Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says

Catholic Online ^ | 30 January 2006 | Mark Lombard

[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.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

And you prove the Truth of Scripture by not being able to comprehend the metaphors that are obviously being used (regarding the circle and the clay). To read into the Matthew 4 passage an endorsement of the teaching that the Earth is flat is to miss the entire point. There is a phrase - straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Methinks this is what are you doing in trying to prove that the Bible makes claims that it does not.

When you die, you will know beyond a doubt that God's Word is true and man's vain imagination is vastly over rated and faulty. But it will be too late at that point. But you no doubt have read all about the judgment throne - it's in the Book!

[aNYCguy]

not being able to comprehend the metaphors that are obviously being used

Ah, I see. This clarified your earlier statement that "While the Bible is not a science book, when it speaks about science it is truthful." You meant metaphorically truthful. Good, I think we're in agreement. In the future, you might want to specify that the truthfulness or inerrancy you're discussing is metaphorical truthfulness, and not factual truthfulness. I got confused.

[betty boop]

AMEN, TXnMA

May God ever bless you for this witness unto Truth.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

[hosepipe]

God an engineer... ABSOLUTELY..
What he's building now today is glorious..
SO glorious; that most people wouldn't even believe what it is until they saw it..

Tickets are available to view, but they are not cheap..
They cost FAITH..

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Thank you for your kind reply. Yes, many take literally things in the Bible that are clearly metaphors. Many pluck out promises as their own that were made at a point in time to a people and myriad twist normal narrative into mystical spiritual voodoo. All of these people read into the Bible what is not there, rather than humbly seeking the Spirit of God to teach them what is there.

Peace to and your from the swamp known as Houston,

[betty boop]

Tickets are available to view, but they are not cheap.. They cost FAITH..

Amen to that, dear hosepipe!

p.s.: Did you watch the State of the Union Address tonight?

[Virginia-American]

No, I'm not really sure where you're coming from.

IMO, one of the best ways to make something abstract clear is to used examples.

So, what would you have scientists do differently? The more concrete, the better. Thanks

[TXnMA]

p.s.: Did you watch the State of the Union Address tonight?

~~~~~~~~

I watched (and recorded) it, BB. And I am watching/listening to the 'Rats' response. Kerry's

"I HAVE A [never revealed] PLAN!"

has now morphed to

"THERE IS A [never revealed] BETTER WAY!"

~~~~~~~~~~~

Pure, mindless, empty rhetoric...

The Dems have absolutely nothing (but opposition) to offer!

[Virginia-American]

[RE: the Bible being implicitly flat-Earthish]

The Israelites were not seafarers, unlike their cousins the Phoenicians.

Sailors **knew** the sphericity of the earth from watching ships disappear over the horizon, the hull going first, the top of the mast last.


I don't know what the Babylonians thought on the subject.

[TXnMA]

Thank you, dear Sisters in Christ, for your continued encouragement!

Gloria!, indeed!!

[TXnMA]

Almighty Creator God -- the incomparable, ultimate "Engineer"...

"What he's building now today is glorious.. SO glorious; that most people wouldn't even believe what it is until they saw it.."

Amen! What He is building (physically) now, today, is, indeed, glorious!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above is just one glimpse of his present works. Just try to imagine the intricate majesty of the mansions He has designed and built for those of us who believe in Him -- and the incomparable views He will provide from their patios!!

But, even those mighty works are unimpressive, compared to the glory of His love and redeeming grace!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But, as you said so well,

"Tickets are available to view, but they are not cheap.. They cost FAITH..".

[Alamo-Girl]

What a magnificent picture! Thank you for your testimony!

But, even those mighty works are unimpressive, compared to the glory of His love and redeeming grace!!!

So very true, dear TXnMA!

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Cr 2:9

[Oztrich Boy]

You meant metaphorically truthful.

I believe the phrase is "emotionally truthful" Belessed be the name of Orpah

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for your post--the picture was the best part!--and the ping. What an Awesome God we serve! He is unseeable, yet by seeing what He does, how He moves, His works, we enjoy inviting glimpses of His Glory.

Like brightest sun on cloudless day
we look not to the orb itself enthroned in waters we cannot fathom,
we would be blinded;
revealed in simple rays below itself we perceive minute measures only of its glory.

[Aquinasfan]

So, what would you have scientists do differently?

Learn realist philosophy, because naturalistic science presupposes a realist worldview like Aristotle's and Aquinas'. Errors in methodology and objectives can occur when scientists don't understand the principles upon which their endeavors are based.

For example, a doctor, in order to be consistent with the principles upon which his science is based, would have to categorize "the pill" as a poison rather than as a medication. Why? Because the object of medicine is the restoration of the body's proper operation. Since pregnancy represents a state of health, "the pill" represents a poison, since it interfere's with the body's proper operation.

Certainly, medications may be dispensed which carry with them serious side effects. But doctors dispense them with the goal of restoring the body to a greater overall state of health. Such is not the case with "the pill."

The implications for the dismemberment of and experimentation on human beings in early stages of development are more obvious, and of even greater importance.

Another example of a case where science would benefit from a proper understanding of philosophy is the field of "artificial intelligence," since the act of understanding in human beings is fundamentally spiritual. A machine cannot in principle understand anything.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Blessed be the name of the Lord - for He alone is worthy! In all the discussion of fine points about phraseology, let us not overlook the point of the whole thing: Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God Who came to take away sin. All who believe in Him as Savior will be saved, those who deny Him as Lord will reap the rewards of their choice and be tormented by their spiritual master, Satan, for all time.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:1 & 2

[hosepipe]

[ Another example of a case where science would benefit from a proper understanding of philosophy is the field of "artificial intelligence," since the act of understanding in human beings is fundamentally spiritual. A machine cannot in principle understand anything. ]

Beautiful... as a computer programmar since 1967 I can testify that that STATEMENT is true.. Some scientists appear to worship at the feet of an Automatic Machine God.. like a child plays with toys..

[steve-b]

Learn realist philosophy

Good advice. You ought to take it sometime.

Admittedly, your version is advancing. These days, you have to sign stuff to get more than two boxes of the poison (pseudoephedrine) that interferes with the natural production of nasal/sinus mucus. For some reason, the politicians don't want to explicitly declare their allegiance to realist philosophy (and instead come up with some excuses about "meth" production), but the perceptive student is not fooled.

[steve-b]

If after 10,000 years, the "squirrel" was to develop stubby wings, while still maintaining the ability to interbreed, would the "squirrel" still be a squirrel? It seems not, because were it possible for the same child to travel to the future, he would not apprehend the same species.

By the same token, my "house", "desk" and "computer" are also meaningless, as I certainly don't expect them to survive in any form, much less a recognizable one, ten thousand years from now.

[Aquinasfan]

These days, you have to sign stuff to get more than two boxes of the poison (pseudoephedrine) that interferes with the natural production of nasal/sinus mucus.

Does having a cold represent a state of health, or the proper operation of the body?