He defends evolution, but attacks scientism - the use of science beyond its proper sphere of investigating physical nature. I do wonder what he thinks the proper sphere of science is. Anything that scripture does not address? Because lots of scripture deals with the 'physical nature'.
He's taking the stand - like catholics mostly do these days - that both creationists who attack science (especially evolution), and atheists who attack religion using evolution are both wrong in thinking that there is any overlap between the respective spheres.
Unfortunately, he aid, intelligent design and creationist proponents are not addressing the real problem evolution poses, which is how to explain the existence of suffering, disease, death and extinction before the historical event of the creation and fall of man. (...) But evolution demonstrates that suffering and death are not the consequence of the fall, but were part of life "far before humanity came onto the scene and is in fact a part of how we got here," he said.Right. I do agree that science, and not just evolution, poses a great deal of questions that must be explained to continue to believe in scripture. Cdesign proponensists don't do that, he says, but then who does? The Catholics? Here's what he says about that:
How to account for the problem of why God would allow all his creatures to suffer is "the really hard challenge of evolution," he said.No answer to this is given. And, if they do give an answer, it will have nothing to do with evolution. They needn't invite scientists to answer such questions. They needed the scientists for publicity.
One response is that pain and suffering are a consequence of freedom, he said.
But while the father of a child lets her be free to run, fall and scrape her knee, if she were to pick up a gun and start playing with it, "I'd take that gun away," he said.
How then does the heavenly Father allow the extent and horrendousness of suffering seen throughout the world and in history? he asked.
It really should come as no surprise whatsoever that the conference would never contribute anything of worth. Nothing was learned by anyone, I trust. I can't say that with certainty, but I'd love to hear from anyone who has contrary evidence. Seems like a total waste of money, though a waste that I would have enjoyed taking part of.