Posted on 01/30/2006 6:37:09 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.
Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”
Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Catholic Online received an advanced copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona.
Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.
In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.
He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”
And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.”
He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”
Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”
He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is.
Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”
“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.
Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean.
“It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.”
He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.”
“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.”
Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.”
Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.
“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”
He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”
He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”
“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”
The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both.
"the most Catholic of Catholic courts" ? You must be joking.
Does 'Defenestration(s) of Prague' ring any bells?
Bohemian Jan Hus was the first of the Protestant break-aways. After he was burned at the stake for heresy, his followers (including many knights and nobles of Bohemia and Moravia) rose up in revolt. King Wenceslaus (who was sympathetic to Jan Hus) died and his brother Sigismund attempted to take the throne. But the Hussite forces ejected Sigismund and the Roman clergy along with him.
After eighteen years of war and mostly Hussites victories, the treaty of Jihlava allowed Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to take the throne, however the lands of the Roman Catholic church were forfeit, and the churchs of Bohemia could follow the Utraquist (Hussite) creed.
Following Sigismund, Bohemia was ruled by a succession of Hapsburg (Austria) kings. One of whom, George of Podebrady, was the first King in Europe to renounce the Catholic faith and accept the early Protestant religion of Jan Hus.
After Bohemia and Hungary were recaptured from the Ottoman empire, Habsburgs were back on the throne. But they still held to the treaty of Jihlava, despite threats from the Vatican. And in Kepler's time at Prague, Emperor Rudolf II even expanded it with royal charter called the Majestät (or "Majestic Letter") in 1609 that guaranteed religious freedom to the nobles and cities.
He's just being snotty 'cause the Vatican doesn't read his posts.
The terms "genus" and "species" were borrowed from Aristotle's Categories. The term "species" is synonymous with Aristotle's notion of form.
The notion of "species" in the biological sense is largely nominal, and of less metaphysical value.
Who cares? Scientists should, because scientific research is predicated on the abstraction of universals from particulars.
Since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about, it's pointless to proceed. But the problem of universals is of paramount importance for scientists and laymen alike. Most modern scientists are de facto Nominalists, not realizing that their position is incoherent and ultimately solipsistic.
See my post #124 to Virginia-American. I'm interested in your thoughts.
From js1138:
More people than you can imagine are reading the annals of Darwin Central.
Indeed they are. My post 655:
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" appears to be everywhere, yet the hand of Providence is never intrusive.
No, I understand perfectly where you are coming from.
The problem is that you have to do some pretty amazing spaghetti twists in regards to the doctrine of the fall and the atonement if you subscribe to Darwinism.
frgoff made a point similar to yours (I believe) in his post to me, which I replied in post 135. If I'm wrong, or if you don't believe I understood your post, then fine. But I'm not really interested in any tangential discussion. To me the issue is this simple. If one believes that Genesis should be taken as a literal account of history, then explain why this is so. I think it's clear I've demonstrated that it can't be simply because the entire Bible should be taken literally, so now the task becomes to demonstrate which verses should be taken literally, and why, specifically, why should Genesis be taken literally (if you are a creationist/IDer).
I suppose my main point can be summed up thusly: Since no one can show any "superior" interpetation of Scripture over another, it's pretty much pointless to believe a creationist Christian is somehow superior to an "evolutionist" Christian.
I don't know where you stand on the crevo debate, since I'm not a regular to these threads. But if you are one who takes the accounts of Genesis literally, and calls anyone else who doesn't "not a real Christian", then read my post in 135 and tell me, "Who decides what verses to take literally and why?"
No. I can't absorb it either.
LOL!
Who says, you?
As a physical chemist who spent his career in engineering roles, I'd say the following would be "better":
and that's just for starters...
No, most of accepted scriptural exegis for about the last 2000 years.
Biblical interpretation is not ENTIRELY subjective. There are certain elements that have to be universally accepted as literal (Jesus Christ was real and the son of God) or you no longer have Christianity.
One of those, accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.
Christians who subscribe to Darwinism must turn their back on 2000 years of scholarly interpretation and declare that Adam is actually a metaphorical construct and never existed as a real individual, and that Paul is comparing a metaphorical construct, Adam with a real individual, Christ, and that a metaphorical construct to represent a prior condition that never existed (a sinless garden of eden with immortal occupants) requires the real sacrifice of an actual diety (Christ, the son of God) to eventually restore mankind to a metaphorical condition that never truly existed.
The contradictions require an impressive exercise in pretzel logic to overcome.
My apologies - I failed to take into account another timeless Truth from Scripture: Lost folks cannot comprehend spiritual Truths, as their understanding is dim and their spiritual sight is dark. Keep on reading the Bible with a "wooden headed" approach - you will feel as if you have justified yourself but, in truth, be setting yourself up to face the wrath of God at the time of judgment. Seek Christ Jesus with a humble heart while you yet have breath.
Yes, however I don't see how believing in the evolution of the human body negates this. I'm not denying the universal element you described. I do not believe that Adam is a "metaphorical construct" totally separate from reality. I simply don't believe it's important to know exactly how his body was formed to understand and accept the message of salvation.
I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, and it doesn't really matter for this conversation, but one perfectly valid way (in my opinion) of viewing our nature is as Pope Pius XII stated regarding evolution:
"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. source
So what's this saying? Basically it's saying that it's the soul of man ultimately responsible for our nature. Our soul is that which defines us, not merely our bodies (although, being created by God, the body is a part of us, but it's not what defines us ultimately).
Thus, our bodies very well could have developed through the process we call "evolution" today, (even though this is, I believe, of course a process guided by God, but that doesn't really change whether or not evolution as a process is real), but our soul has never and is never "evolved"; the soul is created.
So did Adam, the actual person live? I believe so yes. But how did Adam's body come into being? Does that really matter? That's the question. I submit it doesn't really matter what you believe. It doesn't really matter if you believe that Adam's body evolved from a common ancestor with apes, or if you believe that his body was literally formed from the dust of the earth. It doesn't really matter because our salvation is not linked to our body, but rather what we do with our soul.
Now again, you may disagree with this, and that's fine. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to believe that Adam was literally created from dust. I don't see why other Christians though seem to insist upon forcing such a literal interpretation on others? (and that seems to be the reason these crevo threads keep popping up, because if we just had a "live and let live" philosophy on this issue, then we wouldn't have the crevo threads, much less the recent brouhaha in Kansas, or Pennsylvannia)
So, if you still remain unconvinced, if you still believe there should be only a strict interpretation of Genesis, then that returns us to the (my) original point, which is, "Why should we take Genesis literally? Why is your [or any creationist's/IDer's] opinion of Scripture any more superior to mine, or to Pope Pius XII'ths or, ...........etc?"
Thank you so very much for sharing your beautiful testimony and insights!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
