignoring this fact or is glossing over it, probably because he has made the decision that, when push comes to shove, theology trumps science. Schönborn was not out in left field on this matter. Indeed, he is tipped to be the favorite for the next pope and so he was hardly saying and writing things that would put him out of the running.


Schonborn was a Cardinal from Vienna who expressed very similar thought in op-ed a while back. At the time it provoked great consternation over whether the Catholic Church was withdrawing its support for evolution.


There is certainly much to appreciate in this paragraph. Ruse is absolutely right that there is a serious conflict between what the Pope said and evolution as scientists understand it. And I think he is also right in thinking that for this Pope, theology trumps science.

確かにこのパラグラフで評価すべきことはあまりない。教皇が言ったことと、科学者として理解している進化論の間に深刻な矛盾がある点は、Michael Ruseの記述はまったく正しい。そして、教皇について神学が科学に切り札を切るという考えも正しいと思われる。

[ Jason Rosenhouse: "Ruse on the Pope on Evolution"  (2011/05/17) on EvolutionBlog]
これに関して、Prof. Jerry Coyneはあっさりと...
This is why I see theistic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, and the officers of BioLogos as “creationists.” And I’ve never considered the Catholic Church particularly evolution-friendly. But, as Jason notes, if Ruse really feels this way, why has he spent his career arguing for a compatibility of faith and science, and excoriating those of us who see an implacable incompatibility? The man has some ‘splainin’ to do!

だからこそ、私はKenneth MillerやFrancis CollinsやBioLogosのメンバーのような有神論的進化論者を「創造論者」だと見ている。そして、私はカトリック教会が特に進化論に親和的だと考えたことはない。しかし、Jasonが言うように、Ruseが本当にそう考えるなら、宗教と科学が矛盾しないと論じ続け、相容れないと言う我々を激しく非難しているのか。説明すべきだろう。

この考え方は、「有神論的進化論はキリスト教的にありえない立場であり、進化論が正しければキリスト教はカスだ」というインテリジェントデザインのJohn G Westと同じである。

そして、Jason Rosenhouseも指摘する:
I would point out that he has just basically admitted that Christians currently lack a satisfactory way of coming to terms with the blow to human significance dealt by evolution. Why, then, is he so disparaging of people who claim it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to reconcile evolution with Christianity?

現時点では進化論による人間の重要性への打撃と折り合う満足できる方法がキリスト教徒にないことをMichael Ruseが認めていることを指摘しておこう。では何故、彼は進化論とキリスト教が折り合いをつけるのが不可能でないかもしれないが非常に困難だと主張する人々を批難するのか?

After all, we could pile on by pointing out that, in addition to this issue, we know that evolution exacerbates the problem of evil, refutes the design argument in biology, and forces us to abandon many traditional understandings of the Bible, among other problems. If someone looks at all this and sees a strong cumulative case against the possibility of harmony between evolution and Christianity, are you really certain they are being unreasonable?

結局のところ、この問題に加えて、これらを指摘することで、「進化論は悪の問題をより悪化させ、生物におけるデザイン論を論破し、聖書に関する伝統的理解の多くを放棄させる」という知識を積み重ねることができるだろう。もしこれらを見て、進化論とキリスト教の調査の可能性に反する証拠の積み重なっていると考える者がいたなら、それをMichael Ruseは本当に非論理的だと言えるだろうか?

[ Jason Rosenhouse: "Ruse on the Pope on Evolution"  (2011/05/17) on EvolutionBlog]

「あらゆる可能性を注ぎ込んだ宇宙を創造低成り行きを眺めるだけの神」までいかないとしても、「科学的に原理的に検出不可能な形での介入する神」で踏みとどまるしかないのだが、それでも十分に「聖書に関する伝統的理解の多くを放棄する」ことになっている。それでも、Michael RuseやKenneth Millerは折り合いをつけていこうとするだろうが。