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.
God's motto is "I AM" not "I EVOLVE". You want that, go to Hinduism.
Very true in the sense the intelligent design advocates are trying to fit God into a humanistic framework. This will never work and is an insult to God, IMO. They are approaching the origin and expansion of life from their (flawed) human perspective and assuming God designed the universe according to their narrow, human viewpoint. At least science respects religion enough to never make any conclusion about the role of God, leaving that to one's faith.
You mean "remnant."
Cute word play. But irrelevant.
Your post demonstrates perfectly how this is an argument over religious dogma, not science. Some Christian denominations have chosen to again attack science as if it were a competing faith.
They are quickly failing, again, because science is not faith, it is reality.
But man cannot worship God "in spirit and in truth" without understanding His Word - the Bible. The Holy Spirit of God gives man understanding of what He wrote and one passage that relates to this whole topic is 1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."
Your name does not to be Timothy for this to apply to you :-)
This is coming from the same group that persecuted those that said the earth revolves around the sun.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
That isn't rational thought you are smelling. You stepped in something.
On a related note, the other day, I hurried out of the house to catch the bus. Once on the bus, I relaxed in my seat. The lady who sat in the seat in front of me had a distinct odor.
I thought, "WHat an unusual perfume. She put it on pretty strong. By the time my stop came, I was gagging.
Sitting at my desk, I still smell the lady's "perfume". In actuality, in my haste leaving the house, I had stepped in a "package" that a neighborhood dog left in my yard.
Excellent short definition of (real) Creationism.
Of course popular antievolutionary creationism is not pantheistic or naturalistic either. Instead it is deistic. It wants to point to a God who is "needed" to explain certain phenomena in the natural world, on the presumption that natural causes are inadequate because they lack or exclude God. But the corollary to a God who is occasionally present is a God who is occasionally ABSENT; which is deism. Likewise the assumption that natural causes exclude God, or can be sufficient (even of limited sufficiency) without God, is to exile God from portions of reality, which is again deistic as opposed to theistic.
True. They attacked science and lost. As creationists have done continually since Scopes.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
True. Which is another example how creationism is just a mere disagreement within the Christian faith. It really should not involve science, as science is not faith based. But unfortunately some segment of Christians have chosen to attack science. They are failing, just as the Catholics failed against Galileo.
That is an over-simplified summary of the historical record.
For those that think all Bible-based religions are the same, for most non-Catholics, the proclamations coming from the Catholic heirarchy have no bearing on our beliefs. It is good when they agree with us, but, when they do not, it matters little to us.
He may be a priest who also happens to be the chief Vatican astronomer, but he has no theological teaching position in the Catholic Church. He is only giving his personal opinion.
Indeed. ID, although less bad on the grounds of ludicrous biblical interpretation, is arguably WORSE than "creation science" in regard to the theology of creationism. It is even more insistently "God, er, 'Intelligent Designer,' of the gaps" oriented than old fashioned creationism, and therefore equally or more deistic as opposed to theistic.
And his personal opinion on the subject agrees with John Paul II.
True. There are also many varieties of deistic creationism as well. As much as I don't believe in evolution, I don't think it is literally-true that God created in six 24-hour days several millenia ago.
This message from the Vatican is sure to be upsetting to those whose religious faith is easily shaken by the mere existence of science and evolution. But those whose faith is solid will welcome this as an affirmation of their beliefs and of the value of science.
Who has been deceased for almost a year. I should really post an article from a few months back about the big argument going on in Vatican circles over intelligent design vs. evolution.
So you throw out chunks of the Bible, and throw out chunks of science too. OK.
That is what the creators of the "Wedge Document" would like to have you believe.
It's not a matter of "throwing out." It's a matter of interpretation. Evolution may be the best "scientific" explanation for life, but it has a hard time explaining how life began.
"Wedge document"?
So now church doctrine will now change?
I should really post an article from a few months back about the big argument going on in Vatican circles over intelligent design vs. evolution.
Since church doctrine can change so easily, were they wrong about God two years ago, or wrong today? Pick one.
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.