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.
"This is coming from the same group that persecuted those that said the earth revolves around the sun. "
What a strange comment. Do you see the incredible irony?
Your statement is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. When Pope John Paul II wrote/talked about evolution, he was not giving a definitive teaching. He was giving his opinion as well, which is not binding on the Church. It is only binding on the Church when he makes a "ex cathedra" statement, concerning an issue of faith or morals. Since the First Vatican Council declared that the Pope is infallible with these statements (1870), only one such statement has been made (on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 1950s) All Catholics have to belive the one God created ("I believe in God, the Father allmighty, creator of heaven and earth..." - Apostles Creed), but since the early days of the Church, the how of God created has been debated.
If so, it's still not a scientific theory, but they're not claiming it is.
Please don't start that again.
"They attacked science and lost."
Did you forget that the earth-centered theory was started by Greek scientists before Christ formed the church? Earth-centered teaching was adopted by the Catholic church because its capital, Rome, had adopted much of the Greek culture.
I won't argue creationism with anyone, because I know I will not convince you I am right, until you stop seeking to gain ground by combining multiple arguements.
"as science is not faith based."
It amazes me how you can reject Creationism as faith-based, yet refuse to see how evolution is faith-based. For it, you have to take the opinion of a scientist on faith. You have to accept on faith his/her opinion that a pig tooth is cro-magnon man, and accept on faith that an entire jaw is built on that one tooth, and accept on faith that the skull structure required for that jaw which is required for the tooth is a certain way, and accept on faith that the spinal structure to support such a skull required for that jaw which is required for the tooth is a certain way, and finally accept by faith that a certain body structure is required to support the spinal structure needed to support a skull needed to support a jawbone needed to use a tooth which turned out to be a pig's tooth.
Sorry, evolution is just a faith based on the little old lady who swallowed a fly.
You remove the hypothesis of evolution from the origin of the universe and science is not affected in the least.
"Evolution may be the best "scientific" explanation for life, but it has a hard time explaining how life began."
That's odd. The Theory of Evolution does not even try to explain how life began. That's another area of study. So Evolution doesn't have a hard time explaining how life began at all. It doesn't address the issue.
Despite what is commonly thought, it was not Charles Darwin who caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution. About one hundred years before Darwin the College de Sorbonne in Paris (a kind of French Holy Office or Inquisition) condemned the great French naturalist, Georges Buffon, for having proposed, from both the cooling rate and the sequence of geological strata, that it took billion of years to form the crust of the earth. Darwin’s great contribution to the growing scientific evidence for evolution was not so much evolution as such but rather the adaptation of living organisms to the environment, only one of the two great pillars of evolutionary theory: internal mutations in an organism and natural selection.[snip]
How did we humans come to be in this evolving universe? It is quite clear that we do not know everything about this process. But it would be scientifically absurd to deny that the human brain is a result of a process of chemical complexification in an evolving universe. After the universe became rich in certain basic chemicals, those chemicals got together in successive steps to make ever more complex molecules.
[snip]
The point is that from a strictly mathematical analysis of this, called the mathematics of nonlinear dynamics, one can say that as this process goes on and more complex molecules develop, there is more and more direction to this process. As the complexity increases, the future complexity becomes more and more predetermined. In such wise did the human brain come to be and it is still evolving.
[snip]
The universe as we know it today through science is one way to derive analogical knowledge of God. For those who believe modern science does say something to us about God, it provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God. 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. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution.
Thank you Pope Benedict et al. some common sense from religion for a change.
As you can see, you very nearly stated my position... Thanks!
Catholics aren't Christians placemarker.
In other words, the Vatican believes God is not omnipotent, and that God is weak (and not intelligent, apparently). I'm grateful I don't believe in such an aloof and frail God.
Oyvey. This Jesuit has lost his mind.
"In other words, the Vatican believes God is not omnipotent, and that God is weak (and not intelligent, apparently). I'm grateful I don't believe in such an aloof and frail God."
the exact opposite...you couldnt be more wrong. what the vatican does not buy is the wrote interpretation of the old testament as handed down by a bunch of sandle wearing bronze age goad herders.
If God decided to set the wheels of Universe moving and to bring man to where he is today by the way science currently explains it, who are you to deny him.
Hmmm, here's a thought in return....
Doomsday predictions regarding science education and evolution are kind of like the Cubs winning the series. It's always going to happen next year, and it never does.
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.